On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Savage wrote: >> >> 2008/10/21 Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> --- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> For long exposures (10+ minutes) & low light, high ISO >>>> shots the full frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ. >>>> >>>> For regular shooting in good light, not so much of a >>>> difference. >>>> >>> That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now >>> maybe, maybe not. >>> >> Possibly, but it doesn't help for the photos I'm taking now. > > It's physically inevitable that, given an equal number of pixels, a 24x36 > sensor will have larger pixels and hence lower noise than a 16x24 sensor. > Perhaps technology will lower all noise levels in the future to the point > where the difference is unimportant, but I expect we're past the point of > diminishing returns now and approaching the limits of physics: Noise, more > than absolute pixel count, is why full-frame is growing so fast. > > Here's an interesting observation, too: The 4/3 lens mount has the same > opening diameter as the Nikon F mount (44mm), so larger sensors *could* be > used in the 4/3 system in the future. They'd require a new line of lenses, > of course, but all the manufacturers (except Sony) are in that boat to one > degree or another. I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras > appear after the micro 4/3 gets established.
However the short register of 4/3rds restricts the mirror size. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- 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.
