--- Marius Sundbakken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I think it's inevitable that cameras will get > smaller as digital > >technology improves. And one of the camera > manufacturers (perhaps Canon) > >will introduce a small digital SLR that takes much > smaller lenses. I can't > >imagine that we will forever be using digital > cameras with EOS D60-sized > >sensors. Nor can I imagine that sensors on Canon's > consumer cameras, if > >they ever reach 24x36, will forever remain that > way. > > > >If I could buy the equivalent (in focal length, > allowing for the smaller > >sensor, and in optical quality) of a 600mm f/4 lens > (or longer) that would > >be light and easy to carry on a hike, I'd be very > interested in buying > >one, and I'd jump ship in a heartbeat to whichever > manufacturer made it, > >if the price were right. When digital sensors > achieve very high > >resolutions (not yet, but relatively soon), this > will be possible. > > Not knowing a whole lot about optics, I'd say you're > probably right, but I > can imagine there is one problem with smaller > sensors: You need higher > resolution lenses and you get to a point, probably, > where the physical > limitations of glass is going to stop you or glass > with higher resolution > is going to be too expensive to use. Also, I'm sure > higher resolution > lenses in general will be more expensive to produce > because of the > increased precision they will need. That's what I'm > speculating about > anyway. If I understand right, the resolution of > medium and large format > lenses is less than those for small format, but > large format still gives > superior results because the lack of resolution in > the lens is compensated > for by a larger exposure area. > > > -- > - Marius
Every technology has its own set of obstacles to overcome for increased performance. Some of the previous comments had to do with the noise level current sensors and the optical precision of the lenses needed to provide a good image on a small sensor. If there is a market, the technology will follow. In 1990, a 486 processor had (I believe) just under one million transistors and ran at 66mhz. Twelve years later with the P-4, we are at 20-30 million transistors at speeds of 3+ ghz on almost the same size die. John __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
