All things equal, it will have 50% less noise than 14,6mp sensor and will be the market leader in resolution for a 35mm DSLR. In fact, it should be truly amazing.
If it has 28mp, it has probably has even better noise performance.
Besides, this obviously isn't a camera for high speed shooting at low light level, thats something for the likes of the D3/D700. Usable 6400ISO makes it good enough for most of us anyway. And remember; with such a high resolution file, you can do heavy noise reduction and still be left with lots of details...
The FF cameras are now in the reach of the amateurs. When a Camera like the D3, that cost a fortune and don't give better image quality than a sub $1000 DSLR at normal ISO values, can sell 12 000 units a month, affordable, high-resolution (20+mp) will be the next big thing among ther advanced amateurs and professionals alike.

If the pixel dimension is equal both the noise and DR are equal (for the same design). The reason FF has lower noise and DR is preciselly the bigger pixel size (or LOWER pixel density) on the sensor. The progress in noise and DR will come both by incresing the pixel size and refining the production methods

Radu

---

Last edited by RaduA; 07-11-2008 at 05:03 AM. Reason: added LOWER + final phrase

[Pål Jensen]

I will take your bet any time. No way Pentax will have a full frame ready in less than a year.

You told us there was no way Pentax would not use the 12mp Sony sensor in the K20D.

Anyway, with the FF rumors floating around from a variety of credible sources including magazine articles, in addition to the statements from Hoya (two additional DSLR's this year), I find it very unlikely that Pentax will not release an FF camera this year.

[Gooshin]

If the pixel dimension is equal both the noise and DR are equal (for the same design). The reason FF has lower noise and DR is preciselly the bigger pixel size (or LOWER pixel density) on the sensor. The progress in noise and DR will come both by incresing the pixel size and refining the production methods

Radu

pixel density is not the only single determinant of noise.

read that Kodak article i posed in the 50MP thread and what Kodak's concerns were while making it.

[Pål Jensen]

If the pixel dimension is equal both the noise and DR are equal (for the same design).
Radu

No. As I said for all thing equal FF willl have 50% less noise. This is because FF needs 50% less magnification, whcih also means less magnification of noise.
Thats why you get finer grained images on medium format than 35mm film even if using the exact same film.

[kenyee]

The reason FF has lower noise and DR is preciselly the bigger pixel size (or LOWER pixel density) on the sensor

Or to put it in perspective, the D3's pixel site size is similar the the size of a 6Mpix APS-C sensor.

Samsung has another thing they could do though: since their pixel density is twice what most of the other competitors are doing now except for Sony, they could just downsample the image by half. They can call it a "less noise" mode :-) Or they could make the hardware do this by connecting adjacent photocells together when reading photon counts.

[zntgrg]

Not so fast I am affraid, my friend!

The 14,6 Mp sensor as the first Samsung attempt was quite a succes I think. But if you want to extrapolate this one to a larger size and this is it I think they'll be much behind the competition. In short such a sensor would have:

- something like 34 Mp;
- same noise characteristics (good up to ISO 1600, so-so at 3200);
- same DR.

And also it will put a high pressure on most of current lenses.
Samsung must use the experience of this first sensor and improve at least in noise and DR.

Radu

Sony's FF is going 24mp, and noise reduction can be cranked up with such high resolutions without too much worries.
Regarding finder&mirror&shutter...come on, they can fit on an MX..and there's always the MZ-D body left alone in the dust

[jeffkrol]

If the pixel dimension is equal both the noise and DR are equal (for the same design). The reason FF has lower noise and DR is preciselly the bigger pixel size (or LOWER pixel density) on the sensor. The progress in noise and DR will come both by incresing the pixel size and refining the production methods

Radu

Better read this:
More pixels the better--two controversial claims contradict: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Re: Dumbest thing I've ever read here: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I am not in the bigger pixel, less noise camp.... not that it matters.
Interesting statement:
There is no loss of sensitive area in current pixel-packed P&S sensors. This is a point that MP-basher fail to recognize. The point of diminishing returns is *well* beyond where we are today in pixel density. The Panasonic FZ50 collects about 80,000 photons at ISO 100 RAW saturation in an area the size of a Canon 5D or 1D2 pixel, which also captures about 80,000. The FZ50 reaches that saturation with about 1.2 stops less exposure, so is actually 1.2 stops more sensitive! I kid you not.
re: thought experiment: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Re: no no no no no no.....: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Best to read a whole bunch of this thread.

[falconeye]

Best to read a whole bunch of this thread.

Jeff, interesting read ... but!

The claim that the photon collecting efficiency per area is the same for 2 um P&S sensor cells and 8 um DSLR cells is too important to be made w/o a source.

