Please correct me if I'm wrong. IIRC, the smaller the coverage of a lens the greater the possible resolution. Remember the Disc cameras from Kodak? Fitted with a plastic moulded single element (aspheric?) lens capable of over 100 lppm. Also, Rodenstock and Schneider introduced "digital" lenses capable of considerably higher resolution than those designed to cover large format film.
This might be true, but the real problem with progressively shorter lenses and smaller sensors is something that doesn't scale, and that's the size of the physical aperture in the lens. The smaller that gets, the harder it is to control, and the more diffraction becomes a problem with sharpness loss. This is why a lot of video cameras are lacking on the wide end, and why neutral density filters for them are so saleable. There might be some salvation in technologies like LCD apertures, but the fact is the light rays will still be bent a bit.
The problem with fullframe sensors is technological... they can be made (as we've seen with the 1Ds) but production fallout is high because it is very difficult to make a semiconductor device of that size without defects, and fewer of the devices can fit on a wafer.
* **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
