I'm a person that needs "reach", if you define reach as getting shots of
distance objects. Now generally a person who needs reach is using a
telephoto lens and possibly combined with a teleconverter. Such a setup
doesn't put out a lot of light, so the bigger pixels are certainly an
advantage. Also, I've been told that even if noise was not an issue, you
can't simply keep reducing the pixel pitch due to difficulties in lens
design. If anything, a 10um pitch would be optimal.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller
> using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF,
> you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced
> the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the
> smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage.
>
> Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as
> it first appears.
>
> Art
>
> gary wrote:
>
>> I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
>> spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
>>
>> Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of
>> the sensor to save space on the memory card.
>>
>> R. Jackson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Sure, but you "spend" pixels of your total sensor resolution to get
>>> there.
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think
>>>> about
>>>> it, you could just crop a full size image to get more "reach."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
