Kevin Waterson wrote:
I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for
35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for
most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can
make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor.
I think it was discussed a while back, but, at least within reason,
bigger is generally better when it comes to digital sensors just like
film. It's not just about the number of pixels you can fit in; perhaps
more importantly, a larger total size allows each sensor element (or
pixel if you like) to be larger given the same number of total pixels.
This gives better light sensitivity for each pixel, which translates to
less noise - or a better signal-to-noise ratio, really. And I believe
the element size also affects the depth-of-field. Others will have to
help me out here, but isn't the general rule that larger sensors allows
for more shallow DOF? (Which is something you sometimes want.)
Another simple point is that there are a lot of lenses designed for the
35mm format. Using just a section of it does does seem like a waste of
good glass. Also, as someone just pointed out in a different thread, the
question is not only how large a print you can make of the full image,
but also how much you can crop the image and still get a good print.
Another way of looking at this is that with the current cameras, a crop
with parameters that are forced upon you will be done already. Wouldn't
it be better to control it yourself?
But yes, in many ways smaller sensors are "good enough for most people".
Then again, so are P&S cameras with even smaller sensors. Or APS film.
Or, or...
- Toralf
