[OT] Digital camara
debian at herakles.homelinux.org
Tue Nov 6 23:42:57 UTC 2007
> 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).
Pretty much the same story in film. I have a Mamiya C330 TLR. It shoots
2.25" square negatives. The Canon SLR I have can't come close (but it's
lighter and cheaper to run).
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
Please do not reply off-list
More information about the users