Preston, a really good point(s) made in the article and accompanying video. The video was excellent in the examples provided. As always, there is no free lunch. If it is not DOF, diffraction, resolution, or chromatic aberration it's something else. But at least being conscious of the issues one can try best to minimize the degradation by trying to adjust accordingly......thanks for posting the link.
What you say is certainly true regarding minimizing optical effects for optimum resolution, tonality and color. However, since diffraction occurs at failry wide f-stops with these sensors, even with highly corrected lenses, their value would be limited for those who require large DOF without stacking a number of frames.
I do think it's an interesting engineering feat, and perhaps in the future the shortcomings will be eliminated.
ps: I won't be buying one.
--P
Posted by Harley Goldman on September 14, 2015 at 5:44 PM
Articles used to say that 36 and 50mp sensors in 35mm size were not doable, too much noise, etc. Who knows how many pixels they will be able to cram in and make them work. The lenses will have to keep pace, which will be a challenge.
The lenses will have to keep pace, which will be a challenge.
Very true. It would take some serious optical engineering to do that. Good glass is already horrendously expensive, and any lens(s) that could help mitigate the sensor diffraction issue in these new chips would likely have astronomical prices.
The diffraction at the sensor level would be very difficult, if not impossible to totally overcome: One can make things only so small and/or close together in a given physical space: One cannot argue with physics.
Discussion
5 repliesAnother leap in the pixel wars, or storage wars depending upon your POV........
http://petapixel.com/2015/09/11/canons-120mp-dslr-raw-files-are-210mb-each/
I'm pretty happy with 4x5 and my measely 24mp Nikon. They do what I need them to do.
I think there's a tipping point where pixel density on a given sensor will have diminishing returns in regard to diffraction at higher f-numbers.
After reading the article you linked to, Paul, I found another at Peta Pixel that discusses the diffraction issue. You can find it here: http://petapixel.com/2015/09/11/thoughts-on-canons-120mp-dslr-a-pixel-too-far/
--P
Preston, a really good point(s) made in the article and accompanying video. The video was excellent in the examples provided. As always, there is no free lunch. If it is not DOF, diffraction, resolution, or chromatic aberration it's something else. But at least being conscious of the issues one can try best to minimize the degradation by trying to adjust accordingly......thanks for posting the link.
What you say is certainly true regarding minimizing optical effects for optimum resolution, tonality and color. However, since diffraction occurs at failry wide f-stops with these sensors, even with highly corrected lenses, their value would be limited for those who require large DOF without stacking a number of frames.
I do think it's an interesting engineering feat, and perhaps in the future the shortcomings will be eliminated.
ps: I won't be buying one.
--P
Articles used to say that 36 and 50mp sensors in 35mm size were not doable, too much noise, etc. Who knows how many pixels they will be able to cram in and make them work. The lenses will have to keep pace, which will be a challenge.
Very true. It would take some serious optical engineering to do that. Good glass is already horrendously expensive, and any lens(s) that could help mitigate the sensor diffraction issue in these new chips would likely have astronomical prices.
The diffraction at the sensor level would be very difficult, if not impossible to totally overcome: One can make things only so small and/or close together in a given physical space: One cannot argue with physics.
But, who knows? Someone may figure it out.
--P