You really don't understand much about the physics of light. You can't get something for nothing. But in a way that's besides the point. Something else you don't get about bigger is always better weather you're talking about film or some other sensor technology, bigger will be better. No matter what your starting point! Pentax has been selling their cameras on a better more film like and more natural representation in the captured image. What will they sell on now. We're smaller and cheaper. Didn't they try that before? Hasn't Olympus already staked that territory out with their new line of cameras, and don't they already have a built in advantage there? You seem to be impervious. A large amount of the Nikon D300's improved performance is due to improved anti noise algorithms. running on a faster more efficient processor. You don't get that improvement for nothing, my guess is that it costs you in real detail being replaced with some kind of phony detail If you don't care about how real the image is it won't matter very much to you as long as it looks good.
Adam Maas wrote: > P. J. Alling wrote: > >> The Nikon D300 of course first look on a magazine rack. I read the >> article on paper, in a book store, you remember paper don't you? >> > > Yeah, I remember paper. I read a few paper mags. I've yet to see one > that does equipment reviews even a tenth as good as the major > sites(DPReview et al)(heck, DPreviews D300 preview is far more extensive > and in-depth than any mag's final review will be). And determining this > from a 'first look' is bloody laughable, especially when it's at odds > with what the manufacturer is stating about the new sensor (improved > fill factor, more efficient microlenses) and the images posted online > (which are for the most part in-camera JPEG's and thus inherently > overprocessed with regards to noise reduction, but still show good > resolution). Review hardware isn't going to be in peoples hands for a > couple weeks (D300 ships in november), we'll see then if reality matches > the samples we have now. It has in the case of the 40D and A700, the > former matching its FF brethren(5D) for high ISO performance according > to reputable sources (like LL) > > > >> Look simple math, assuming the sensor sites have no spacing between them >> will tell you that the capture sites are too small already, to be as >> effective as they have to be. >> > > And there's your problem. You're assuming something that simply isn't > the case, in fact the major improvement in sensor design from the crop > of '05 to the new ones is that the spacing between sensor sites has > decreased in favour of larger actual sensor sites and smaller gaps. > Therefore the new sensors can capture more light per site at the same > resolution and sensor size. Instant potential improvement in noise > performance. > > > I'm not going to cite my sources, I'd have > >> to consult books I've currently got in storage. Rod Studdart did a >> masterful job of explaining this to the list a few years ago anyway. >> It's should be in the archives. It doubt I explain it as clearly. >> Telling me that they've re-designed the sensors to use more space for >> the individual sites only makes it worse. I've already been assuming >> they took all the space available. >> > > The space available has changed. Previous sensor manufacturing tech > required larger gaps between sensor sites, (fill factor). They've gotten > closer to the theoretical max. Once again, reality proves theory wrong, > because theory makes certain assumtions (like your assuming that fill > factor was theoretical maximum, rather than the actual lower number, > then mapping current performance on to an idealized theoretical model). > > More than likely, fill factor will incrementally improve in the future, > leading to more light-efficient sensors, microlens tech will also likely > improve. I doubt the current models are the best we're going to see,a nd > the new crop is already shaping up as a real improvement over the last > (Already quite good) generation. > > -Adam > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