I understand that this may be the case. Or that it may not.

All those threads give no source. They are circle referencing themselves. Can you provide a scientific source to back up this claim?

[Gooshin]

as someone that has spent many years on technical inclined forums (suspension engineering for VW's, engine management forums, and so forth)

and now photography forums, it seems there is NEVER an authoriarian, engineering voice among the user group.

one would thing that atleast 1 pentax engineer who enjoys shooting pentax would be smart/clever enough to steal a few blueprint or at least hint at some sort of truths or myths of photo sensor development.

hell it doesn't even have to be a pentax engineer, just someone that works with developing photosensitive technologies!

but no, no one here is one! such a shame

pixel density is not the only single determinant of noise.

read that Kodak article i posed in the 50MP thread and what Kodak's concerns were while making it.

I never said that pixel size is the only thing that matters for noise.

Radu

No. As I said for all thing equal FF willl have 50% less noise. This is because FF needs 50% less magnification, whcih also means less magnification of noise.
Thats why you get finer grained images on medium format than 35mm film even if using the exact same film.

Pål,

I am sorry but whilst I can't contradict your assertion I cannot say we're talking on the same page. A 34 Mp FF camera with the DR and noise characteristics similar to a K20D is usable only (in studio) at low ISO and with very expensive lenses. If one wants to print a A3 for example your reasoning is ok because the image will be reduced and the noise less visible. But such an expensive camera IMO must do more than just that (K20D) can do the same thing almost @ 300dpi). We need less noise per pixel in order to reduce NR @ al ISO and preserve the details the best (Pentax philosophy).
If you want to compare DR for some DSLRs you can look here: Dynamic Range - Just for info [Page 1]: Sigma SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review and tell be afterwards what do you think is best. Look especially at D3 in RAW.

Radu

[bdery]

Better read this:
More pixels the better--two controversial claims contradict: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Re: Dumbest thing I've ever read here: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I am not in the bigger pixel, less noise camp.... not that it matters.
Interesting statement:
There is no loss of sensitive area in current pixel-packed P&S sensors. This is a point that MP-basher fail to recognize. The point of diminishing returns is *well* beyond where we are today in pixel density. The Panasonic FZ50 collects about 80,000 photons at ISO 100 RAW saturation in an area the size of a Canon 5D or 1D2 pixel, which also captures about 80,000. The FZ50 reaches that saturation with about 1.2 stops less exposure, so is actually 1.2 stops more sensitive! I kid you not.
re: thought experiment: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Re: no no no no no no.....: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
Best to read a whole bunch of this thread.

You do not see the problem in the right way. There are many issues with smaller pixels : smaller quantum wells means that the pixels saturate more quickly, have lower signal-to-noise ratios (thus more noise, all thins being equal).

Plus, as pixels get smaller, they approach a size near that of the wavelengths they measure (red is around 0,65 microns, while many current sensors have pixels less than 2 icrons in size). And when your sensor is near the size of your "target" you get problems. It's the same as trying to measure a car's length with another car as your ONLY ruler and reference. You see why that could leads to problem? In this analogy, you could say nothing more than "this car looks to be about the same size as that other car". Not very precise. Same thing with too small pixels.

Your calculations about photons collected are incomplete, and do not make sense to me. Perhaps youcould explain more, but you will never convince me (or any other physicists) that smaller pixels are a good thing for data collection.

[bdery]

and now photography forums, it seems there is NEVER an authoriarian, engineering voice among the user group.

one would thing that atleast 1 pentax engineer who enjoys shooting pentax would be smart/clever enough to steal a few blueprint or at least hint at some sort of truths or myths of photo sensor development.

hell it doesn't even have to be a pentax engineer, just someone that works with developing photosensitive technologies!

but no, no one here is one! such a shame

I don't feel particulary authoritative, but I'm completing a PhD in photonics and optics (a branch of physics). I do know a few things.

Feel free to ask...

I don't feel particulary authoritative, but I'm completing a PhD in photonics and optics (a branch of physics). I do know a few things.

Feel free to ask...

Hi, Bdery!

I am interested in your take about using old regular lenses on a over 25 Mo FF sensor. Regardless of their heavy CA and lack of "digital coatings" how do you think this lenses will stand in terms of resolution (center, border, extreme border), distorsion and vignetting - last 2 very model dependant for sure?

Thank you,
Radu

[ariahspam]

one would thing that atleast 1 pentax engineer who enjoys shooting pentax would be smart/clever enough to steal a few blueprint or at least hint at some sort of truths or myths of photo sensor development.

Hint.. ok. Steal? NOT smart nor clever IMO.