Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com Tue Aug 29 10:37:23 EST 2006 > 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 [snipped for short] > 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. I was talking mainly about the origin of the APS sized sensor but wasn't really talking about the APS size vs. FF. However, I always preferred smaller, lighter and more compact cameras and believe APS sized sensor gave the camera makers an opportunity to design compact cameras (and lenses). But Oly's 4/3 was a disappointment. Today's APS sensor gives performance fairly compatible with 35mm film cameras (I know they still need to catch up on shadow details and dynamic ranges, the lack thereof and all that) and there is no question that the performance be further improved rather rapidly. It is already giving us the convenience of usable ISOs & WB etc in a single camera (so that we do not have to carry around different films or even bodies) for one thing. With everything else being equal (of course it may never be equal), the argument between APS size and FF size begin to centre around "bigger is better" just as happened in the film era (I am oversimplifying here of course) and the argument becomes endless. 4x5 > 67 > 645 >35 >APS and so forth. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it would be ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have something like 8mp but with better dynamic range etc. It is benign to the processing system (smaller file size) and kless susceptible to camera shake etc. Canon openly said that 10mp for the APS size sensor is probably the practical (not technical) limit, even though they were the one who hyped up the MP race. When they announced the 30D with 8mp sensor when everybody was expecting 10mp sensors, I was impressed by them so much that I was almost jumping to the dark side. But then, Canon must have other hidden reasons to promote the hype of FF sensors. For one thing, their lenses are too big. They cannot cherish the compact size, but are willing to justify bigger size on everything. Canons are good cameras and I am not bashing them, but they don't entice me for various reasons. Size and weight are not the only reason. Anyway, I side tracked.... Cheers, Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
