Dear Mike, On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 02:37:11PM -0500, Mike Johnston wrote: > P.S. I have to say that I'm totally NOT sold on the idea that a "full-size" > sensor (meaning 35mm size, 24mm x 36mm) is a good idea. I'm really not sure > it is. A smaller sensor size is really a great advantage: it means lenses > can be significantly smaller and lighter and significantly faster, and depth > of field can be greater for a given angle of view. All these are true > advantages. I suspect that 24 x 36mm sensors will prove to be an > evolutionary dead end in the long run. Right now we think we "want" this > because it conforms to the old standards. But once digital shakes free of > 35mm conventions, the smaller CCD size will seem like just one more natural > advantage of digital.
I am curious about your comment about increased DOF with a smaller format. I was always under the impression that we get more DOF with 35mm over MF because the typical print magnification is less. Am I missing something more subtle here? Yours sincrely, Frank. -- Francis Tang, Postgraduate Research Student. LFCS, Div. of Informatics, Uni. of Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK. Tel: +44 131 6505185. Fax: +44 131 6677209. Office: 1603, JCMB, KB. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/fhlt/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
