How far will Canon go ?

[fotocom]

I wonder how far Canon and other maufacturers will go in making larger and larger sensor chips ?

We now have cameras which will produce a 50mb file and larger ones on the way. Surely these chips will soon start to out-perform the resolution of the lenses we have and therefore larger chips will be useless.

Does anyone have any idea at what size this will happen ?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Many 1Ds owners were allready faced with a resoltuion that pushed the resolving power of some lenses beyond there limits.. at least this is the common claim.

Obviously some lenses are better than others.. thus the feeling has been that the 1Ds had to be used with superior lenses to make sure the glass did not become a bottleneck of sorts. No camera had been better able to point out the flaws in a given Canon lens before..

With the additional 5 MP that the 1DsMkII will have.. it may be that the short list of acceptable lenses grows even smaller.

So the answer.. is essentially... At 11 megapixels it happened.

[timmyquest]

Why would it be so far fetched to assume that canon and other companies wont figure out how to make better lenses????

Is that possible?

[FlyingPete]

There is a technologcal limit for the size of the actual pixels on the sensors, if you make them to small they are no longer able to see the wave length of light. Also the closer you get to this limit, the more noise you get. There is a scienfic paper floating around that I have read (I will try and dig it up if anyone wants it) that talks about 3 micros being the optimum size for cost/noise. Here is a list of sensor sizes/pixel sizes:

Camera Sensor Sensor Size PixelSize
Powershot G3 4.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 3.05μm
Powershot G5 5.2MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.70μm
Powershot G6 7.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.31μm
Powershot Pro1 8.3MP 8.8x6.6mm 2.65μm
EOS D60/10D/300D 6.3MP 22.7x15.1mm 7.38μm
EOS 1D MkII/20D 8.5MP 28.7x19.1mm 8.65μm
EOS 1DS 11.4MP 35.8x23.8mm 8.13μm
EOS 1DS MkII 17.2MP 35.8x23.8mm 7.03μm

[DaveG]

There is a technologcal limit for the size of the actual pixels on the sensors, if you make them to small they are no longer able to see the wave length of light. Also the closer you get to this limit, the more noise you get. There is a scienfic paper floating around that I have read (I will try and dig it up if anyone wants it) that talks about 3 micros being the optimum size for cost/noise. Here is a list of sensor sizes/pixel sizes:

Camera Sensor Sensor Size PixelSize
Powershot G3 4.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 3.05μm
Powershot G5 5.2MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.70μm
Powershot G6 7.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.31μm
Powershot Pro1 8.3MP 8.8x6.6mm 2.65μm
EOS D60/10D/300D 6.3MP 22.7x15.1mm 7.38μm
EOS 1D MkII/20D 8.5MP 28.7x19.1mm 8.65μm
EOS 1DS 11.4MP 35.8x23.8mm 8.13μm
EOS 1DS MkII 17.2MP 35.8x23.8mm 7.03μm

Yeah & I was at a seminar with a computer rep from IBM who told us that memory would never get any cheaper than it is right now. The problem was that "right now" was 1977.

I'd worry less about lens resolution and more about what your eye can see. When 16x20's from 50MP cameras are no better than 60MP cameras then we're there. Until then ...

[defordphoto]

EOS 1D MkII/20D 8.5MP 28.7x19.1mm 8.65μm


Error there. 20D has the same sensor size as a 10D/D60/Drebel. It should be on a line all by itself. And you forgot the 1D. :)

[timmyquest]

There is a technologcal limit for the size of the actual pixels on the sensors, if you make them to small they are no longer able to see the wave length of light. Also the closer you get to this limit, the more noise you get. There is a scienfic paper floating around that I have read (I will try and dig it up if anyone wants it) that talks about 3 micros being the optimum size for cost/noise. Here is a list of sensor sizes/pixel sizes:

Camera Sensor Sensor Size PixelSize
Powershot G3 4.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 3.05μm
Powershot G5 5.2MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.70μm
Powershot G6 7.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.31μm
Powershot Pro1 8.3MP 8.8x6.6mm 2.65μm
EOS D60/10D/300D 6.3MP 22.7x15.1mm 7.38μm
EOS 1D MkII/20D 8.5MP 28.7x19.1mm 8.65μm
EOS 1DS 11.4MP 35.8x23.8mm 8.13μm
EOS 1DS MkII 17.2MP 35.8x23.8mm 7.03μm

I'm not so sure what this has to do with the topic though.

