Well, that advantage is also a huge disadvantage. The main reasons we haven't seen 35mm full-frame sensors is the small yield and the associated high costs of big sensors. Yes, yield does improve but a MF full-frame sensors still will remain expensive considering the little advantage over 35mm for most pratical purposes.
I think the main reasons we have scanning backs is because high resolution sensors where not possible in the past. Scanning backs are actually a pain in you know where. They require an absolute static object and therefore can't be used for portraits etc. Also you can't use strobes but you need flood lights and there goes the chocolate, ice-cream, flowers, etc of which you were just supposed to take a picture off. Scanning backs will become a speciallity as large format cameras these days. Just my opinion. BTW, are you saying that MF lenses are more suitable because their resolution is way lower then top off the line 35mm lenses? Robert > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Paul > > MedF has an advantage over 35: well capacity of the CCD. You can put > just as many pixels (or even more) but they are *bigger*. As you > probably don't want to cart liquid N2 or an peltier cooler and fridge > with you, the read out noise plus dark current is stuck at 20-30 > electrons/sec. Simular for the CMOS one. So to get the brightness > range you need a *HUGE* well capacity. This is why the scanning > MedF backs still hold their market. A MedF lens is a good match > for CCDs, as on top line 35 lenses you must reduce the resolution > to prevent aliasing. MedF lenses are about right for 2 pixels > per line, the limit. But larger one with a higher capacity. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
