Alfred Tay <alfred_tay@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > BUTTTTTTTTTT... think of the implications when we can change CCDs or > CMOS into full frames... Frankly... using the smaller CCDs is akin to > using APS film why go to smaller formats when the larger ones are less > prone to noise issues... have larger gamut & dynamic range... > > I would say leave things as it is... and built cameras with the > mirrors cause REALTIME image viewing via mirror has INFINITE > resolution as compared to the electronic viewfinder and less prone to > resolution constraints... NOTHING can beat the speed and image > rendition of the mirror viewfinder... Right now the video readout isn't in the good sensors, and it takes up space needed for bigger pixel wells, so the technology isn't ready to give up optical viewfinders yet. For me, doing lots of low-light shooting, I can see the scene much better on an LCD preview than through an optical viewfinder (based on experience with P&S digital). > what we need to do is to HAVE interchangable CCD backs... so we can > upgrade the backs and not have the change the grip and mirrors > etc... have things in modular form... so one day i can use a 2mega > back and then the next day use a 12 mega back while ceterius paribus It'd be nice. I want the B&W back of course too -- higher res, higher sensitivity, through removing the color filters. > FRANKLY.. having a all in one lens is a bad idea... there is a WHOLE > RANGE of problems optics designers will have to deal with and optical > resolution will be BAD~~~ if all in one is good... then the tower of > babel would not have been struck down... Small-format movies, 8mm and 16mm, and video, do pretty well with all-in-one lenses. Even if they *are* interchangeable, they rarely are. That's because the lenses you can make for small formats are far, far more flexible than ones that need to cover bigger frames. In super 8, a common lens on consumer cameras was a 10:1 zoom lens, f1.4, with macro focus down to the front element. > and... taking more pics does not mean better images... just a WHOLE > lot of clutter... image all the diskspace you will need with 24fps > shots... one might as well shoot video and dismiss photography all > together... To get better images, you generally need to take more pics. Just raw blasting away, no. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
