100 MP FF Alpha

[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!