Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Kent G. wrote: > >> I agree completely. Smaller chip size is often preferable because the same >> aspect ratio can be done with a smaller lighter lens. Whether anybody >> settles on 1.3x or 1.6x remains to be seen. > >Kents, >I know you're agreeing with ME here so for me to agree right back again is >getting a little ridiculous, but I just wanted to second this. I truly think >that the opportunity to standardize on a smaller chip size is one of the >great opportunities of the digital revolution, for the very reason you >mention--smaller, lighter, faster, cheaper lenses.
Just so we're clear on this: I don't think anyone should standardize on *any* one size CCD. The beauty is there's no need to. I won't buy a digital SLR until I can get one with a 24 x 36 CCD because I love my present wide angles too much. But there's room in the marketplace for smaller CCD cameras as *well* as full-frame. I'd consider a smaller CCD camera as a *second* digital body (when prices come down far enough) because of the advantages you mention. But it'd never be my first choice. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
