MF sensors always have been relatively poor in high ISO compared to FF/APS-C.
But then again, I don't think an MF Iso 800 pushprocessed to 1600/3200 would that bad. Simply there would be about no advantage against MF. In this case, better not to offer it, otherwise, people will moan. On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Joseph Tainter <[email protected]> wrote: >> "ISO1600 is quite high for the MF market, 3200 is extremely rare >> (available only on the PhaseOne P45+ and P65+, and then only at >> massively reduced resolutions due to the use of pixel binning to reach >> that high >> >> "-Adam)" >> >> ----- >> >> Why would this be? Shouldn't the pixels be pretty large compared to the >> sensors in top-end APS-C cameras? >> >> Joe > > That's 40MP on a 33x44 sensor. On a 16x24 sensor that would be around 10MP. > So the pixels are the same size as those in a K10D, and not much larger than > those in a (12MP) K-x or a (14MP) K-7. > > ----- > > Thanks, John. But why, then, didn't Pentax let the 645D go to ISO 3200? > > Earlier Kodak sensors apparently had poor image quality at high ISO > settings. I wonder if this one has the same problem. > > Alternatively, and this is what I suspect, ISO 3200 will become an "improved > feature" of the 645DII. Why shouldn't MF shooters have to buy a new camera > regularly like the rest of us? > > Joe > > -- > 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. > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille/Thibs ---------------------- Photo: K-7, Sigma 28/1.8 macro, FA50/1.4, DA40Ltd, K30/2.8, DA16-45, DA50-135, DA50-200, 360FGZ ... Laptop: Macbook 13" Unibody SnowLeo/Win7 Programing: Delphi 2009 -- 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.
