I think you need to strictly define "reach." Arthur Entlich wrote: > Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of > the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution > equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor > does provide a greater reach per resolution. Also, the camera is > smaller and likely lighter. > > > Art > > > gary wrote: > >> A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think about >> it, you could just crop a full size image to get more "reach." >> >> R. Jackson wrote: >> >> >>> On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among >>>> professional photographers working digitally today? >>>> >>>> >>> It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons. >>> I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the crop >>> factor gives their big white lenses a little more reach and the 1D >>> series has always had much higher frame rates and burst capabilities >>> than their full-frame 1Ds cousin. With Kodak and Contax out of the >>> market that's left Canon's 5D and 1Ds as the only FF cameras that I'm >>> aware of. Of course, Sony and Nikon may both have FF models waiting >>> in the wings, if current rumors are accurate. Personally, I wouldn't >>> mind shooting with a FF sensor, but the 1Ds is more expensive than >>> I'm willing to go and the 5D (which I considered) is saddled with a >>> body design and control layout from Canon's low-end cameras. If price >>> were no object I'd own a 1Ds, but in addition to being expensive it's >>> a real brick. It's about 3 1/2 pounds with no lens. An E-410 weighs >>> less than a pound. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
