100 MP FF Alpha

[A1000]

I do not think that the MP race will go beyond 100 MP. That will be the magic number. Optics will be the limiting factor. 100 effective MP's will be achieved with 50 MP CMOS with checkerboard pattern. Does anyone really believe that we will not see actual 50 MP in FF when this year cell phones will have 12 MP's? When cell phones were 5 MP, APS-C DSLR's were 10 MP. Sony Ericsson people alrready discussed future 20 MP cell phones.

With ClearVid and EXMOR-R technology we will have 100 effective MP cameras with same sensitivity as curent FF D3x.

The sensor is not the only part in a camera. Most other parts cost nearly the same. There is a big difference between OEM price and how much a sensor costs to make, especially if you are already making the sensor for other cameras and all the R&D costs were already amortorized. $1000 FF will be here a lot sooner than anyone realizes. At that time Sony will not be disadvantaged with having less quality FF lens with stabilization, actually they are not disadvantaged even today, but the blind fanboys at DPR and elsewhere are just too dumb to relize that. When FF DSLR prices come down enough, watch the Sony advantage and steep market share rise. Add to it the convergence of video and still photography in new future style of photography and you'll see Sony's rapid rise to No. 2 spot.

Not stabilized lens is seriously outdated, last century technology. That is the Sony advantage.

What Sony needs to do is provide a selector switch, which will shut off the floor noise, to match other brands in noise performance. The swich could have more than two positions. That would make shut up DPR and various other amateur and C-N fanboy accusations.

[A1000]

Nonsense? Don't be so much of a last century person. Times are changing. Even the White House is clear of the s**t of last 8 years. The world moves on. When everyone will be using call phone camears with advanced technology, with 20 MP, and the pros will be shooting with 100 effective MP FF cameras, will you still be calling for 6 MP's?

[A1000]

Most of my pictures lately were taken with a cell phone, still I took a lot of digital camera pictures and SLR pictures last year. I bet my cell phone pictures are better than your fish and wife art. I bet you I've taken more celebrity pictures than you did, just because I have hung in different places than Chicago, the home of most 300 pound BBW models.

[douglasf13]

Not to detract from your contest, gentleman, but let me throw in a little of my insight on the subject. I think 100MP will probably be too far past the lens limits to be worth it, but we'll see? More MPs are coming, and surely we'll see 30-40MP FF cameras in the nearer future. The problem with the noise vs. pixel size arguments is that you can't compare to drastically different camera resolutions at 100% view to make a judgment. One must pick a desired print or viewing size, and output both cameras to said print/viewing size to compare. That's why DxO has the "print" comparison tab.

Now, the problem with Sony bringing, say, a 14MP FF camera is that, if they use EXMOR, it isn't really going to be any better than the A900 at like viewing size. The sensor design just doesn't cater to it. The D3/D700 have a sensor that is designed for very, very good read noise performance at mid to high ISO, but, unbelievably, the EXMOR has the lowest read noise at lower ISO (according to the likes of Roger Clarke and Emil Martinic.) Nikon is taking a two pronged approach, where their low ISO camera (D3x) is optimized as such, and their higher ISO cameras (D3/D700) are optimized as well. Should the data throughput of these cameras improve to the point where they can move 14bit 20MP at 9-10fps, I would expect to see a D3 replacement at such a MP count, if they use their off sensor ADC'd, non-Sony designed sensor like in the D3. Sensor design and size are much more of an issue with noise, rather than actual pixel size.

On a side note, I asked raw program developer Iliah Borg (who owns the D3, D3x, A900, and actively uses all three) a few questions, and here are some interesting points I've gathered from him so far.

-Between the D3 and D3x, he uses the D3x up to ISO 800, and the D3 for ISO 1600+ generally
-He does not support the drastic difference in DR that DxO mark claims between the A900 and D3x...actually, it seems he doesn't show a lot of support for their tests in general.
-The D3x (14 bit mode) is better than the A900 in contrasty landscape shots and with shadow noise, but the A900 is better than the D3x in flatter landscape shots and has better green separation. Also, apparently he prefers the A900 for dark-skinned or dark haired portraits.
-When I asked him about the difference between the A900 and the D3x in 12-bit mode he said, "very slight edge to D3X."

[douglasf13]

My point is that higher MPs don't make more noise, so, if lenses are designed to handle it, the more the merrier. My lenses handle the a900 no problem. High ISO noise is related to sensor design and size, assuming your comparing at like viewing size.

My point about fps was, if Nikon (or anyone) was able to make 20MP do 10fps, the D3 would be 20MP. Less mp does not equal less noise at like viewing size.

[Greg Beetham]

A 20MP cellphone? and how long would it take too process a single photo? You would need serious processing power and battery consumption to process a photo that large in a reasonable amount of time, not too mention frame buffers, bus throughput (lots of extra time) and memory space to store it/them in, all of which the current DSLR's do of course, but check the size of the battery against the one in a cell phone.
And what is the use of 20MP in a cellphone? so owners of 20MP cells can compare snow-storms?
Greg

[picman]

My point is that higher MPs don't make more noise, ...

Now I am lost. Some time ago I thought I finally understood. More MP, means smaller photosites, means less light being captured by them, means more software boosting required, means more noise. Can someone tell me if this is correct or not? If it is correct then obviously more MP means more noise. I realize that this is not the only factor but clearly, if one of the noise-inducing factors increases and you want the final output to have less noise then obviously some magic is going to have to happen in the other noise-inducing factors. No?

[A1000]

The myth is that 24 MP means 4x more noise as 6 MP. If you output 6 MP from the camera by combinig 4 pixels into one or by printing 6 MP, not 24, the result is the same as if you had shot with 6 MP camera. As now technologies allow tighter spaces between pixels, plus other advances, more MP actually means less noise.

[A1000]

You remind me of the Spanish lover from American Sweethearts. Check the end of that movie!