Canon's 120mp APS-H Sensor

[328somewhere]

Here is a small theory.
What about the use in medium format applications. Wasn't it just rumored that canon was looking for a medium format company to purchase? I am no camera guru but wouldn't there be enough room in a medium format body to use this sensor to it's potential? Call it some kind of crossover body. With an ef mount on a medium format body they could take over the world. Maybe this is just a hint but you don't make an announcement like this without a reason.
Opinions?

[pierlux]

Here is a small theory.
What about the use in medium format applications. Wasn't it just rumored that canon was looking for a medium format company to purchase? I am no camera guru but wouldn't there be enough room in a medium format body to use this sensor to it's potential? Call it some kind of crossover body. With an ef mount on a medium format body they could take over the world. Maybe this is just a hint but you don't make an announcement like this without a reason.
Opinions?

Format, with respect to photography, is relative to sensor (or film) size, not the body. This is an APS-H sized sensor, you can put it in whatever sized camera, but the format will always be APS-H. Medium format refers to cameras which produce 45x60mm, 60x60mm or 60x90mm images in the case of film, or larger than 24x36mm in the case of digital cameras.

[pierlux]

There must be good reasons why Canon made this announcement.

It's probably just a technology demonstrator sensor demonstrating that their techs can scale up the S10/S11 technology to APS-H levels.

why would they bother making it?

Maybe this announcement was made because of this:
http://nikonrumors.com/2010/08/20/nikon-now-producing-their-own-sensors.aspx#more-13210

Probably Canon is just stating: "Whatever you do, we are always one million lightyears ahead of you in sensor technology!" And if this is true, I have to reconsider all I have said in my previous post...

BTW (and off topic), I've been always wondeing why Nikon, being the world's No. 2 stepper maker ( http://www.nikonprecision.com/ ), does not produce its own sensors instead of buying them from Sony. Marketing misteries...

[gkreis]

Now, it is true that a higher resolution sensor can see the diffraction better, just as it provides better resolution of the subject, but a sensor does not affect diffraction. 

A 120mp APS-H sensor has about the same pixel density as the 12 mp G11 / S90.  The lenses seem to work fine on it, and are not as wide a aperture as are available on DSLR's.


120mp/5.19 cm square = 23.1 mp/square cm, approximately the same as the 12mp G11.

Of course the sensor doesn't cause diffraction, it just records it.

Why doesn't a G11 have f stops larger than f8?

[gkreis]

Seriously though, as some others have suggested this could be a real game-changer if it gets implemented. Think of what it would mean for sports and wildlife shooters. Use a 200mm f2.8 lens and then crop the image for the equivalent of an 800mm (or longer).

I think the biggest problem is micro blur.  If seem to recall reading a paper from Canon that addressed the issue of 7D type density having issues with micro blur as a source of softness.  Anyone remember it?

Basically, the idea is that if there are more pixels in the same area, they are better able to register movement during taking of the image. So if you crop way down, you might be get a blurrier image than you expect unless you had an extremely fast shutter speed.  So hopes of heavily cropping these super dense sensors might be dashed in real-life, when those minor focus issues are 'blown up'.

[Lee Jay]

I know I'm not nearly good enough with the physics to know this for sure, but wouldn't a 120 MP APS-H have a ridiculously low bar for lens diffraction?

Adding pixels to the same sensor size and lens combination can never, ever make diffraction worse.  In fact, it makes it better.

No. Diffraction is a property solely of the lens (and the aperture therein). Period.

On the other hand, the sensor's pixel pitch only affects the circle of confusion. (No, that's not what some guys here seem to be in. )

Of course, a smaller pixel pitch leads to a smaller circle of confusion, thus demanding a higher quality of the lens to get what appears to be a "sharp" image.


HTH,

Sebastian

Even if you are diffraction-limited, adding pixels will lead to a sharper image with more detail.  This is because the blur caused by diffraction and the blur caused by the sampling add together (geometrically).  That's why I said what I said.  I didn't really mean to say the diffraction itself would improve, just that the total blur would be reduced.

Likewise, your last sentence is just wrong.  More pixels means a more detailed image from the same lens at the same final viewing size.  Now, if you meant at 100%, that's just not a realistic way to compare when you're changing the amount of enlargement between the two image, which is what you are doing by looking at two images with different pixel sizes both at 100%.

I can prove this with image samples, if you'd like.

[NormanBates]

I can prove this with image samples, if you'd like.

with something similar to this, I guess:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/mpix/mpix.html

in any case, I can think of a lot of reasons Canon has to manufacture a limited number of these sensors, for example:
* to research data collection and data manipulation processes associated with a high-mpix-count chip
* to research the effects of increased pixel density in DSLR sensors (how does it affect noise and DR? how can we process the data so that they improve with megapixel-density? how dense can we get before diffraction precludes any further detail improvements?)
* to research novel image processing methods, like those proposed by some forum members here in terms of diffraction-control, in-sensor-IS, etc

it's a research chip, just like intel's 48-core microprocessor

[kufucius]

I can prove this with image samples, if you'd like.

with something similar to this, I guess:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/mpix/mpix.html

in any case, I can think of a lot of reasons Canon has to manufacture a limited number of these sensors, for example:
* to research data collection and data manipulation processes associated with a high-mpix-count chip
* to research the effects of increased pixel density in DSLR sensors (how does it affect noise and DR? how can we process the data so that they improve with megapixel-density? how dense can we get before diffraction precludes any further detail improvements?)
* to research novel image processing methods, like those proposed by some forum members here in terms of diffraction-control, in-sensor-IS, etc

it's a research chip, just like intel's 48-core microprocessor

In that case, I wonder why they don't do it APS-C or Full frame? Weird

[NormanBates]

surely there's a reason, but we can only speculate

someone said here it could be because making a bigger chip would require special tools, but, to my understanding, they already went over that line with APS-H: many standard CMOS-chip-making tools can only be used for making chips under 24mm in their biggest dimension, which, here, means APS-C