Sony to announce new 100MP and 150MP medium format BSI sensors in 2018

[RobbieAB]

I would think that global shutters are a bit into the future, it is not feasible with the technology we have right now.

I vaguely recall, though I can not remember where I saw it, seeing claims that Canon had a global shutter working in a lab prototype.

Of course, this being semiconductors, lab prototype to commercial usage can be anything up to 10 to 15 years.

 

[jerome_m]

I vaguely recall, though I can not remember where I saw it, seeing claims that Canon had a global shutter working in a lab prototype.

Of course, this being semiconductors, lab prototype to commercial usage can be anything up to 10 to 15 years.

At Photokina, Canon presented a working 8K video camera. Although it was a prototype it sure looked like a commercial product.

Video cameras need a global electronic shutter.
8K video is between 33 and 44 MP.

 

[vjbelle]

Since the physical size of the sensor will remain (54X40) the size of the pixel has to decrease from the 100mp backs. Given my rough calculations the pixel pitch would be approximately 3.8 microns. This would be the first time to be less than 4 and would increase diffraction at smaller apertures. I shoot most to all of my Digitar lenses at either f10 or f11 and would be very concerned about diffraction. It would be a self defeating to throw away detail and I would want to test any new back at those apertures before committing to a purchase.

Victor

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Diffraction is a physical phenomena, only dependent of aperture. Weather you have 9 micron pixels or 1 micron pixels, diffraction will be the same.

But, the more you have the more you have to loose. A 3 micron device will always have a higher resolution than a 9 micron device. A 3 micron device will essentially always deliver superior image quality to a 9 micron device, if the sensor size is the same and the images are shown at the same size.

If you compare the images at actual pixels, the large pixel camera will win. But that is sort of plums to oranges comparison.

Going to extreme ISOs the larger pixels will offer more DR. To put it simply:

• High resolution photography, small pixels will be beneficial.
• High speed photography, large pixels may be beneficial.
• In between, small pixels will provide cleanest image, but may look awful at actual pixels.

Best regards
Erik

Since the physical size of the sensor will remain (54X40) the size of the pixel has to decrease from the 100mp backs. Given my rough calculations the pixel pitch would be approximately 3.8 microns. This would be the first time to be less than 4 and would increase diffraction at smaller apertures. I shoot most to all of my Digitar lenses at either f10 or f11 and would be very concerned about diffraction. It would be a self defeating to throw away detail and I would want to test any new back at those apertures before committing to a purchase.

Victor

 

[JimKasson]

To me this news was not that surprising, but definitely very exciting news! GFX and X1D are here to stay! BSI sensors are the next step of evolution for Bayer sensors. We are still a long way from organic sensors and front illuminated sensors are close to their max. potential in terms of how far can we take them. Perhaps with these new BSI sensors we also would be one step closer to having global shutters? And will this prompt Phase One to deliver a mirrorless camera in 2018-2019?

About global shutters: With the GFX, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. It has the slowest electronic shutter I've measured to date:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-50s-electronic-shutter-speed/

I see the biggest advantage of BSI in MF cameras in reducing CFA crosstalk and making symmetrical short lenses more useful.

Jim

 

[vjbelle]

Hi,

Diffraction is a physical phenomena, only dependent of aperture. Weather you have 9 micron pixels or 1 micron pixels, diffraction will be the same.

I agree, but the EFFECTS of diffraction would be very different. The smaller the pixel pitch the greater the effect of diffraction and its influence on sharpness at the same aperture. That's the point I'm trying to make. I stated that I use F10 or F11 and at a pixel pitch of 3.8 microns those apertures could be detrimental enough on sharpness to eliminate that particular digital back for my use - as compared to a 100mp digital back.

Please correct me if I am wrong regarding this.....

Victor

 

[hcubell]

About global shutters: With the GFX, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. It has the slowest electronic shutter I've measured to date:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/fujifilm-gfx-50s-electronic-shutter-speed/

I see the biggest advantage of BSI in MF cameras in reducing CFA crosstalk and making symmetrical short lenses more useful.

Jim

I don't really understand electronic shutters. What does that slow electronic shutter mean in practical terms for taking photographs? If the shutter speed is set at 1/125, is the camera not making the exposure for 1/125 of a second?

