[Pål Jensen]

As little as full frame shooters care about mirrorless and EVF technologies, medium format shooters care that much less. And why should they? They have a beautiful, enormous, bright, lag-free, easy-to-focus OVF with full DR that doesn't drain the battery. You're talking about selling ice boxes to Eskimos, such a camera would be a colossal flop.

BRAVO!

[Winder]

For the MF crowd things like 300mm lenses, lighting fast AF, and shutter lag are not critical. MF lends itself very well to EVIL technology. I will shoot an entire event with my Contax 645 with 1 or 2 lenses.

Then there is also the issue of shutter slap with a big MF. My Contax 645 is like playing cymbals compared to my K-7 when in a church or while someone is giving a speech.

Battery life expectation is not the same for MF as it is for K-5 shooters. I'm not out burning up 500+ shots at an event with my Contax 645. Modern batteries have come a long way and I think MF users are a little more conservative in the number of shots they take. Not a lot of "spray and pray" in the MF world.

A tilt-up screen to allow me to use a EVIL MF like a waist level finder would be a welcome addition. People seem to forget that OVF was an accessory item for all of us MF people. I have shot lots of rolls of film with a waist level finder. Use the camera strap to support the camera and pin your elbows at your waist and you have a very stable position to work with. Great for street work. EVF could be sold as an accessory just like it was in the past.

[eddie1960]

For the MF crowd things like 300mm lenses, lighting fast AF, and shutter lag are not critical. MF lends itself very well to EVIL technology. I will shoot an entire event with my Contax 645 with 1 or 2 lenses.

Then there is also the issue of shutter slap with a big MF. My Contax 645 is like playing cymbals compared to my K-7 when in a church or while someone is giving a speech.

Battery life expectation is not the same for MF as it is for K-5 shooters. I'm not out burning up 500+ shots at an event with my Contax 645. Modern batteries have come a long way and I think MF users are a little more conservative in the number of shots they take. Not a lot of "spray and pray" in the MF world.

A tilt-up screen to allow me to use a EVIL MF like a waist level finder would be a welcome addition. People seem to forget that OVF was an accessory item for all of us MF people. I have shot lots of rolls of film with a waist level finder. Use the camera strap to support the camera and pin your elbows at your waist and you have a very stable position to work with. Great for street work. EVF could be sold as an accessory just like it was in the past.

For that matter a prism that just mounts over the tilt up screen (like the one you replace your WL finder with.) Lots of Possible MF designs that could replace what's missing from the old MF options

[Aristophanes]

APS-H is different enough to set themselves apart, but still very much in the traditional DSLR format. That is why it would work.

APS-H is 95% the price/cost of FF with 25% less relative IQ.

That's why it won't work.

[Winder]

APS-H is 95% the price/cost of FF with 25% less relative IQ.

That's why it won't work.

APS-H is @ 1/6th the cost of FF.
APS-C is @ 1/10th the cost of FF.

Canon invented the APS-H format specifically because of the cost saving over the FF sensor. It was not just a random size they decided to make.

[Class A]

No, I read the article as being quite supportive to my notion in the post you refer too.

Did you notice the title?
It says "More pixels offset noise!". Why would anyone title their article this way if they wanted to send the message that more pixels increase noise? A more elaborate version of that title would read "More pixels do not cause more image noise as the higher number of pixels offset the higher per-pixel noise".

I'll quote a few key sentences from that article, though one should also be careful and mistrustful about the equations DXO give, because they obviously need to justify the processing they apply, as they don't make a living out of education, but out of the products they sell:

You should never simply believe anything, but always question what you read, agreed. Having said that, DxOMark's articles are based in solid Physics and I have yet to see one example where they were stretching the truth in order to sell their product. If anything, they should not educate people that more pixels do not equate to more noise, if they wanted to sell their denoising software.

For a given exposure time, each smaller pixel receives four times less light than a large pixel—the equivalent of reducing exposure time by a factor of four.

That's correct but you are looking at a single pixel now. When comparing sensors with different pixel pitch (i.e., different number of pixels per unit area), it does not make sense to look at single pixels as you would be applying different magnification levels for examining each sensor.

You need to look at the full image, or at least at an area of the full image and allow both sensors to fill that area with as many pixels as they have available for that area. Then, and only then, you are comparing noise and other image properties at a fair basis. You are then applying the same magnification for your examination in both cases.

As the article explains, the four small pixels can be combined with binning to make one big pixel and that combined big pixel will have the same amount of noise as a real, physcial big pixel.

This is the real, key sentence in the article:

However, the four high-resolution neighboring pixels can be averaged out to form a low-resolution pixel.

Also, it is hardly a measure to reduce noise by pixel binning.

