MF print magnification is less than 35mm, so that cant be the reason...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Tang [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 23 October 2001 14:15
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
>
>
> 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 .
-
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 .
