Warren D
Well-known member
An interesting comment by Thom Hogan in his article about the quality of Z lenses S line going forward: "I can’t say for sure about that, because as far as you know I don’t have a 100mp camera."
Is There A 100 Mb Sensor on the Horizon?
- Thread starter Warren D
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
It may happen - Matt Irwin did a video showing the Z flange is wide enough for a medium format sensor ... and the Hassy X2D looks invitingly at me :-;
hey @Andy Miller Photo UK ! what do you think?
hey @Andy Miller Photo UK ! what do you think?
JamesFarrell
Former Member
Delete.
Last edited:
Maurie
Active member
Maybe. But imagine how much you could crop it. No need for tele lenses?
Maybe. But imagine how much you could crop it. No need for tele lenses?
It would be cool to have a free lunch. Unfortunately the sensor size or the size of the crop area is still the main thing, not as much the number of pixels, since a bigger sensor means a bigger lens which allows for more total light. Long winded way to say cropping is still going to magnify noise.
I thought those Macs were supposed to be good. I have a $1k PC at work that devours HE* files by the hundreds every day. Might want to get it looked at.
Hi Patrick
With so much of life the rule never say never applies here -- 100+++MP 14-bit BSI is already possible on an FX sized sensor -- what the performance spec and quality of output would be who knows. BUT obviously not as high quality as a 16-bit large (P1 IQ4 or H6D100C) and small (X2D or GFX100) Medium Format Sensor.
So there is "no" reason to increase the throat size. That said the X2D has a larger throat than the Z-mount and the X2D has a slightly deeper flange depth. See 1st table.
The single largest "issue" for small sensor ultra high density sensors is diffraction or more specifically "diffraction limits". (ie when the impact of diffraction becomes apparent) -- see 2nd table.
Diffraction is not helped when small diameter glass is used.
I consider any attempt to squeeze 100mp into an FX sensor is daft.
Not as daft as seeking to do the same for a smart phone but daft anyway.
From a quality perspective the goal for Fx sensors should be to achieve similar quality as a 16-bit SMF or mf sensor RATHER than just ramming in more and more resolution. 16-bit would be far more attractive for me.
My "belief" is that a 50-63MP FX sensor is the next step for Nikon. I believe that Sony has been cleaver in how they kept the resolution of the A7R V the same as the IV, while making other improvements that improved performance and quality.
BUT, the V still does not match the data and processing speed of the Z9 -- so I am interested to see how fast a Z9 with a 62.8MP sensor would perform -- or how a Z8 or Z7iii with a similar resolution sensor but slightly slower pipes (albeit with a Expeed 7 processor) would do as an alternative -- the CF Express Type B --vs- far slower Type A cards used in the slower, must throttle performance -- FPS and the No of 14-bit Lossless RAW shots that can be delivered in a sustained burst.
My preference is for Nikon to continue to invest its R&D budget on improving performance rather than driving for higher and higher resolution. For example, there "clearly" are differences in how Nikon chose to implement its AF solution for the the Z9 -- including the size and number of selectable focussing points that is different to how Sony and Cannon choose to implement in their top of their range products -- one impact is that these Sony and Canon cameras seem to be "better" at locking on to very small subjects or subjects are further away than the Z9 appears to. I doubt the Z9's processor and sensor are less capable than other cameras, but some of the choices Nikon's engineers made make it very slightly less effective in some use cases. [BTW --not that anyone should seek to take shots of subjects are extreme distance when the subject is sooooo tiny in the frame -- YES I mean BIF]. AND there is not doubt that Nikon will be adding to and refining the subjects in the Z9's database to improve it's performance across wider and wider range of subjects (subject to the size of memory available).
Sensor comparison -- see 7th line down
Last edited:
Thank you!
As an aside, Samsung announced a 200 MP camera in their top of the line phone. IQ remains to be seen
More excited about Canon-announced 24 stop DR sensor.
I suspect we will see one in 10 or so years. None of the camera manufactures are in a hurry to get there. They have many MP between 45-50 to sell well before they jump to 100.
Look at Sony with 61MP, new body came out and no increase in MP. It takes a lot of computing power to shoot that many or more MP at the speed people want 35mm sensors to work.
I am intrigued by the medium format but nothing about any of the cameras is fast.
Look at Sony with 61MP, new body came out and no increase in MP. It takes a lot of computing power to shoot that many or more MP at the speed people want 35mm sensors to work.
I am intrigued by the medium format but nothing about any of the cameras is fast.
I don’t want more pixels if the trade off is inferior image quality. Less light gathering, more pixels to produce noise in low light. Correct me if I’m wrong.