Note that the effect of pixel binning is naturally achieved when printing an image. If you print the image from the high pixel count sensor to the same size as an image from the low pixel count sensor, inevitably many pixels of the high pixel count sensor will contribute to a space on paper that is influenced by only one pixel of the low count sensor. The same applies for scaling an image down for viewing on the screen.

Scaling down an image, whether for screen viewing or printing, implies noise reduction. You need to scale down high pixel count images more than low pixel count images. Hence the noise reduction necessary to counter the inevitable higher per-pixel-noise of high pixel count images is always taken care of in fair comparisons. And remember, looking at a single pixel is not a fair comparison as different magnification levels are used in this case.

DxO introduce a kind of reference ISO and resolution (which is base for their own processing, I would guess).

The reason why they introduce the 8MP standard resolution is to allow fair comparisons between sensors with different pixel counts. The scaling required to normalise to an 8MP standard resolution takes care of the per-pixel-noise issue that high pixel count sensors otherwise would have.

Relevant to our thread here would be to compare a FF camera to an APS-C modell of the same pixel count.

Once you accept that pixel count does not matter with respect to noise, you can rephrase this comparison to "compare an FF sensor to an APS-C sensor". The larger FF sensor only has an advantage, if you maintain the same light intensity per unit area. In this case, it will collect more total light which equates to a better signal to noise ratio.

If you are taking two shots, one with APS-C and one with FF, and use an equivalent f-ratio for your FF shot, but otherwise use the same shutter speed and the same ISO setting as for the APS-C shot, you will not get the same light intensity per unit area. The larger sensor only gives you the potential for a better signal to noise ratio and you'll have to invest by using a wider than equivalent f-ratio or slower shutter speed, or higher ISO setting. You can afford the latter with a good sensor easily as scaling down the FF image down to APS-C size, will take care of the additionally introduced noise.

P.S.: Pixel pitch is irrelevant for image noise in principle only. In practice there are limits to how small you can make the pixels without affecting the fill factor too much. But for our discussion and current pixel pitch values we can safely assume that smaller pixels do not have a disadvantage compared to bigger pixels as long as the overall sensor area is the same.

[gazonk]

As little as full frame shooters care about mirrorless and EVF technologies, medium format shooters care that much less. And why should they? They have a beautiful, enormous, bright, lag-free, easy-to-focus OVF with full DR that doesn't drain the battery. You're talking about selling ice boxes to Eskimos, such a camera would be a colossal flop.

+1! However, I think they can make a significantly smaller 645D while keeping a no-compromises OVF - even if they put a larger sensor in it: As was shown in a drawing here, there's a lot of room behind the sensor. My guess is that the next 645 model will be even more useful as a "outdoors medium format" camera than the current model. And it will probably have a CMOS sensor and support live view, for instance through a top-mounted auxiliary LCD screen for those situations where you need that.

[Raffwal]

APS-H is @ 1/6th the cost of FF.
APS-C is @ 1/10th the cost of FF.

Canon invented the APS-H format specifically because of the cost saving over the FF sensor. It was not just a random size they decided to make.

Where do numbers like this come from? Any links or references?

[Pentaxor]

Selling it half the price just by crippling it by going EVF? It won't happen.
Looking at a miniature TV instead of the reality is bad, IMHO

going EVF is going to cripple the camera? please elaborate.

[Pentaxor]

As little as full frame shooters care about mirrorless and EVF technologies, medium format shooters care that much less. And why should they? They have a beautiful, enormous, bright, lag-free, easy-to-focus OVF with full DR that doesn't drain the battery. You're talking about selling ice boxes to Eskimos, such a camera would be a colossal flop.

so how many ice boxes were actually sold to the Eskimos? now before we talk about colossal flop, let's talk about numbers, shall we?

Wasn't it prophesized before that EVF would be a flop and it would never replace OVF? from what is happening right now, the EVF of the mirrorless systems are getting really better and even great from my experience. it is no longer the old despicable matrix oriented EVF we once knew they were. with regards to battery drain, isn't that a part of how technology evolved? I mean from using film cameras to digital, battery life and type is also a part of that change. you have to ask yourself how portable computers nowadays are able to run as efficient as the bigger computers 4 years ago despite having a small processing unit, it has a strong processing power with less heat generation and yet energy efficient at the same time for less cost. so are cameras any different?

nowadays, it's not about beauty but rather sales and economics. expanding the market in other words. and I believe the camera manufacturers see where this could be heading. if a classic manufacturer like Leica is willing to do some changes with regards to it's previous motto, what more to other systems? it's not even rocket science to be able to analyze that the competition is getting fierce and that monopoly is no longer the name of the game. if such business wants to strive and survive, adaptation is necessary.

