A discussion about the future - megapixels and sensor sizes

Jazzyboy · 07-26-2009, 10:06 PM

I know I'm half-crazy and tjhat my English is not perfect but let me ask one question.

Concerning an hypothetical pentax fullframe, could it be possible that it would
be designed to use the same optics as the 645D... I mean specificaly the same optics
of the 645D. Some kind of Pentax secret plan in order to be in the capacity of pushing "the limits" debated above (... a sensor with film alike resolutions and the lenses to go with it).
See what I mean ? A 24x36 sensor with the lenses of a cropped 645. It could be the same scheme as aps-c with full frame lenses ? No ? And then they would have a good amount of time before the sensor reaches the limits of the lenses (if it can)...
I'm asking this question because it's said there wil be a Pentax fullframe in 2 years but still we can see no lens superior to aps-c size (no DFA's... exept the anachronistic 50 & 100 macro and the 55mm of the 645D ) and we know that they need to have an acceptable number of lenses before the camera is deliverd... even thoug the example of the leica S2 shows that it is possible to deliver the lenses and the at the same time, it's probably not the good thing to do for pentax. No ?

CWyatt · 07-26-2009, 10:19 PM

I don't know how 'futuristic' we're looking at by how about post-pixel cameras? Maybe a camera that records vectors? Infinite reproduction sizes.

GLXLR · 07-26-2009, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by pingflood

Well, there is more to the story. Once you start reaching limits determined by diffraction, you won't be able to take any advantage of the extra resolution. Would you pay a premium for a 30 mpix camera that can only theoretically reach full resolution at f/2 or faster? Where are you going to get a lens that's sharp enough near or at wide open?

Technology might change that, although to be honest, digital sensors have not changed much since they were introduced in dSLRs...

I know I'm half-crazy and tjhat my English is not perfect but let me ask one question.

Quote:

I know I'm half-crazy and tjhat my English is not perfect but let me ask one question.

Concerning an hypothetical pentax fullframe, could it be possible that it would
be designed to use the same optics as the 645D... I mean specificaly the same optics
of the 645D. Some kind of Pentax secret plan in order to be in the capacity of pushing "the limits" debated above (... a sensor with film alike resolutions and the lenses to go with it).
See what I mean ? A 24x36 sensor with the lenses of a cropped 645. It could be the same scheme as aps-c with full frame lenses ? No ? And then they would have a good amount of time before the sensor reaches the limits of the lenses (if it can)...
I'm asking this question because it's said there wil be a Pentax fullframe in 2 years but still we can see no lens superior to aps-c size (no DFA's... exept the anachronistic 50 & 100 macro and the 55mm of the 645D ) and we know that they need to have an acceptable number of lenses before the camera is deliverd... even thoug the example of the leica S2 shows that it is possible to deliver the lenses and the at the same time, it's probably not the good thing to do for pentax. No ?

1. A big reason why people use Pentax is b/c the lenses are cheaper. These lenses are only cheap b/c they are optimized for APS-C sensored cameras. Why would you pay a premium on FF lenses on APS-C cameras ? The same applies to 645D lenses on FF.
2. The mount is not the same to my understanding, so a converter would be needed for any FF Pentax.
3. It would be much more cost efficient to simply remake the FA series lenses rather than letting pentax users use 645D lenses for their FF cameras.
4. Any CaNikon FF user switching over probably prefers zooms. The 645D system consists of mostly primes (good ones at that).

CWyatt · 07-26-2009, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by GLXLR

big reason why people use Pentax is b/c the lenses are cheaper. These lenses are only cheap b/c they are optimized for APS-C sensored cameras

What about the Sigma DG range for full and cropped sensor cameras? Pentax lenses are usually really expensive here (New Zealand), but Sigma's top EX is often DG and is much cheaper.

dylansalt · 07-27-2009, 02:05 AM

Digital has only gained one or two advantages over film i.e. High ISO shooting with little noise & instant feedback with convenience.

In terms of resolution, dynamic range, colour palette/range etc the modern dslr has yet not come close to what film could render in the 35mm format albeit with a cheap slr and that is with film.

The 35mm slr could also shoot slide and no dslr to date can come close (imho) to slide film like Kodachrome 25/64 Velvia 50 etc which even 20 years later I can project at 3.5x2m (with a basic projector) with amazing detail,sharpness and colour depth.

We can ooooh and ahhhhh over the low noise at high iso of $$$ Canon 5DMk11, but a 6x6 slide/film shot at 100asa from a cheap(ancient) YashicaMat or similar will put it to shame.

Yes I only shoot digital now but with over 20 years of shooting 35mm, MF film & slides my archives remind me that digital has still quite a way to go wrt IQ.

