Check the frame rate.  Do you think newspapers care more about how many
pixels are in the frame, or whether the photgrapher got the killer shot?

Price.

No - but it is a cunning plot.

Price.  Kodak did, and couldn't make a viable business of it.

Yes - they surely will.  They can get 50mp in a small sensor at the same
pixel density as a $300 point and shoot has now.

Yes, Canon already does. Nikon might too - but then again they might not.

Yes - Google "Mamiya ZD"

One problem manufacturers face is getting the data from the sensor
to the memory card. The D2H has compromised pixel count for speed.

The larger a sensor is the more expensive it is to make. This is not linear
however. For a given wafer size there will be imperfections These
imperfections are very small but make the sensor they appear on unusable.
For example, if you can fit 20 sensors on a wafer when manufacturing and
the wafer has 3 defects you still get 17 good sensors. If you can only fit
12 sensors on the wafer and get 3 defects you end up with only 9 sensors.
A higher failed percentage.

Hmm, not sure I explained that well.

-Mike

[]

Steve, my own feeling is that adequate quality can be had from a sensor
half the dimensions of the 35mm frame - so 18 x 13.5mm - and that might
allow a greater capability for a given size and weight, with a lower price
to boot.  However, not many professionals think this way.  With the large
investment in 35mm lenses, I don't see a larger sensor becoming the norm.

David

That's a good sign... means your thinking...

Depends on the final use... you don't need a big pixel count for press
photography, and you gain speed I guess... But that's an old, antique camera...

That's easy... sensors are one size, 35mm film is another... Right now, the
sensor is smaller than the film, so you have to crop the standard lens
projection.

I don't see this selling more lenses... it actually gives a benefit to the long
shooter... he could have less lenses!

I imagine there is some manufacturing reason to make sensors a certain size,
factoring materials price and other things...

Smaller is noisier... and full frame sensors are here in the bigger cameras...
who knows, they may make sensors larger to get more bits of range.

Why not?  You'll probably have an I-MAX sensor in 10 years!!

Film is a big consideration right now, everything equates to 35mm... but 20
years from now it will be like asking your kid if he has seen the 8-track of
Rare Earth around the house...

The D2h is made for photojournalists and 4 Mpx is plenty for
newprint.  The low pixel count allowed Nikon to design a camera
with a higher frame rate.  The D70, by comparison, is an all-round
camera made for the amateur market. Many amateurs seem to think that
megapixels is the only thing that matters in a digital camera, so
cameras made for that segment tend to emphasise megapixels.

The silicon wafer technique used to make sensor have a success
rate (known in the industry as "yield") that sinks to very low
levels if the chip becomes large.  This make large sensors
more expensive and more difficult to mass produce.

No, there are real technical and cost restrictions behind the
1.5x/1.6x crop.

Contax and Kodak did, and failed.  Canon has a professional full frame
camera that is quite successful, but the latest model (EOS 1Ds Mk II)
will cost you $8000 for the body alone.  At the end of this month
Canon will, if the rumour is true, announce the EOS 5D, a "prosumer"
full frame body with a price tag around $3500.  If the specs and price
are true, this will be a breakthrough for full frame.

Both.

With current wafer technology, it costs much less to increase pixel
count in a small sensor than to increase the sensor size, so we'll
continue to see increased pixel counts in cameras at the lower, and
mid-end of market - and even in some high end cameras made for certain
segments of the professional market, such as wildlife and sports.
(Many wildlife and sports photographers regard the "crop" as a free
teleconverter.)

But there is a demand for full frame.  The EOS 5D (if you beleve it
is real - I do) indicates that progress is being made with yield and
prices are coming down as a result.  Canon seems to be way ahead of
anyone else in this game at the moment.  Kodak has the technology, but
they can not match Canon's high-ISO noise levels, and as a result,
there are no takers.  Eventually, however, we will see full frame from
more manufacturers than Canon.  The most likely candidate is of course
Nikon, but maybe also Pentax and Sony-Konica-Minolta will enter
the full frame arena when full frame sensor technology becomes more
widely avialable.

These exists.  They are just not on display at Walmart or Costco.
The Phase One P25 digital back for Hasselblad et al is one
example. With a sensors that measures 48.9 x 36.7 mm, it sports a
1.1x crop compared to 645.  The price?  Well, if you have to ask,
you can't afford one - but for you: Special price is $29999.95.
Body and lens not included.)

The lower pixel count enables a higher frame rate, as well as lower
noise, because noise is directly related to pixel size.

It is expensive to fabricate full frame sensors, because the yield of
good sensors per wafer is very low. However yields tend to go up over
time, so this may enable lower cost full-frame cameras.

It depends. The pixel size is already too small on some of the smaller
sensors (D2x E300), so there will likely be progress to larger sensors,
maybe 1.2-1.3 if not full frame. There are rumors of a 12 megapixel full
frame model coming from Canon at a more reasonable price than their
top-of-the line 16.7 megapixel model. Canon is very concerned about
maintaining their reputation for the best low-noise/high-ISO
performance, so they probably will not try to increase the pixel count
on their 1.6x sensors unless their is some new breakthrough in
fabrication technology. Nikon has had a full-frame model in development
for a while, and the new Canon, if it is real, may force Nikon to
accellerate its release.

It's already happening.