[Kunzite]

going EVF is going to cripple the camera? please elaborate.

Of course, since it means removing an excellent optical viewfinder.

[Pentaxor]

Of course, since it means removing an excellent optical viewfinder.

argumentum ad baculum.

btw, you are not talking to a 5 year old. so please make some real sense next time.

[Winder]

Where do numbers like this come from? Any links or references?

One link was posed earlier in this thread. I will look for a couple of links to the information. I have seen it on at least 2 different sites which show similar numbers.

Ron posted the link in this thread, so he may be able to re-post it or you can scroll back 20-30 pages and find it. I need to bookmark pages when they come up.

Full-frame digital SLR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Production costs for a full-frame sensor can exceed twenty times the costs for an APS-C sensor. Only 20 full-frame sensors will fit on an 8-inch (200 mm) silicon wafer, and yield is comparatively low because the sensor's large area makes it very vulnerable to contaminants—20 evenly distributed defects could theoretically ruin an entire wafer. Additionally, the full-frame sensor requires three separate exposures during the photolithography stage, tripling the number of masks and exposure processes.

Is Now The Time For Full-Frame D-SLRs? - Outdoor Photographer | OutdoorPhotographer.com
Full-frame D-SLRs do have a few drawbacks. For one thing, they cost a lot more. Full-frame sensors are much more difficult to produce than smaller sensors, and they use a lot more material (an eight-inch silicon wafer might yield 200 APS-C sensors, but only 20 full-frame ones).

There are multiple sites the pretty much all say the same thing. 200 APS-C sensors from a 200mm wafer or 20 FF sensors assuming 100% yields. APS-H yields 46 sensors per wafer, but it can be produced with a single stage of photo-lithography.

Canon Cmos Wp This is from Canon scroll down:
Of course, there is more to this topic.For example, the circuit pattern of a full- frame sensor is too large to be projected on the silicon wafer all at once; it requires three separate exposures (See page 53). This means that the number of masks and exposure processes is tripled.For now, appreciate that a full-frame sensor costs not three or four times, but ten, twenty or more times as much as an APS-C sensor. Here then, is the greatest disadvantage of full-frame sensors and the greatest advantage of small sensors.Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full-frame sensors will always cost much more than cameras with smaller sensors.That’s why the EOS Digital Rebel XT, EOS 20D and EOS 30D are such excellent values, and it is also why the EOS 5D and the EOS-1Ds Mark II must come with a substantial price differential. (Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D Mark IIN is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. Extended through the whole sensor production process, the difference in price between the 1D Mark IIN and the 1Ds Mark II can be readily understood.)Each camera’s position in the marketplace is clear.There are many photographers for whom image quality is the most important thing, even as they have serious concerns about portability, practicality and expense.For them, no other manufacturer currently offers a wider selection of solutions than Canon.

I can go on and on, but Google is a wonderful tool. There are lots of sources on the internet to find the information.

[Raffwal]

I can go on and on, but Google is a wonderful tool. There are lots of sources on the internet to find the information.

Yes, but there are sources and there are sources. On the internet hear-say or guesstimate becomes a fact in .3 seconds. So I was wondering if there are any official words from the industry like that Canon white paper. Thanks.

[Mareket]

Just a quickie, I used a Nikon 1 series camera today and the EVF is amazing. A bit disorientating at first and small, but for utility it beats an OVF (barring what sounds like the life changing experience of using a MF OVF) any day. And even if the dynamic range is limited, it's limited in the sensor too, so you get a more accurate representation of what you're shooting. But the battery issue is still a big one, and as someone mentioned earlier, the problem is the sensor getting hotter. How much does that affect noise? And the lag really didn't feel like an issue with the J1/V1 whatever it was I used. I remember the A77 being similar. I guess never having the luxuries of old 35mm/120/645/67 film SLRs or rangefinders has made it easier for me to like the new cramped EVFs. I would like to try a rangefinder one day though, even though it's of no use to me, I can imagine they're really nice to shoot with.

And to whoever it was that said I didn't need a K-5 before, you may be right, but I shoot performances, so I need faster AF, more pixels, lower noise, better lens options, faster lenses, faster frame rates, better manual control, easy manual focus, good spot metering, wider dynamic range and the bonus of having a nicer camera. Amongst other things of course. I reckon I'd have saved up and bought an A77 if I hadn't gone with Pentax already. I don't shoot wildlife unfortunately at the moment, seeing as I live in the middle of boringsville and I can't drive :/ And bears are a good example of why you'd need more megapixels and longer lenses. The 'zoom with your feet' option doesn't really end greatly with bears does it?