On Thursday, 14 February 2019 09:45:31 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:25:20 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Theory goes back to film, less enlargement equals higher quality.

Yes, but even the best film has very low resolution compared with
modern electronic sensors. In essence, film as large "pixels", so you
need to use a larger frame in order to get a high "pixel count". This
sensor, however, has an inherently low pixel count. It cannot produce
a very high resolution image, which was the intent with large format
film cameras.

BUt I wonder what the low-light performance would be like with 75um pixels?

Low light performance comes down to how many photons you collect
(which is determined by aperture), and to S/N issues. Most modern
sensors already have high quantum efficiencies, meaning they record
most of the photons that hit them- there's not much room for
improvement there. And sensors have steadily reducing read noise
levels. So the most important thing just comes down to collecting more
photons, and a large sensor is useful for that. (It's also useful for
collecting more photons before it overflows, although that's less true
for CMOS devices than for CCDs. More photons means more dynamic range.
But as previously noted, this device doesn't seem to have much
different dynamic range than existing smaller sensors.)

Still can't really figure much a use case for this device.

Large sensors or small sensors, pixel size ultimately determines visible noise so a 35mm sensor with the same pixel size as an APS sensor is going to have the same visible noise level, only it will cover a larger area with a given focal length lens. This monster sensor has huge pixels, huge well-capacities and should produce less visible noise over a given area than anything else available today.