So instead of the constant the more is better MP race, the sensor developers should now be looking at getting digital closer to the performance of film at base ISO.

Dylan

EricT · 07-27-2009, 03:04 AM

I actually would like a 6MP camera with excellent ISO6400 or even ISO12800 capabilities. It would be even better if I could switch between this and 15MP in the same camera.

eurostar · 08-01-2009, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by GLXLR

T
2. The mount is not the same to my understanding, so a converter would be needed for any FF Pentax.

Not, if the "FF Pentax" would have the 645 mount instead of the K.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-01-2009, 06:01 AM

Originally posted by pingflood

Well, there is more to the story. Once you start reaching limits determined by diffraction, you won't be able to take any advantage of the extra resolution.

Yes you would. Pixel resolution is a brack wall; diffraction is not (nor is film resolution).

**Pål Jensen** · 08-01-2009, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Torphoto

Remember most lenses that work so well on aps-c are ff ones that are using the sweet spot, now imagine using all of the lenses ability to try and illuminate a 39 mp ff sensor, I bet most of that sensors resolution will be wasted.

The sweet spot issue only affect the corner performance. My experence with digital is that even the "low resolving lenses" are ultra detailed and sharp on digital simply because the sensor doesn't have reolution enough the separate between the lenses. One example is the 17-28 fish-eye lens wich is visibly resolution handicapped on film but is yields "high resolving" images on digital.....

Das Boot · 08-02-2009, 07:41 AM

I personally think that the upper bounds of MP of APS-C is being reached. I think the future will hinge on the technology side of things...

The circuitry will get smaller, the sensor sites will get bigger (Canon has already done this)

There will be more concentration on dynamic range and sensitivity (Fuji and Nikon).

More will be done on sensor (aka as CMOS).

Who will do this? My bet is Samsung. They are a technology company aligning their efforts to make a jump into the serious side of photography on their own. Fuji has already said that their focus is going to be P&S and have broke ranks with Nikon. Give it two years.

impact · 08-02-2009, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by EricT

I actually would like a 6MP camera with excellent ISO6400 or even ISO12800 capabilities. It would be even better if I could switch between this and 15MP in the same camera.

A lot of people probably would. Look at the Nikon D700. The perfect example of a "low" resolution (for a FF camera anyways) + high iso combination done right. I know, I know, it's not Pentax.

tr13 · 08-03-2009, 03:40 AM

Future will not contain any DSLRs.
Yeah, few professionals will buy FF DSLRs.
But 90% of prosumer market will be occupied by something like GH1 and Panny FZ.
With sensors 1" and smaller. Most around 1/1.6". 15-16Mp.
Reason? Compact size and small optics.
I clearly remember many guys who talked about 3Mp barrier for P&S optics, then it become
6Mp, and now my 9Mp TZ5 is sharper then my GX20 with some lenses.
They'll have perfect ISO 3200. With real FullHD video at 120fps.
And still shooting at 50fps.

pingflood · 08-03-2009, 04:33 AM

And they'll still take crappy pictures.

**Pål Jensen** · 08-03-2009, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by tr13

Future will not contain any DSLRs.
Yeah, few professionals will buy FF DSLRs.
But 90% of prosumer market will be occupied by something like GH1 and Panny FZ.
With sensors 1" and smaller. Most around 1/1.6". 15-16Mp.
Reason? Compact size and small optics..

No. Those cameras will replace some P&S and a few entry level DSLR. Just like optical binoculars won't go away, DSLR's won't either. DSLR's can be made small enough. It will still be the enthusiast choice....

tr13 · 08-03-2009, 04:55 AM

I don't agree with "crappy pictures" rants.
I love my TZ5 much better then my Canon S60.
And latter have larger sensor and fewer pixels, but average picture just looks much better on TZ5. Better WB, better noise reduction (if GX20 could have such noise reduction quality as TZ5..), OIS. And auto mode coudn't be compared to GX20, as on GX20 it is barely useful while on TZ5 it could find a face, find proper focus and even fire flash if background is very bright, I don't even mention that it automatically slightly blurres skin tone to hide defects.
Remember usability mantra - ordinary users looks stupid at first sight, but in reality they are not, they are just busy doing really important things.
yes, DSLR is very powerful thing, but it is thing from the past. Last dinasaurs.

