Originally posted by biz-engineer Working in the semiconductor industry, there are some cost models that indicate that cost of silicon is not a function of image sensor resolution but it is proportional the silicon area and the number of steps needed in the manufacturing process. Therefore , FF cameras should have the higher pixel count , at the same price point as the lower pixel count , as long as the size of pixels does not impact the defect rate of the sensors. Practically, defect rate is a function of silicon area a defect density given a specific fab, rather than pixel density. Therefore, the new Pentax FF should be equipped with a 50Mpixels sensor, and not a 24Mpixels sensor.
Having the new Pentax FF with 51Mpixel has a lots of advantages:
- give a reason to k-3 owner to buy a FF cam
- sensor with 51Mpix gets rid of AA filter, same advantage as the K-3 but on larger sensor.
- sensor is almost the same cost with 51Mpix versus 24Mpix
- bring Pentax again very competitive in the full frame segment , able to compete with new Nikon FF and Canon FF (if Canon has done the 5DS, Nikon will follow).
What is your opinion?
My opinion is that I like the way you think.
You're basically saying what the IC/sensor engineers have been saying on dpreview for a while. However I doubt that or any 51MP sensor is going to be available to Pentax in 2015. My guess is we'll see the 36Mp Sony Exmor.
Also not to speak for anyone, but when folks say "XX MP is too much" I think they're really saying "I don't want to sacrifice SNR/DR for resolution."
That's a very valid position, but I think it's kind of a false choice - you don't have to sacrifice SNR/DR for resolution, you can have both (within reason.)
I say bring on the MP. It puts more cameras in your FF body, as dead john said, it gives you more ability to crop, print/display bigger, and gives you more data to work with in post. The images just hold up better.
.