David Savage wrote:
2008/10/21 Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
--- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO
shots the full frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ.
For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a
difference.
That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe,
maybe not.
> Possibly, but it doesn't help for the photos I'm taking now.
It's physically inevitable that, given an equal number of pixels, a
24x36 sensor will have larger pixels and hence lower noise than a 16x24
sensor. Perhaps technology will lower all noise levels in the future to
the point where the difference is unimportant, but I expect we're past
the point of diminishing returns now and approaching the limits of
physics: Noise, more than absolute pixel count, is why full-frame is
growing so fast.
Here's an interesting observation, too: The 4/3 lens mount has the same
opening diameter as the Nikon F mount (44mm), so larger sensors *could*
be used in the 4/3 system in the future. They'd require a new line of
lenses, of course, but all the manufacturers (except Sony) are in that
boat to one degree or another. I wouldn't be surprised to see larger
sensor 4/3 cameras appear after the micro 4/3 gets established.
--
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.
