Alfred Molon wrote:
In article 634a73ef-bd29-4f79-837c-
, DanP says...
On Aug 24, 8:10*pm, Ken Walls wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:23:12 -0400, Bowser wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Wow! *Good luck with the lenses, Canon.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10...20mpsensor.asp

Well, the picture would be just as sharp, but not at the pixel level.
Dynamic range, at lower ISOs, could be killer.

How do you figure that? Each photosite is only 2.1 µm in size.

There you go then, you have answered your own question.
Pixel race gone mad.

At this level individual pixels do not matter anymore. It's quite
possible that a camera equipped with such a sensor would apply some
fancy processing and output an image with a lower pixel count, for
instance 40Mp or so.

Nikon's original D1 is a 2.7 MP camera, but the sensor
has twice that many sensor locations. Each pixel from
the D1 is made up of two sensor locations.

With an array of 120 sensor locations it would be
interesting to see the noise characteristics of a 12 MP
image that used 9 sensors for each pixel.

Even more interesting would be if instead of a Bayer
filter the sensor had first a lens that would defocus
light such that each group of 9 sensors would all get
the same light, and then use a color filter (similar to
the Bayer filter) that contained 4 each green, 2 each
red and 2 each blue, with the center being a clear
filter. Bingo, no Bayer interpolation, and instead
there is a direct RGB output (with an additional
independant luminance channel).

It may or may not result in improved SNR, but color
rendition should be significantly better than a 12MP
Bayer image.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)