--- Bob Talbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I suspect that today the old arguments (justifying
> the size of the
> premium) have weakened a bit. I suspect there are
> other reasons for
> not wanting to supply bigger sensors (yet) to the
> general market.
Maybe, but size still = $$ in chips, for tow reasons.
The larger the die, the fewer you get out of one
wafer. And the larger the die, the greater the
percentage of chips that will be rendered useless by
flaws in the silicon.
> > Frankly, I think the sensor and image processing
> in
> > the 20D is already more than good enough for
> almost
> > all photo-journalism work.
> You might be right, but don't I remember people
> saying that about the
> 10D, and the D60 and the D30 ...
Yeah, but so what? We judge performance based on
what's available today, not a few years ago.
>
> If things are / were so perfect then progress, other
> than AF/frame
> speed can stop, no?
I never said perfect, I said "good enough." MF film
produces better quality than 35mm, and 4x5 is better
than that. But 35mm is "good enough" for 99% of photo
journalism. A FF sensor is "better" than an APS-C
sensor (maybe), but that doesn't mean APS-C isn't good
enough. Frankly, I think the 20D is already better,
in most respects, than 35mm film.
>
> The D20 is fantastic for sure . but would an
> equivalent with a larger
> but equally high resolution sensor not be "better"?
>
Perhaps. It depends on how you define better. If all
else were the same, a FF sensor would require a larger
body, which translates into heavier. Cost would be
higher. There are trade-offs.
>
> They won't sell an affordable FF sensor until
> 1) the market is saturated with 1.6 ones
> 2) a competitor releases an affordabe FF (don't hold
> your breath, none
> of them want to kill the goose that laid the golden
> egg of new-mount
> lens sales just yet ;o)
I still think you underestimate the real cost
difference in large vs. small chips. There's a reason
chip makers have spent billions over the years to
shrink die sizes. Cost isn't the only reason, but it's
an important one.
> If they had released an affordable D1s (say for
> $2000) .... what of
> sales of EF-S lenses then?
IF they did that, then I imagine EF-S lenses would
still sell quite well. I don't have exact numbers,
but I bet Canon sells more DRebels than all other
digital bodies combined.
If given a choice of the following, at the same price:
1) APS-C sensor in a body with the features of the 1D
MkII, or
2) FF sensor in a body with the features of the 20D,
which would you choose? For my purposes, I think I'd
rather have choice 1.
=====
Bob Meyer
I don't suffer from insanity... I enjoy every minute of it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
