[OT] Digital camara

John Summerfield debian at herakles.homelinux.org
Tue Nov 6 23:42:57 UTC 2007

Tim wrote:
> 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).



-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice

Please do not reply off-list

More information about the users mailing list