Digital BW, The Print

Agreed.  The sense I get is that the equation is not just optimal pixel size
as a standalone but rather the mix of lens optics, sensor size, pixel size,
anti-aliasing filters and processing algorithms etc.  So the guys with
"control" over the whole system have a definite advantage.  I took the leap
to the 1DsMKII because I felt (I guess subjectively) that Canon was closing
in on the limits for 35mm in terms of their full frame current lens range
etc.  Not that I don't expect improvement in the near future but I do think
the quantum leaps have been achieved for the digitalisation of the current
system.   I suspect the S lens range is a stop gap until the economics of
the full sensor systems are such that they can be applied to the prosumer
and high end consumer models.

The really interesting question is what happens after the current 35mm optic
systems have been largely fully exploited.  Do we need a whole new set of
lenses to go to the next level?  I suspect that rather than this happening
we will see the 35mm kings starting into or merging with the 645 guys.  I
think we have only just began the path of digitalisation medium format and
would not invest in a digital back/645 digital camera today unless I had a
very clear income stream/business to pay it off in relatively short order.

Here's a question:  who buys/takes over the rights to Contax's 645 business
- if it indeed reincarnates at all.  Michael Reichman mentions Leaf and
Phase One.  What if it's Canon?


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
> Steve,

> Yes, that site has a lot of good information.  However, I was wondering more
> about what fundamental limits might exist on the technology.
> 
> I suspect that companies like Canon have looked at fundamental limits in
> making their long term plans.  So, aside from the factors that affect one's
> choice given today's technology, it would be interesting to see an analysis
> of where a practical end point of sensor shrinkage is.
> 
> Canon fabricates its own semiconductors, I believe.  As such they probably
> are, in at least the fab division, up to their eyeballs in these problems.
> I don't think any other camera manufacturer has a fab.
> 
> The diffraction limit of light is one obvious problem.  The semiconductor
> industry has fought this battle for years, but they have been able to avoid
> the limits imposed by the wave length of visible light by going to UV light
> and even non-glass optics.  The camera manufacturers will not have these
> options.  So, I'd guess this imposes a practical limit on how small a sensor
> of a given resolution can be.
> 
> There is also what I think is referred to as "shot noise."  The particle
> nature of light causes, among other things, the sensors to detect not a
> smooth ramp of increasing exposure, but the steps caused by the quantum of
> each photon hitting the sensor. The quantum nature of light appears to
> result in significant problems, including noise, as the cell size decreases.
> This in combination with optical diffraction, will probably put a lower
> limit on the cell size.  Of course, it may be so small that it will have no
> impact on any living photographer.
> 
> Probably a more practical current factor will simply be the economics of
> making a full system of lenses and accessories for any particular sensor
> size.  This will probably cause there to be discrete plateaus.  I would
> guess Sigma and Tamron will follow Canon.  If they see Canon making specific
> lenses for a sensor size, they may assume it will be a significant enough
> standard to invest in making third party lenses.  Then again, Canon might
> predatorily sucker the third party manufacturers into wasting lots of
> development money on what turns out to be a very fleeting, "false" standard.
> It would be fun to be a fly on the wall of the decision making bodies here.
> I sense there is a lot of gaming that could be going on.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
>