Tom, Similar to my thinking in another thread. I think Max Excursion in SR is 2-3 pixels on a 3000+ pixel sensor. No big deal... Regards, Bob S.
On 12/21/06, Tom Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, they wouldn't have to go quite full-frame to get major > improvements in IQ and still have enough leeway for SR excursion for the > sensor, right? > > How about, say, a 9/10-size sensor with x1.1 crop factor? Just what is > max X/Y excursion of the sensor with SR engaged, anyway? > > Tom > in SC > > > Mark Roberts wrote: > > David Savage wrote: > > > > > >> The main argument at the moment is SR, as it is in the K100/10D, > >> wouldn't work. Supposedly current full frame Pentax lenses projected > >> image circle wouldn't be large enough to cover the moving sensor. > >> > >> As some people think that SR is more useful than a FF sensor, that's > >> their reason for thinking Pentax FF is a pipe dream. > >> > >> Time will tell. > >> > > > > Pretty accurate summation. > > My feeling is that Pentax simply won't have any choice in the matter: > > The demand for higher pixel counts and low noise will continue and it > > will force sensor size increases. The marketplace will make the > > decision for them. > > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
