>We could have 100 MP full frame sensors - for both mirrorless and dSLR - with PDAF for under 2,000$
>This will never happen because all relevant camera manufacturers are extremely racist, xenophobic, backwards japs who refuse to use the immensely superior fab tech of non-japanese companies (Intel, TSMC, Samsung)
>We are literally on early 1990s era processing fab technology and it will never change just because Japs are fucking retards.
>>2775479
>thinking that more megapixels=better photo
>not knowing that they already have 100mp sensors but theyre shit
ya read these facts from the onion?
>>2775488
It's just crazy how bad the fab tech is for camera sensors
It's even more crazy with how expensive it is.
They're literally FIVE process shrinks behind everyone else as I understand.
We're on fucking 14nm in the rest of the world, cameras are on fucking 90nm.
>>2775491
Let me phrase this a way you understand, since you don't understand lithography.
14nm (Intel processors) is 5 stops better than 90nm (Camera Sensors)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 352 Image Height 450
>CANON USES 500 FUCKING NANOMETER
>NIKON IS ON 350
>>2775479
Does reducing feature size automatically increase image quality? Seems like you still have the same noise problems and need for pixels to be large? Or are you suggesting that some on sensor processing would make that all go away?
>>2775502
die shrinks are by definition always good
>>2775494
good luck making 14nm processors that are resistant to impact, heat, cold and whatnot.
>>2775524
smartphones are on like 22nm or something m8
>>2775494
>Let me phrase this a way you understand, since you don't understand lithography.
>14nm (Intel processors) is 5 stops better than 90nm (Camera Sensors)
Well done, anon, that almost triggered me.
>>2775505
That's not really an answer. With computers you can pack more transistors per square mm with die shrinks, but with sensors you're still going to keep the camera's sensor the same size. I'd agree generally, that die shrinks are good for cameras, but you have to have some mechanism for it being better. More processing on sensor? Better SNR? More surface area devoted to pixels?
>>2775559
one possibility - dramatically higher pixel density as a result of modern node fab - not for mindless MP but so you can intelligently use it - for instance more precisely discriminate color in a given area with far higher resolution due to a much more precise bayer filter)and perform all kinds of DSP giving you a final result and sample down to a reasonable, high SNR, high performance mega-pickle.
>>2775590
I'm not sure that the limiting factor for pixel density is the old fab.
Just as a quick back of the envelope calculation the dimensions of a pixel on the new EOS 5DS 50.6MP camera are about 4000x4000nm.
1/(sqrt(50,000,000)/(sqrt(24*36)))= 0.004156 = Pixel width in mm. Convert to nm (move decimal 6 places to the right) 4156nm pixel width.
Surely Kodak will save us from the Nip horde!
>>2775479
>We could have 100 MP full frame sensors - for both mirrorless and dSLR - with PDAF for under 2,000$
>>2775479
>This will never happen because all relevant camera manufacturers are extremely racist, xenophobic, backwards japs
I guess Mamiya Leaf is just full of a bunch of dumb kikes that can't see the market for such a thing, can they OP?
>>2775524
http://business.panasonic.com/toughbook/fully-rugged-laptop-toughbook-31.html
>>2775502
>Does reducing feature size automatically increase image quality?
It would lower power requirements due to smaller gates and therefor reduce circuit created noise inducing EMF, something Nikon's LBCAST was supposed to work around.
>>2775559
>Better SNR? More surface area devoted to pixels?
That too.
>>2775686
>gates
The important bits are analog so most of the benefits of small transistors are moot. Low power and low noise do not go hand in hand, for example you can buy "low power" (high impedance jfet) or "low noise" (low impedance bjt) opamps.
>>2775684
the processor isnt resistant, the case is, retard.
>>2775479
I thought that sensors where really good today, only held back by the lenses. A better sensor would make a better image but the weakest link is still the lenses.
This is my understanding. Don't know if it's correct.
>>2775479
samsung used 65nm copper for NX1 sensor, and sony uses similar for their new ones (BSI or copper for light advantage). only reasons they get such good low light performance.
14nm is more along the lines of 22nm+ for average of everything on the chip. only small parts of the gates are actually that small.
camera chip fab is already pretty advanced, as far as the leaders go. canon can go suck chode for using outdated shit and only getting 12EV of DR.
also if you look at processor tech from Intel, going from 32 to 14nm hasn't brought nearly as much improvement as once thought.
>>2775479
>We could have 100 MP full frame sensors - for both mirrorless and dSLR - with PDAF for under 2,000$
and you'll still be taking photos of coffee and your balls.
>>2775479
>all relevant camera manufacturers are extremely racist, xenophobic, backwards japs who refuse to use the immensely superior fab tech of non-japanese companies (Intel, TSMC, Samsung)
Erm, I think it's probably due to all relevant camera companies having very Japanese attitudes to QC and brand integrity.
For Canon, Nikon or Pentacks, it's never OK for a customer's camera to break.
There's no acceptable rate of attrition or warranty replacements.
That means actual R&D, field testing, etc, rather than computer simulations showing a predicted failure rate per thousand units fluctuating with humidity or impact cycles or processor load.
Filthy Koreans or white devils aren't as honourable, and can't be trusted with the hearts of their products.
But they can't even design lenses that can resolve a resolution that high
>>2775479
are you talking about canon 500nm?
>>2776633
>ignored D600 oily shutter blades
>D750 AF module flare
>D800 left side AF misalignment
>D810 thermal issues under long exposures
>200-500/5.6 AF locks if you zoom while actively autofocusing
>nikon shutting down service centers in multiple countries
>nikon service is kinda shit anyways
>even NPS generally doesn't bend over backwards to help out customers, would rather blame the customer and charge them money while holding on to equipment
I'm biting, and I'm biting hard
>>2775494
>14nm (Intel processors) is 5 stops better than 90nm (Camera Sensors)
and i thought there are no troll threads on /p/
>>2775479
>>2775494
>>2775496
Hello retards. Manufacturing for CPU logic isn't the same as manufacturing for CMOS.
Sony and Samsung are both using bleeding edge for CMOS.
>>2776683
I don't think they are trolling, they are just retards from /g/ who thinks they are experts because they know how to look up performance graphs and shop on newegg.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2776666
:^)
I think the hook went thru ur palate m8
Electrical engineer who develops FPGA here, logic and image sensors are wholly different technology. Like saying you can use fishing wire to make a quilt because it's thinner.
Logic silicon and fabrication is small because it's shifting bits and it needs to be both small to produce as little heat as possible and take up as little space as possible and process data quickly.
Image sensors are detectors! They don't do any processing, they need to be both large and durable because they are so large and also withstand large amounts of interference and shock and voltage, image sensors process a much higher amount of energy at once than a CPU does. Image sensors must also have pixel detectors in arrays, these arrays are polysilicon with a stack consisting of a DETECTOR and AMPLIFIER which are much higher energy than what you can find in a CPU. Just making the wiring and P/N transistors smaller isn't going to amplify the signal, in fact it will cause more noise with current technology or fry the pixel.
It's a different technology and it's ill informed to talk about CPU and CMOS Image sensors like they are interchangeable technology.
>/g/ on /p/
It was bad enough and you start talking about this shit. We need to rename /p/ from Photography to Camera technology
>>2776633
>Japanese attitude
>white devils
>honourable
Thank you for your input, Ken-sama
