Canon 83MP Sensor

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/canon-discloses-83mp-sensor-is-this-for-the-new-hi-res-canon-eos-r

Joe

diffraction limited at F?

Wildflower-nut wrote:diffraction limited at F?

Deconvolution sharpening and AI have easily added two stops to the diffraction limit in modern tools that offer this tech.  But to your point, you wouldn't notice anything without those technologies until f/11 although the scientific number would be more like f/5.6.

So would this be the full frame version of the 90D sensor?

Neilyb wrote:So would this be the full frame version of the 90D sensor?

32.5 x 1.6 x 1.6 = 83.2 = YES!

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Neilyb wrote:So would this be the full frame version of the 90D sensor?

32.5 x 1.6 x 1.6 = 83.2 = YES!

I did not do the math but it sounded right. I do wonder, based on the fact their best ever sensor is only 30MP and their 50MP sensor was completely uselss, why they would do that? 

Neilyb wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Neilyb wrote:So would this be the full frame version of the 90D sensor?

32.5 x 1.6 x 1.6 = 83.2 = YES!

I did not do the math but it sounded right. I do wonder, based on the fact their best ever sensor is only 30MP and their 50MP sensor was completely uselss, why they would do that? 

Those sensors were based on the same process technology that Canon used in 2008.  This is a clear indication that they have finally launched a new generation of process technology.  If it catches up with some of the others then it likely will be better than their 50mp sensor.  It has become pretty clear that Canon shooters tend to not obsess about dynamic range as much as virtually all others so as long as they can continue to squeak out 10 stops of dynamic range (real world not engineering - see http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm and select the 5DSR) they will likely be OK.

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Neilyb wrote:

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Neilyb wrote:So would this be the full frame version of the 90D sensor?

32.5 x 1.6 x 1.6 = 83.2 = YES!

I did not do the math but it sounded right. I do wonder, based on the fact their best ever sensor is only 30MP and their 50MP sensor was completely uselss, why they would do that? 

Those sensors were based on the same process technology that Canon used in 2008.  This is a clear indication that they have finally launched a new generation of process technology.  If it catches up with some of the others then it likely will be better than their 50mp sensor.  It has become pretty clear that Canon shooters tend to not obsess about dynamic range as much as virtually all others so as long as they can continue to squeak out 10 stops of dynamic range (real world not engineering - see http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm and select the 5DSR) they will likely be OK.

Real dynamic range not Sony made up dynamic range (neither Canon or Nikon ever quote DR)

Let's see. 83MP is a hell of a leap from the current 30 (the 5DSr doesn't count, as you say 2008 tech)

No it's not made up, at least not all of it There are two different dynamic range measurements. The one that produces the high numbers is Engineering Dynamic range which is measured by the point at which the Signal to noise ratio hits 1 and the point where the sensor saturates. But at a S/N of 1 you have no differentiation between signal and noise. Useable dynamic range, which is what is on the photonstophotos site is the point at which the difference between noise and signal is actually visible. I can't recall off the top of my head what S/N value that is but it's significantly larger than 1.

That said, Sony is delusional with a claim of 15 stops of even Engineering Dynamic range using a 14 bit sensor...

E.J. Peiker wrote:

Wildflower-nut wrote:diffraction limited at F?

Deconvolution sharpening and AI have easily added two stops to the diffraction limit in modern tools that offer this tech.  But to your point, you wouldn't notice anything without those technologies until f/11 although the scientific number would be more like f/5.6.

The scientific number I think would be around 6-5.6.  I'll look into the software you are speaking of.  It is also nice to know there is some practical headroom to say f11.

I keep wondering at these mp levels whether I'm not better off going to a fuji med format for landscapes.  Looking forward to your review of the fuji 50 or 100mp for example.

The M6mkII RAW files on DPreview only go up to ISO1600 and they look, OKish. The ISO100 files allow some leaway with shadows too which is promising. Not saying I would like to shoot ISO3200 plus, but I expected more noise after altering the exposure.