P. J. Alling wrote: > The Nikon D300 of course first look on a magazine rack. I read the > article on paper, in a book store, you remember paper don't you?
Yeah, I remember paper. I read a few paper mags. I've yet to see one that does equipment reviews even a tenth as good as the major sites(DPReview et al)(heck, DPreviews D300 preview is far more extensive and in-depth than any mag's final review will be). And determining this from a 'first look' is bloody laughable, especially when it's at odds with what the manufacturer is stating about the new sensor (improved fill factor, more efficient microlenses) and the images posted online (which are for the most part in-camera JPEG's and thus inherently overprocessed with regards to noise reduction, but still show good resolution). Review hardware isn't going to be in peoples hands for a couple weeks (D300 ships in november), we'll see then if reality matches the samples we have now. It has in the case of the 40D and A700, the former matching its FF brethren(5D) for high ISO performance according to reputable sources (like LL) > > Look simple math, assuming the sensor sites have no spacing between them > will tell you that the capture sites are too small already, to be as > effective as they have to be. And there's your problem. You're assuming something that simply isn't the case, in fact the major improvement in sensor design from the crop of '05 to the new ones is that the spacing between sensor sites has decreased in favour of larger actual sensor sites and smaller gaps. Therefore the new sensors can capture more light per site at the same resolution and sensor size. Instant potential improvement in noise performance. > I'm not going to cite my sources, I'd have > to consult books I've currently got in storage. Rod Studdart did a > masterful job of explaining this to the list a few years ago anyway. > It's should be in the archives. It doubt I explain it as clearly. > Telling me that they've re-designed the sensors to use more space for > the individual sites only makes it worse. I've already been assuming > they took all the space available. The space available has changed. Previous sensor manufacturing tech required larger gaps between sensor sites, (fill factor). They've gotten closer to the theoretical max. Once again, reality proves theory wrong, because theory makes certain assumtions (like your assuming that fill factor was theoretical maximum, rather than the actual lower number, then mapping current performance on to an idealized theoretical model). More than likely, fill factor will incrementally improve in the future, leading to more light-efficient sensors, microlens tech will also likely improve. I doubt the current models are the best we're going to see,a nd the new crop is already shaping up as a real improvement over the last (Already quite good) generation. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