Maybe we'll never see a sensor larger then "full frame" (IE 35mm).

I personally wouldnt mind it, but as i was saying, i think the 20D has proven that smaller pixels close together are just fine, and that sensor is much smaller then the full frame 1Ds...point is i think we have lots of head room.

[FlyingPete]

Yeah & I was at a seminar with a computer rep from IBM who told us that memory would never get any cheaper than it is right now. The problem was that "right now" was 1977.

I'd worry less about lens resolution and more about what your eye can see. When 16x20's from 50MP cameras are no better than 60MP cameras then we're there. Until then ...

Yes, they will sort something out when they develop a technique for making photon smaller so a smaller sensor can pick it up, we are talking about a physical retraint here. An optical microsocope has the same issue, there is only so much magnification you can do, after that you need to use something else. An 100MP electron Digicam anyone?

They can keep making more and more MP, it is just that they will need to make larger sensors, and that costs money.

[FlipsidE]

Ya know, I'd actually enjoy seeing a medium format digital camera at or around the price of a 20D one day. The biggest issue that I've seen in these threads so far is the simple fact of sensor size. It may be expensive now, but on a full frame medium format camera, the sensor would, of course, have to be a good bit bigger than a 35mm-sized sensor.

FlipsidE

[FlyingPete]

Error there. 20D has the same sensor size as a 10D/D60/Drebel. It should be on a line all by itself. And you forgot the 1D. :)

Sorry! Here is the correct numbers:
Camera Sensor Sensor Size PixelSize
Powershot G3 4.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 3.05μm
Powershot G5 5.2MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.70μm
Powershot G6 7.1MP 7.18x5.32mm 2.31μm
Powershot Pro1 8.3MP 8.8x6.6mm 2.65μm
EOS D30 3.3MP 22.7x15.1mm 10.19μm
EOS D60/10D/300D 6.3MP 22.7x15.1mm 7.38μm
EOS 20D 8.5MP 22.7x15.1mm 6.35μm
EOS 1D 4.5MP 28.7x19.1mm 11.04μm
EOS 1D MkII 8.5MP 28.7x19.1mm 8.65μm
EOS 1DS 11.4MP 35.8x23.8mm 8.13μm
EOS 1DS MkII 17.2MP 35.8x23.8mm 7.03μm

I know this is a little off topic, but read my footer! :)

[fotocom]

So would I be right in saying that Canon and the other makers now need to do some serious work on improving their lenses. Clearly the speed at which new chips are being developed will seriously outpace the speed at which new lenses are developed.

[BearSummer]

Hi Fotocom,

I think the thing you need to remember is how are you viewing the final image. If it is going to be viewed on screen then an image that is 800x600 is probably more than big enough. If however you are pribting them then you will need more data, the question is , "How much more". I think (and I could be wrong) that most amateurs would be using printers in the a4-a3 size range with a few heavily addicted amateurs and pros using a2 and a1. So how much data do you need to produce an uninterpolated image at a3? Well if we want a high quality image then anything higher than 300ppi and you cant see the difference with the naked eye (well I couldn't when we tried this test). Well a little quick math

a3 = 297*420 mm = 16.5*11.7 inches
@ 300 ppi = 4960 * 3507 = 17.3*10^6 pixels = 16.6 MegaPixels

So for a hight resolution uniterpolated borderless print at a3 you need 16.6 MegaPixels, anyone remember what the 1ds Mk2 does.....

Using the above stipulations (ppi/uninterpolated etc...) the 1ds Mk2 is teh camera to own, having said that (which is stating the obvious), we all know of various methods of up-rezzing which will give us huge prints. As far as I am concerned I can't see chips getting much beyond the 20-25Mp range in 35mm format because of noise and current limitations in lens design. What's the point in having more resolution if all it is showing you is the limitation of your lenses? If you are printing a3 or smaller then you dont need anything with a higher pixel count that the 1ds mk2 as you wont get any gain from it, unless you are cropping your images significantly (and if you are then why aren't you framing correctly in the first place?)

