Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 11:40 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
For large(r) enlargements, a (large) low-noise sensor is more
important than more pixels, according to posts on another list I'm on.
See <http://db.tidbits.com/article/7860>.
That can hold true, even for non-enlargement. Diverging from my
interest in photography to my work in video production, I've never liked
the shrinking of the image sensor. When things went down from 2/3 inch,
to 1/2 inch, to 1/3 inch, we noticed increases in noise (physics is
involved, and that article does describe it quite well and quickly),
needing more light on the subject, reduction in image quality thanks to
the image sensors simply not being miniaturised very well (they
couldn't, or wouldn't, build them as well as they managed to build the
larger ones), and the optics of smaller lenses are generally not as good
as larger lenses (small aberrations in a small lens are proportionally a
larger amount of that whole lens, so give worse distortions than a
physically similar small aberration in a larger lens).
Pretty much the same story in film. I have a Mamiya C330 TLR. It shoots
2.25" square negatives. The Canon SLR I have can't come close (but it's
lighter and cheaper to run).
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
