On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 11:40 -0500, Tony Nelson wrote: > For large(r) enlargements, a (large) low-noise sensor is more > important than more pixels, according to posts on another list I'm on. > See <http://db.tidbits.com/article/7860>. That can hold true, even for non-enlargement. Diverging from my interest in photography to my work in video production, I've never liked the shrinking of the image sensor. When things went down from 2/3 inch, to 1/2 inch, to 1/3 inch, we noticed increases in noise (physics is involved, and that article does describe it quite well and quickly), needing more light on the subject, reduction in image quality thanks to the image sensors simply not being miniaturised very well (they couldn't, or wouldn't, build them as well as they managed to build the larger ones), and the optics of smaller lenses are generally not as good as larger lenses (small aberrations in a small lens are proportionally a larger amount of that whole lens, so give worse distortions than a physically similar small aberration in a larger lens). -- (This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