Best regards

BearSummer

[Jim_T]

It's an interesting thought.. Some day you probably won't be able to buy an SLR without a full frame sensor..

But I'm pretty sure Canon is set to go with "smaller than full frame" sensors for the long haul.....

Consider the development of the EF-S lens.. (It costs a fortune to develop and market a new lens.. We're seeing the EF-S lineup grow)..

Also consider the fact that the new 580EX flash has the ability to communicate with the camera to find out which crop factor to use.. This is used to compute the correct focal length to set the beam for.. (Only the 20D can report it's sensor size.. For now anyway :) )

.

[evilenglishman]

Ya know, I'd actually enjoy seeing a medium format digital camera at or around the price of a 20D one day.

FlipsidE

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp

[pradeep1]

Digital medium format would be the next step for people looking at getting the best quality images...just like film. I wouldn't mind having a medium format camera system, since it would cost no more than a 35mm system to operate. Back in the old days, MF was a pain and the barriers to entry from both the price and convenience standpoints were high. With digital, you have none of that, other than equipment costs.

Hmmm.....

I posted this on another thread similar in topic to this one:

Mike Johnston's Thoughts on Full Frame:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml

Michael Reichmann's rebuttal:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-oct-24-04.shtml#re

Bot Atkins on future of full frame:

http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html

Enjoy,

[Longwatcher]

My thoughts on this topic:

Canon will keep the 35mm format Full Frame size as the largest size they will go to for the next 5-8 years at least. I also don't expect (but could be wrong) consumer cameras to keep the same sensor size if they want many more pixels then the current crop of 8MP P&S cameras (I am guessing at 12MP max for the same sensor size as in the 8MP P&S cameras - the 1D2 and 20D are not P&S for anybody confused)

The number of pixels will probably increase until they reach the 4um range in pixel pitch for professional cameras and 2um range for consumer cameras. Below that point physics start limiting the detectors significantly. [Below 0.75um you are no longer detecting light photons, just the passage of the photon, which requires a completely different technique which is subject to a lot of noise]

Thus the limit will be in the 22-30MP for professional 35mm size cameras and around 50MP for consumer cameras.

After this point then the Foven technology takes over in that you will have different layers to measure different colors. It could be possible to measure the depth the light traveled into the detector and result in true color at some point, but until them I expect no more then a layered approach similiar to Foven's with 3-6 layers thus 66-90 million detectors at 22-30 Sites for professional cameras.

After that point you must go to medium format or larger. If Canon decides to go larger, then a new line of Lenses will become necessary to fit these larger cameras, so they will want to pick a size at that time.

Personally I am getting the 16.7MP 1dsMkII because it is close to the 22MP limit and remains in the 35mm size class which is the largest camera that is multi-purpose. Above that size you get into Medium Format which are not as easy to handle in certain situations from my experience.

In summary, I expect one to maybe two Canon 1D series cameras that may have more MP then the 1DsMkII and then that will be it for that size body unless they go the Foven route, in which case about 5-7 more cameras from a sensor size perspective. everything else will be speed, buffer and other features.

Just my opinion,

[fdi]

Although going below 1μm will be hard, I would not count bet money they will never surpass it. It was thought that ICs could not be manufactured below that also since light is used and it gets severely distorted going through masks that are smaller than 1μm. They found a way to distort the mask to correct it and now they are making 90nm chips. That being said, it will depend on market demand providing required capital to push those limits, which may not occur.

What I would like to see is not greater density but better exposure latitude and light sensitivity. I foresee a day when cameras no longer have built in flash because the only use for flash will be off camera for shadow and other lighting effects.

Mark Rogers
Frame Destination, Inc.
http://www.framedestination.com

[Longwatcher]

You are talking about using particles smaller then light to manufacture something. For that all need is something to convert the pictures into visible light. I am taking about Visible light itself. It is possible to make detectors smaller then 750nm, but then it stops detecting the actual visible light except as a photon passing. While UV or shorter wavelength pictures would be cool in certain cases, people want to see people like they see people.

Then again maybe I am limited by the same world view that once thought the world was flat as in I could be wrong, although the evidence to date indicates otherwise.