07-26-2009, 10:26 PM	#18
GLXLR Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Sugar Land, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 684	Originally posted by pingflood Well, there is more to the story. Once you start reaching limits determined by diffraction, you won't be able to take any advantage of the extra resolution. Would you pay a premium for a 30 mpix camera that can only theoretically reach full resolution at f/2 or faster? Where are you going to get a lens that's sharp enough near or at wide open? Technology might change that, although to be honest, digital sensors have not changed much since they were introduced in dSLRs... I know I'm half-crazy and tjhat my English is not perfect but let me ask one question. Quote: I know I'm half-crazy and tjhat my English is not perfect but let me ask one question. Concerning an hypothetical pentax fullframe, could it be possible that it would be designed to use the same optics as the 645D... I mean specificaly the same optics of the 645D. Some kind of Pentax secret plan in order to be in the capacity of pushing "the limits" debated above (... a sensor with film alike resolutions and the lenses to go with it). See what I mean ? A 24x36 sensor with the lenses of a cropped 645. It could be the same scheme as aps-c with full frame lenses ? No ? And then they would have a good amount of time before the sensor reaches the limits of the lenses (if it can)... I'm asking this question because it's said there wil be a Pentax fullframe in 2 years but still we can see no lens superior to aps-c size (no DFA's... exept the anachronistic 50 & 100 macro and the 55mm of the 645D ) and we know that they need to have an acceptable number of lenses before the camera is deliverd... even thoug the example of the leica S2 shows that it is possible to deliver the lenses and the at the same time, it's probably not the good thing to do for pentax. No ? 1. A big reason why people use Pentax is b/c the lenses are cheaper. These lenses are only cheap b/c they are optimized for APS-C sensored cameras. Why would you pay a premium on FF lenses on APS-C cameras ? The same applies to 645D lenses on FF. 2. The mount is not the same to my understanding, so a converter would be needed for any FF Pentax. 3. It would be much more cost efficient to simply remake the FA series lenses rather than letting pentax users use 645D lenses for their FF cameras. 4. Any CaNikon FF user switching over probably prefers zooms. The 645D system consists of mostly primes (good ones at that). Last edited by GLXLR; 07-26-2009 at 10:33 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pic sizes in relation to megapixels	ProgMtl	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	04-13-2010 09:45 AM
Could a Fuji Film Sensor be in Pentax's Future?	mithrandir	Pentax News and Rumors	21	02-26-2009 08:46 AM
full sensor in the future?	pete_pf	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	03-11-2008 08:21 AM
Is this the future sensor in KxxD?	lol101	Pentax News and Rumors	12	12-03-2007 01:43 PM
Discussion on upcoming and future Pentax DA (not *) zooms	Richard Day	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	08-06-2007 01:31 AM

07-26-2009, 10:06 PM	#16
Jazzyboy Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 49	I know I'm half-crazy and tjhat my English is not perfect but let me ask one question. Concerning an hypothetical pentax fullframe, could it be possible that it would be designed to use the same optics as the 645D... I mean specificaly the same optics of the 645D. Some kind of Pentax secret plan in order to be in the capacity of pushing "the limits" debated above (... a sensor with film alike resolutions and the lenses to go with it). See what I mean ? A 24x36 sensor with the lenses of a cropped 645. It could be the same scheme as aps-c with full frame lenses ? No ? And then they would have a good amount of time before the sensor reaches the limits of the lenses (if it can)... I'm asking this question because it's said there wil be a Pentax fullframe in 2 years but still we can see no lens superior to aps-c size (no DFA's... exept the anachronistic 50 & 100 macro and the 55mm of the 645D ) and we know that they need to have an acceptable number of lenses before the camera is deliverd... even thoug the example of the leica S2 shows that it is possible to deliver the lenses and the at the same time, it's probably not the good thing to do for pentax. No ?

07-26-2009, 10:19 PM	#17
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	I don't know how 'futuristic' we're looking at by how about post-pixel cameras? Maybe a camera that records vectors? Infinite reproduction sizes.

07-26-2009, 11:08 PM	#19
CWyatt Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 1,291	Originally posted by GLXLR big reason why people use Pentax is b/c the lenses are cheaper. These lenses are only cheap b/c they are optimized for APS-C sensored cameras What about the Sigma DG range for full and cropped sensor cameras? Pentax lenses are usually really expensive here (New Zealand), but Sigma's top EX is often DG and is much cheaper.

07-27-2009, 02:05 AM	#20
dylansalt Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Durban, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,052	Digital has only gained one or two advantages over film i.e. High ISO shooting with little noise & instant feedback with convenience. In terms of resolution, dynamic range, colour palette/range etc the modern dslr has yet not come close to what film could render in the 35mm format albeit with a cheap slr and that is with film. The 35mm slr could also shoot slide and no dslr to date can come close (imho) to slide film like Kodachrome 25/64 Velvia 50 etc which even 20 years later I can project at 3.5x2m (with a basic projector) with amazing detail,sharpness and colour depth. We can ooooh and ahhhhh over the low noise at high iso of $$$ Canon 5DMk11, but a 6x6 slide/film shot at 100asa from a cheap(ancient) YashicaMat or similar will put it to shame. Yes I only shoot digital now but with over 20 years of shooting 35mm, MF film & slides my archives remind me that digital has still quite a way to go wrt IQ. So instead of the constant the more is better MP race, the sensor developers should now be looking at getting digital closer to the performance of film at base ISO. Dylan

07-27-2009, 03:04 AM	#21
EricT Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 484	I actually would like a 6MP camera with excellent ISO6400 or even ISO12800 capabilities. It would be even better if I could switch between this and 15MP in the same camera.