As per Thom in his Z9 guide he delves into the sensor architecture, and basically concludes that sensors are already at its limit with dynamic range.
I’m thinking, what would be expected in 10 years from now?
Maybe a new kind of sensor altogether?
One thing is certain, no one is planing to increase the 35mm sensor size, because if we do, we would need to buy new lenses for all focal lengths…
Personally I would want a bigger sensor, one that is square and doesn’t require to rotate the camera for portraits and staying at 35mm format in either direction. Or maybe allow to use the portrait pixels in landscape mode which will produce a bigger picture with a shorter focal length, just like DX but in the opposite…
Better AF? Sure!
I want facial recognition. Should allow us to pre set the AF to follow and track a particular face or group of faces in priority from other faces.
Speaking recognition,
Like saying Hay Siri, I want to say Hay Z9, Change AF to single point, or even shorter custom phrases to Act like FN buttons. Then add a small wireless microphone near the mouth to capture the audio commands in a noisy environment.
Add special shoe sock sensors, when I tap, it should act like a programmable FN button.
All those are already old technology… it’s missing from the cameras….
As per Thom in his Z9 guide he delves into the sensor architecture, and basically concludes that sensors are already at its limit with dynamic range.
I’m thinking, what would be expected in 10 years from now?
Maybe a new kind of sensor altogether?
One thing is certain, no one is planing to increase the 35mm sensor size, because if we do, we would need to buy new lenses for all focal lengths…
Personally I would want a bigger sensor, one that is square and doesn’t require to rotate the camera for portraits and staying at 35mm format in either direction. Or maybe allow to use the portrait pixels in landscape mode which will produce a bigger picture with a shorter focal length, just like DX but in the opposite…
Better AF? Sure!
I want facial recognition. Should allow us to pre set the AF to follow and track a particular face or group of faces in priority from other faces.
Speaking recognition,
Like saying Hay Siri, I want to say Hay Z9, Change AF to single point, or even shorter custom phrases to Act like FN buttons. Then add a small wireless microphone near the mouth to capture the audio commands in a noisy environment.
Add special shoe sock sensors, when I tap, it should act like a programmable FN button.
All those are already old technology… it’s missing from the cameras….
abc123brian
Well-known member
I’d agree with you, something doesn’t seem right. My M1 MacBook Air displays the images instantly without any rendering delay so anything more powerful should perform better.
abc123brian
Well-known member
I look at the medium format Fujis every month or two but have resisted buying one so far. That GFX100 is really tempting, especially when was on sale.
Do not think I need a 100MP camera though if I had one ... Wonder if Nikon will ever make a pixel shift sensor?
Do we gave the lenses to support 100 MP?
The move from something like a D600 to a D810 shows a greater sensitivity to movement/ vibration and exposes flaws in shooting technique. What do you reckon is going to happen at 100 MP.
The move from something like a D600 to a D810 shows a greater sensitivity to movement/ vibration and exposes flaws in shooting technique. What do you reckon is going to happen at 100 MP.
You would see a difference when pixel peeping because at the same viewing distance the higher megapixel one will be larger for the same subject area. When viewed with the subject size equalized the difference would disappear, except if you downsampled the higher megapixel one to equal the lower megapixel one you would have more detail in the one shot at higher mp assuming the lens could resolve the detail.
Indeed. There is a lot of cell phone developed technology that could be implemented into hi-end cameras. I am really jealous when I see fans waving their cameras at low-light musical events and getting great images and video right out of the box. Of course, mine will be better because blah blah blah, but it will take me hours of work.
Roy
Well-known member
One of my Hasselblad Backs is 100mp.
I dont think I want a 35mm FF 100mp sensor - the compromises would be too great...
What’s the sensor size on the 100mp Hasselblad? And how does a 50mm ff focal length compare to it?
Roy
Well-known member
The Hasselblad H sensor is 53.7x40.2mm.
The Fuji GFX100 and Hasselblad X1D and X2D are only 43.8x32.9mm.
A 50mm lens on the Hasselblad has a field of view similar to about a 35mm lens on full frame.
I say field of view because depth of field etc is not changed by sensor size - a 50mm is always a 50mm..
The Fuji GFX100 and Hasselblad X1D and X2D are only 43.8x32.9mm.
A 50mm lens on the Hasselblad has a field of view similar to about a 35mm lens on full frame.
I say field of view because depth of field etc is not changed by sensor size - a 50mm is always a 50mm..
The Sony sensor in the Hassy X2D is 43.8x32.9, which is a 0.79 crop factor when compared to FF (which is roughly 36x24, like 35mm film).
Roy
Well-known member
43.8x32.9mm - Thats only the baby Hassy X1D and X2D - the H hassy cameras have much bigger sensors...