[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

["Arthur Entlich" <artistik@shaw.ca>]

Well, yes, but the resolution of the sensor is still the resolution of
the sensor, so unless the FF sensor has an increased resolution
equivalent to the difference in factor difference, the smaller sensor
does provide a greater reach per resolution.  Also, the camera is
smaller and likely lighter.


Art


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."
>
>R. Jackson wrote:
>
>
>>On Jul 10, 2007, at 6:23 AM, Berry Ives wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Does anyone know what is the market share of FF digital among
>>>professional photographers working digitally today?
>>>
>>>
>>It seems to me that most working pros are using the 1.3x crop Canons.
>>I see those more than just about anything else. Of course, the crop
>>factor gives their big white lenses a little more reach and the 1D
>>series has always had much higher frame rates and burst capabilities
>>than their full-frame 1Ds cousin. With Kodak and Contax out of the
>>market that's left Canon's 5D and 1Ds as the only FF cameras that I'm
>>aware of. Of course, Sony and Nikon may both have FF models waiting
>>in the wings, if current rumors are accurate. Personally, I wouldn't
>>mind shooting with a FF sensor, but the 1Ds is more expensive than
>>I'm willing to go and the 5D (which I considered) is saddled with a
>>body design and control layout from Canon's low-end cameras. If price
>>were no object I'd own a 1Ds, but in addition to being expensive it's
>>a real brick. It's about 3 1/2 pounds with no lens. An E-410 weighs
>>less than a pound.
>>
>>-Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

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