08-01-2009, 01:32 AM	#22
eurostar Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Albareto, Italy Photos: Gallery Posts: 819	Originally posted by GLXLR T 2. The mount is not the same to my understanding, so a converter would be needed for any FF Pentax. Not, if the "FF Pentax" would have the 645 mount instead of the K.

08-01-2009, 06:01 AM	#23
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by pingflood Well, there is more to the story. Once you start reaching limits determined by diffraction, you won't be able to take any advantage of the extra resolution. Yes you would. Pixel resolution is a brack wall; diffraction is not (nor is film resolution).

08-01-2009, 06:04 AM	#24
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by Torphoto Remember most lenses that work so well on aps-c are ff ones that are using the sweet spot, now imagine using all of the lenses ability to try and illuminate a 39 mp ff sensor, I bet most of that sensors resolution will be wasted. The sweet spot issue only affect the corner performance. My experence with digital is that even the "low resolving lenses" are ultra detailed and sharp on digital simply because the sensor doesn't have reolution enough the separate between the lenses. One example is the 17-28 fish-eye lens wich is visibly resolution handicapped on film but is yields "high resolving" images on digital.....

08-02-2009, 07:41 AM	#25
Das Boot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky Photos: Gallery Posts: 689	I personally think that the upper bounds of MP of APS-C is being reached. I think the future will hinge on the technology side of things... The circuitry will get smaller, the sensor sites will get bigger (Canon has already done this) There will be more concentration on dynamic range and sensitivity (Fuji and Nikon). More will be done on sensor (aka as CMOS). Who will do this? My bet is Samsung. They are a technology company aligning their efforts to make a jump into the serious side of photography on their own. Fuji has already said that their focus is going to be P&S and have broke ranks with Nikon. Give it two years.

08-02-2009, 08:07 AM	#26
impact Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 115	Originally posted by EricT I actually would like a 6MP camera with excellent ISO6400 or even ISO12800 capabilities. It would be even better if I could switch between this and 15MP in the same camera. A lot of people probably would. Look at the Nikon D700. The perfect example of a "low" resolution (for a FF camera anyways) + high iso combination done right. I know, I know, it's not Pentax.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-03-2009, 03:40 AM	#27
tr13 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 343	Future will not contain any DSLRs. Yeah, few professionals will buy FF DSLRs. But 90% of prosumer market will be occupied by something like GH1 and Panny FZ. With sensors 1" and smaller. Most around 1/1.6". 15-16Mp. Reason? Compact size and small optics. I clearly remember many guys who talked about 3Mp barrier for P&S optics, then it become 6Mp, and now my 9Mp TZ5 is sharper then my GX20 with some lenses. They'll have perfect ISO 3200. With real FullHD video at 120fps. And still shooting at 50fps.

08-03-2009, 04:33 AM	#28
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	And they'll still take crappy pictures.

08-03-2009, 04:53 AM	#29
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	Originally posted by tr13 Future will not contain any DSLRs. Yeah, few professionals will buy FF DSLRs. But 90% of prosumer market will be occupied by something like GH1 and Panny FZ. With sensors 1" and smaller. Most around 1/1.6". 15-16Mp. Reason? Compact size and small optics.. No. Those cameras will replace some P&S and a few entry level DSLR. Just like optical binoculars won't go away, DSLR's won't either. DSLR's can be made small enough. It will still be the enthusiast choice....

08-03-2009, 04:55 AM	#30
tr13 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 343	I don't agree with "crappy pictures" rants. I love my TZ5 much better then my Canon S60. And latter have larger sensor and fewer pixels, but average picture just looks much better on TZ5. Better WB, better noise reduction (if GX20 could have such noise reduction quality as TZ5..), OIS. And auto mode coudn't be compared to GX20, as on GX20 it is barely useful while on TZ5 it could find a face, find proper focus and even fire flash if background is very bright, I don't even mention that it automatically slightly blurres skin tone to hide defects. Remember usability mantra - ordinary users looks stupid at first sight, but in reality they are not, they are just busy doing really important things. yes, DSLR is very powerful thing, but it is thing from the past. Last dinasaurs.