Yes. But ultimately, eventually, it's sensor size, whether they're chemical
or electronic photon catchers, that determines maximum obtainable image
quality. Having a camera whose physical size is pefect for the hand and
can/could accommodate a full frame but has an APS sized sensor really feels
like a cheat to me and hat disgusts me.
Screw Nikon, Canon and the rest. There are limits to how efficient you can
make a sensor, any sensor. There is a reason, and or me, valid, why I will
NOT purchase a lens that will not fill a full frame - and that be 24x36mm or
there abouts.
When I get the time, I'll derive the maximum performance limits (but never
actually achievable) for both APS and full frame sensors.
Regards,
Bob...
--------------------------------------------------------
"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
-Jean Luc Godard
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bob Blakely wrote:
>>>From my point of view...
>>
>> Only so many photons are captured by a sensor element (pixel, if you
>> will)
>> of a given size and that to a certain efficiency. There is an upper
>> limit.
>> Further, everything that has a temperature generates noise in proportion
>> to
>> that temperature. There is a lower limit.
>>
>> The upper limit can only be expanded by increasing the element size to
>> capture more photons per element. Maintaining the effective resolution
>> then
>> means increasing the overall sensor size (to full frame?) The lower limit
>> can only be pushed further down by operating the sensor at a lower
>> temperature. Currently, the K10D shows noise beginning on the side where
>> most of the hotter the electronics is located. Red pixels light up first,
>> then green, then blue. Noise temperature can be further reduced by
>> active
>> cooling. I suspect that this is not likely to happen with digital cameras
>> any time soon, sensors for astrophotography and other scientific purposes
>> excepted. Everybody knows this, and ultimately the larger sensors will
>> prevail. When this happens, lenses with APS size image circles will
>> become
>> as useless, practically speaking, as 8 tracks.
>>
>> Have you noticed that the upper ISO limits for digital sensors and film
>> are
>> about the same, 1600 and sometimes 3200? Tere is a reason for this and
>> ultimately it is the physics of noise that produce thes limits.
>>
>> Noise power, N = k*T*B*Nf, where:
>>
>> k = Boltzmann's constant;
>> T = Absolute temperature;
>> B = Noise Bandwidth of the sensor or film;
>> Nf = Noise figure, a measure of sensor efficiency.
>>
>> Bottom line... there are rules and nature enforces them.
>>
>> So... where's my effecient full frame sensor?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bob...
>
> In the Nikon D3. Improvements in fill factor (reducing the wasted space
> between sensor sites) have significantly increased sensor performance by
> increasing the effective area of the sensor sites by a fair margin. The
> current crop oof 10/12MP APS-C sensors are capable of ISO6400 with
> quality superior to the old ones at 1600-3200, and can match a 5D at
> 1600-3200. The D3, which is unique in being a low-density sensor with
> the new sensor tech, is capable of natve ISO 6400 (the cropped bodies
> achieve it in Boost) and boost up to ISO 25,600. From the posted samples
> 6400 on the D3 looks as good as 1600 on the similar-density 5D did, with
> similar amounts of detail.
--
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.
