I don't feel cheated, but... well maybe. Recall that we were expecting a FF DSLR camera from Pentax, first one out the door. OK, that's water under the bridge, but the technology existed then (albeit likely implemented incorrectly) for a FF DSLR. Four - five years later things have changed.
In my mind the reason for going less than FF was purely sales/marketing/profit driven. That's understandable, one must make a product to sell a product, sell a product to make a profit, make a profit to survive. Back to the main point. Since I seem to be getting excellent results from my non-digital-optimized lenses, I have no need or desire to buy an APS-sized lens when I fully expect Pentax to either produce a FF camera when the time comes, or throw in the towel if they don't. In either case, I'm not going to throw money away on a lens form factor I don't anticipate surviving, and if it does will likely be applicable to the bottom feeder cameras on the market. Tom C. >From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Yes. But ultimately, eventually, it's sensor size, whether they're chemical >or electronic photon catchers, that determines maximum obtainable image >quality. Having a camera whose physical size is pefect for the hand and >can/could accommodate a full frame but has an APS sized sensor really feels >like a cheat to me and hat disgusts me. > >Screw Nikon, Canon and the rest. There are limits to how efficient you can >make a sensor, any sensor. There is a reason, and or me, valid, why I will >NOT purchase a lens that will not fill a full frame - and that be 24x36mm >or >there abouts. > >When I get the time, I'll derive the maximum performance limits (but never >actually achievable) for both APS and full frame sensors. > >Regards, >Bob... >-------------------------------------------------------- >"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." > -Jean Luc Godard > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Bob Blakely wrote: > >>>From my point of view... > >> > >> Only so many photons are captured by a sensor element (pixel, if you > >> will) > >> of a given size and that to a certain efficiency. There is an upper > >> limit. > >> Further, everything that has a temperature generates noise in >proportion > >> to > >> that temperature. There is a lower limit. > >> > >> The upper limit can only be expanded by increasing the element size to > >> capture more photons per element. Maintaining the effective resolution > >> then > >> means increasing the overall sensor size (to full frame?) The lower >limit > >> can only be pushed further down by operating the sensor at a lower > >> temperature. Currently, the K10D shows noise beginning on the side >where > >> most of the hotter the electronics is located. Red pixels light up >first, > >> then green, then blue. Noise temperature can be further reduced by > >> active > >> cooling. I suspect that this is not likely to happen with digital >cameras > >> any time soon, sensors for astrophotography and other scientific >purposes > >> excepted. Everybody knows this, and ultimately the larger sensors will > >> prevail. When this happens, lenses with APS size image circles will > >> become > >> as useless, practically speaking, as 8 tracks. > >> > >> Have you noticed that the upper ISO limits for digital sensors and film > >> are > >> about the same, 1600 and sometimes 3200? Tere is a reason for this and > >> ultimately it is the physics of noise that produce thes limits. > >> > >> Noise power, N = k*T*B*Nf, where: > >> > >> k = Boltzmann's constant; > >> T = Absolute temperature; > >> B = Noise Bandwidth of the sensor or film; > >> Nf = Noise figure, a measure of sensor efficiency. > >> > >> Bottom line... there are rules and nature enforces them. > >> > >> So... where's my effecient full frame sensor? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Bob... > > > > In the Nikon D3. Improvements in fill factor (reducing the wasted space > > between sensor sites) have significantly increased sensor performance by > > increasing the effective area of the sensor sites by a fair margin. The > > current crop oof 10/12MP APS-C sensors are capable of ISO6400 with > > quality superior to the old ones at 1600-3200, and can match a 5D at > > 1600-3200. The D3, which is unique in being a low-density sensor with > > the new sensor tech, is capable of natve ISO 6400 (the cropped bodies > > achieve it in Boost) and boost up to ISO 25,600. From the posted samples > > 6400 on the D3 looks as good as 1600 on the similar-density 5D did, with > > similar amounts of detail. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
