> As for the sensor size, I won't say it's a "holy grail". But it would > save a lot of my investment in lenses. It will never be possible to get > the same image quality from the same lenses when you don't use the full > frame. Smaller sensor sizes need more lens resolution than bigger sensors.
Most lenses around are not the limiting factor in the equation. Ignoring most photographers (who don't use tripods, lens hoods etc) for whom camera shake is limiting, film (or sensor) is the limiting factor. The new digital camera is most of the way there - half way to matching film for quality - but still useless for slides ;o) > Smaller sensors also need smaller focal lengths to get a real wide angle. > That's all that is to it. No magic or legends involved ;-) Larger sensors have EXACTLY the same "Focal Length Multiplication" factor as smaller sensors, all else being equal. What the small sensors lack is freedom of choice - manufacturing expediency chooses the crop for you. Now the big cameras are here the smaller one are toys. Expensive toys but toys all the same ;o) * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
