On Aug 29, 2006, at 7:43 AM, K.Takeshita wrote: > ... But above part is only my guess but should not be too far from > the truth. > The only thing I thought I knew was that the APS-H size sensor was > derived > from the stepper driven limitations, but NOT by its optimum > performance as a > product etc, as some people pointed it out recently. I too thought > that the > APS sensor size was based on the performance-driven considerations > but when > I read the article (which I am still searching), I remember I was > struck to > find out that it was actually hardware-driven size. > ...
From my experience with engineering teams working a new product that utilized components like this, the availability of components at a favorable price often places a very high priority on their usage BUT this simple common-sense is not invariably adhered to if there are good engineering reasons to do otherwise. If such a priority is *also* deemed to produce a good engineering solution to a general problem, then there is no reason not to do so. While there were other chip format choices that would fit within the price point, none as big as a 35mm film format that performed well enough were available and they were/are very expensive. This dovetailed nicely with the fact that the lens lines not designed for a digital sensor don't perform as well on larger sensors as they do on smaller sensors. Which came first ... the issues on imaging quality vs the cost advantage ... is irrelevant, really, in the greater scheme of things. Both were considerations. Obviously, since Pentax ran the failed MZ-D project, the incentives to use a 35mm-sized sensor was great to support the use of the existing lens line without change: this would have been the ideal situation. It is also the case that many projects fail for a larger number of reasons than the simplistic report that the public later sums up the failure as being result of. Since we weren't on the project team, we likely do not know all the issues they ran into that caused the MZ-D project failure although some of the highlights are easily understood to be sensor performance, availability and cost. The 16x24 format choice then became a matter of "what is available, at what price, and how well will what we have work with it" to which I can only surmise that it was deemed acceptable and sensible, and likely going to live for a long time to come given that the company's line of lenses is being shifted to support the new format. I, personally, prefer the 16x24 format as it promotes smaller, lighter lenses that produce the field of view range that I use the most, and I have seen no difficulties with performance for my needs as yet. Others' needs and uses that differ want something different, and there are choices available on the market that suit such differences, just as there were 35mm and medium format cameras in the past. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
