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



I think you need to strictly define "reach."

Arthur Entlich wrote:
> 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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.