You want a "full frame" CMOS sensor? Try this for size!

Bruce wrote:
Canon Develops 8" x 8" CMOS Image Sensor (202 x 205mm)!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/343lvow
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/0...-image-sensor/

Odd they don't say how many megapixels.

Paul Furman wrote in
:

Bruce wrote:
Canon Develops 8" x 8" CMOS Image Sensor (202 x 205mm)!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/343lvow
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/0...8-x-8-cmos-ima
ge-sensor/

Odd they don't say how many megapixels.


If they used the same pixel-pitch as their 120M sensor, it would have about
7 gigapixels. At least they didn't make it in the stupid 3:2 format.

Paul Furman wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Canon Develops 8" x 8" CMOS Image Sensor (202 x 205mm)!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/343lvow
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/0...-image-sensor/

Odd they don't say how many megapixels.

Must be low. 100 times more sensitive than a 24x36mm sensor,
but only 40 times larger ... probably 8 to 10 MPix. :-

-Wolfgang

In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg writes
Paul Furman wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Canon Develops 8" x 8" CMOS Image Sensor (202 x 205mm)!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/343lvow
or:

http://www.photographybay.com/2010/0...8-x-8-cmos-ima
ge-sensor/

Odd they don't say how many megapixels.

Must be low. 100 times more sensitive than a 24x36mm sensor,
but only 40 times larger ... probably 8 to 10 MPix. :-

Less than that - only 1.6Mpix! That's ~150um pixels!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36218804
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On 10-09-05 18:03 , Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Wolfgang
Weisselberg writes
Paul Furman wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Canon Develops 8" x 8" CMOS Image Sensor (202 x 205mm)!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/343lvow
or:

http://www.photographybay.com/2010/0...8-x-8-cmos-ima
ge-sensor/

Odd they don't say how many megapixels.

Must be low. 100 times more sensitive than a 24x36mm sensor,
but only 40 times larger ... probably 8 to 10 MPix. :-

Less than that - only 1.6Mpix! That's ~150um pixels!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36218804

And no color matrix.

Seems like it's made for astronomy.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote:
Weisselberg writes
Paul Furman wrote:
Bruce wrote:
Canon Develops 8" x 8" CMOS Image Sensor (202 x 205mm)!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/343lvow
or:
http://www.photographybay.com/2010/0...8-x-8-cmos-ima
ge-sensor/

Odd they don't say how many megapixels.

Must be low. 100 times more sensitive than a 24x36mm sensor,
but only 40 times larger ... probably 8 to 10 MPix. :-

Less than that - only 1.6Mpix! That's ~150um pixels!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36218804

That makes sense, actually, if they are playing collect lots of light per
pixel games (and means that they can do it by gluing together multiple
chips). The problem, though, is that LF lenses tend to be slow, so you take
a three stop hit (say f/2.0 vs. f/5.6) right off the bat. Still, there are
probably some big fast spy-plane lenses* in the surplus market. Hmm. Maybe
there's a real market for these things. Monochrome means it'll be more
useful in IR. (My 830nm IR-converted 5D still takes a 2 or 3 stop hit in the
B and G channels relative to the red channel due to the B and G CFA
filters.)

Which brings up the snarky comment: Cosina goes to the effort of making an
f/0.95 24mm lens for MFT, but that has the same per-pixel light collecting
ability (and same DoF) as an f/3.8 50mm lens on FF.

*: If memory serves, the U2 plane cameras were 8x10 or similarly large
format.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On 9/5/2010 5:17 PM, Alan Browne wrote:


Less than that - only 1.6Mpix! That's ~150um pixels!
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=36218804

And no color matrix.

Seems like it's made for astronomy.


Not with that pixel size.

All telescopes these days are diffraction limited, at
anything from f/1 to f/30 depending on use. Even at
f/30 that would require about a 7 to 10 micron pixel.

Doug McDonald

In article , David J.
Littleboy writes


Which brings up the snarky comment: Cosina goes to the effort of making an
f/0.95 24mm lens for MFT, but that has the same per-pixel light collecting
ability (and same DoF) as an f/3.8 50mm lens on FF.

How do you figure that?
The f/0.95 lens puts 16x the light per unit area on the focal plane that
the f/3.8 lens does. So the FF pixels would have to be 16x the area of
the MFT pixels to get the same per-pixel light collecting ability.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...
In article , David J.
Littleboy writes


Which brings up the snarky comment: Cosina goes to the effort of making an
f/0.95 24mm lens for MFT, but that has the same per-pixel light collecting
ability (and same DoF) as an f/3.8 50mm lens on FF.

How do you figure that?

Bad math/not thinging straight. It's two stops, so two factors of 1.4 =
f/1.8.

Oops.

The f/0.95 lens puts 16x the light per unit area on the focal plane that
the f/3.8 lens does. So the FF pixels would have to be 16x the area of the
MFT pixels to get the same per-pixel light collecting ability.

And they're only four times.

Same as the f/2.0 Olympus 35-100/2.0 being functionally the same as a
70-200/4.0.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan