Originally posted by derekkite Isn't the deterioration as density increases a limitation of the technology and fabrication? The back lit sensors try to move the circuitry behind the wells as opposed to between, presumably to allow more wells and more light hitting the wells. Give it a few iterations to improve the fabrication consistency and a marginal improvement from slightly less noise and more signal will show up. There is also the exigency of fast readout for video which becomes the design parameter as opposed to low noise and high dr.
The 645z sensor seems to have hit the sweet spot of density and size. Big lenses letting in lots of light onto a big surface requiring less manipulation and bending.
It would be interesting to compare the lenses transmissibility of light in these discussions. I wonder if the characteristic of full frame vs apsc to transmit light densities to a sensor surface is different? Size really does matter.
Don't even suggest that designing sensors for video would harm still performance. The thought train around here is that all you need for good video is for the lazy software engineers to stop throw paper balls into the waste basket and write some software. It doesn't cost a cent. And a noise performance hit for sensors designed for better video... come on, that's simply a technical impossibility. It's been stated over and over again, it's actually cheaper and better to produce cameras with video than it would be to do it without.
Have you actually even been reading the forum?
Heresy like that can get you burned at the stake.
The first rule of discussing video... never suggest there is a cost to video, and that still photographers are paying for it. Subsidizing those who want it.
I understand, no one wants to be thought of as a leech, but isn't it better to say thanks for buying cameras with video guys, subsidizing my demands, instead of pretending the costs don't exist?
It's the old, the best defence is an good offensive, and I gotta say, video adherents are truly offensive.