 

[JimKasson]

I don't really understand electronic shutters. What does that slow electronic shutter mean in practical terms for taking photographs? If the shutter speed is set at 1/125, is the camera not making the exposure for 1/125 of a second?

The pixels at the top of the frame will be exposed about 1/4 second below those at the bottom. If the scene is completely static, there is no difference from an image made with a mechanical FP shutter. If the scene is not static, unusual effects may result. Remember the cars with elliptical wheels from LF cameras around the beginning of the 20th century? That's an example.

If the transit time of the shutter is minutes rather than seconds, truly weird things happen:

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/more-slit-scan-experiments-horizontal-slits/

http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/more-synthetic-slit-scan-pictures/

Jim

 

[JimKasson]

I agree, but the EFFECTS of diffraction would be very different. The smaller the pixel pitch the greater the effect of diffraction and its influence on sharpness at the same aperture. That's the point I'm trying to make. I stated that I use F10 or F11 and at a pixel pitch of 3.8 microns those apertures could be detrimental enough on sharpness to eliminate that particular digital back for my use - as compared to a 100mp digital back.

Please correct me if I am wrong regarding this.....

Victor

For the same aspect ratio and pixel count, the effect of diffraction in same size prints varies proportionally to sensor size. Imagine a 33x44 mm sensor, and imagine the diffraction blur on the print at f/11. Now imagine a sensor of the same pixel count that's 16.5x22 mm with the f/11 lens. The print will have more diffraction blur. In order for the blur to be the same, the lens on the smaller sensor woulc have to be opened up to f/5.5. Call it f/5.6 -- two stops.

Now, as to whether this comes across at a particular sensor pixel count or not depends on the relative size of the diffraction blur and the pixel blur. Assume a 100% fill factor for the cameras. Then the equivalent blur circle for the sensor is about 1.1 times the pixel pitch. You can calculate the diffraction at your favorite wavelength. 550 or 555 nm is sort of standard. Then to get the blur with a diffraction-limited lens you'd take the diameter of the Airy disk (defined however you want -- half power point might be a good compromise), and the combined blur circle diameter will be near the square root of the sum of the squares of the two blur circles. If the pixel pitch is much finer than the diffraction blur circle, then what I said above is true. If the pixel pitch is much coarser than the diffraction blur circle, then diffraction doesn't matter. In between, you can use the above relationship.

Jim

 

[hcubell]

The pixels at the top of the frame will be exposed about 1/4 second below those at the bottom. If the scene is completely static, there is no difference from an image made with a mechanical FP shutter. If the scene is not static, unusual effects may result. Remember the cars with elliptical wheels from LF cameras around the beginning of the 20th century? That's an example.

If the transit time of the shutter is minutes rather than seconds, truly weird things happen:

More slit scan experiments — horizontal slits

More synthetic slit scan pictures

Jim

Would clouds, water and foliage likely to be a problem with a 1/4 second delay?
The GFX has EFCS, so why run the risk of these issues by using the electronic shutter?

 

[dchew]

Would clouds, water and foliage likely to be a problem with a 1/4 second delay?
The GFX has EFCS, so why run the risk of these issues by using the electronic shutter?

They really don't. Even on the IQ3100, which takes over a second to scan, I've seen no issue with leaves, water clouds or anything else "natural". I suppose a speeding elephant or grizzly would look odd, but in that case the image would be the least of my concerns.

Dave

 

[JimKasson]

Would clouds, water and foliage likely to be a problem with a 1/4 second delay?
The GFX has EFCS, so why run the risk of these issues by using the electronic shutter?

Clouds: almost certainly not.
Foliage on a windy day: possibly, but you'd have to look closely to see the distortions.
Water: specular highlights could look strange.

I'm guessing that this is not gonna be a problem for most landscape photographers. I've been using a Betterlight Super 6K for many years, which takes 30 seconds to several minutes to make a scan, and don't have to spend too much time retouching except for some subjects.

In answer to your last question, the only time I think you'd vastly prefer all-electronic shutter over EFCS is when acoustic noise is critical, or when doing time lapse work and making hundreds of thousands of exposures. I think this camera's all-electronic shutter will give anyone who tries to use it with fluorescent or line-frequency LED lighting fits. But that's true of the Sony a7x silent shutter, too.

Jim