Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: film and scanning vs digital photography



Hmmm, 12 MP but in different sizes.  Consider the Nikon D2X(s) vs Canon 1D
mkII or 5D.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

Results may vary, of course.
Bob G


-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:47 PM
To: bobgeo@dgiinc.com
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

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:
>
>




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.