This is what I had in mind, although I limited my comment to the hand-held aspect of 35mm format. This sensor could be good in the studio, but anything that moves (and that includes landscape!) would require very high shutter speed.Same with me. You will have to carry a complete workstation with you to get the images post-processed. Plus, DLA (diffraction limited aperture) would have to be f/3.5 or something like that I guess, so you could forget to shoot e.g. landscapes the classic way (f/16 or 22) and get substantially more real image information out of such a camera than out of a, say, a 5D3. Plus, you would have to shoot even moderately moving subjects with 3x higher (am I right?) shutter speeds than with a 50 MP camera to freeze them sharply on the pixel level. I think if Earth moves closer to the sun, Canon should bring out such a monster
Not a practical resolution in a hand held 35mm format body. The technique demanded to get the most of that pixel size, as anyone knows who has shot with a 5DS/DSr...
Plus, DLA (diffraction limited aperture) would have to be f/3.5 or something like that I guess, so you could forget to shoot e.g. landscapes the classic way (f/16 or 22) and get substantially more real image information out of such a camera than out of a, say, a 5D3.
I’d like to see some evidence of that. A lot of properties of this sort of photography is done in single color where it’s easier. I seem to remember Canon saying that they were naming lenses that would work with a 200mp sensor, and that would make sense.
Using existing cameras/pixel-densities data from TDP I would guess around f/3.5 so a f/4 big white lens would be just fine. But this would exclude the use of teleconverters (at least the 2X ones) and f/7.1 zoom lenses.
I would say a 80-82mp camera would be more practical. It would have the 90D's DLA (f/5.2)
Sure, it’s possible, but what kind of per pixel IQ could we expect from that, and can lenses be made sharp enough for that rez? We’re hitting the point of max resolution now, as the laws of physics are telling us that we’re running right near the edge.
No objection that's why I mentioned 2X teleconverters and not 1.4X ones to the f/4 lenses. In fact I have used 2XIII teleconverter with a f/4 lens (500II) at f/9 with my 5DsR with success. Due to the use of 2X contrast took a hit but that's a whole different issue (in some other shots it didn't). In fact some of these 1000mm shots had given me wonderful results.Diffraction isn't a brick wall. If the DLA is f/4, it doesn't mean you can't use lenses slower than that. Besides, pixel densities are still much higher for smaller format sensors, and people seem to manage fine with them. It's just diminishing returns.
Well nobody is viewing single pixels, but whole (or cropped) images, so that question is rather academic. The history of digital photography surely teaches us that increasing resolution can go along with improved IQ overall, though as I say above, you get diminishing returns, so doubling the res isn't going to improve other areas anything like that much. But there is no 'point of max resolution'.
File size is the main disadvantage.
@CR, give a glass that would support that resolution. And THEN I will call it a substantial rumor