Mike wrote... <snip>
> 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. > <snip> That was, in part, where I was coming from with my earlier ignorant post. The only real reason for wanting a full frame CCD is so that the resulting image size matches 1-to-1 with film (and as explained to me, that lenses render the image the same as film with the same focal length lenses). When we get down to it, it's not the size of the 35mm frame that renders a high quality photo or not (stating the obvious... sorry). It's the overall quality of the lenses and recording device, regardless of the dimensions of the frame size. Certainly a CCD of higher density is overall more important than it's dimensions. I can certainly understand the desirability of a digital body that performs like it's 35mm counterpart using the same lenses. In the end though, the resulting image matters more than anything else. When I pick up a digital camera, I'm not paying attention to focal length really. I'm paying attention to what I see in the viewfinder. Tom C. - 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 .
