I sent this last night but didn't see it come through. So either it didn't
make it or no one gives a d**n what I write, or both. :)
Jens Bladt wrote:
FF was an issue as long as many consumers/photographers had very large
amounts of money invested in expensive glass for 35mm film. This segment is
getting smaller every day. No sane company will invest a lot in making new
camera systems for a 35mm sensor. Certainly not Pentax.
Hi Jens,
Respectfully, I don't think that segment is getting smaller. The number of
film users, yes. But not the number of people with large investments in
35mm glass.
I have thought since day 1 of DSLR's, that the APS form factor was largely a
short term tactic to get consumers to buy new lenses to go with those fancy
new DSLR's. Sell APS DSLR's in the short term and 'digital' glass to go
with them. When FF sensors get low enough in price, get all those new
customers to upgrade to FF and sell more FF lenses.
Obviously Canon thinks there are enough people in that segment, that they're
releasing a somewhat affordable FF body.
Tom C.
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 36mm x 36mm sensor?
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 07:49:52 -0400
"Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wrong answer.
>Sensores don't get bigger and bigger, I believe. They get smaller and
>smaller, better, faster, cheaper - and have more MP's - just like
everything
>else electronic. Today 15,7 X 23,5mm (APS size) seems to be a rather
large
>sensor. The 8 MP SONY sensor is only 8.8 x 6.6 mm - a 2/3" sensor. The
>Olympus E-1 is a 4/3" sensor system (5.7 MP) - using a 15-18mm sensor.
>There's many good things to be said about small sensors. Less glass
(weight
>and cost) is one of them. I guess the next generations of cameras will
have
>smaller sensors making larger image files. Small sensors are the future,
not
>ff.
Both theory and experience argue against this.
For equal pixel size, a larger sensor will always yield higher
resolution; or for equal pixel count a larger sensor will larger (lower
noise) pixels. And these factors are in addition to the greater
information gathering capability related directly to size itself.
Simple observation shows an inexorable trend toward larger sensors: The
first Kodak DSLR's had a 2.7 crop factor! Then came the 1.6 and 1.5 crop
factor cameras, followed by the 1.3 crop and 1:1 (full frame). Then came
medium format sensors. At first these cropped the image as well but now
full-frame 645-size sensors are available.
The *only* reason "crop factor" DSLR's ever existed was price. The new
Canon 5D is whittling away at this factor.
Of course, we know full-frame sensors will never be any less expensive
than the one in the 5D.... <g>
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
