« 'We Make Money Not Art' | Main | On the Road Again »

Tuesday, 07 October 2014

Comments

Mike said: "I'd love it if someone would compare the latest 1" sensors with the six-megapixel APS-C sensors of 10 years ago. I suspect that in most ways, the 1" sensors of today would win."

That's what DxOmark does.

For example, the Sony RX100 bests or matches the Nikon D40 (introduced in Nov 2006 or 8 years ago) in almost all measures. The (much maligned) Nikon 1 V1 comes close.

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III-versus-Nikon-1-V1-versus-Nikon-D40___957_745_229

Tip: click on the Measurements tab and look at the details.

The "Low Light" score if for a super-quality image (with multiple caveats that work against smaller sensors). The newer, smaller sensors will give you a better "good enough" image at ISO 1600 and up.

The Tonal Range score is underused (but a favorite of mine): how many bits-worth of greyscale can you get from the sensors at different ISOs? You'll see a sample image if you put the cursor in the green/red bar on the right side. Above 7bits is quite smooth. 6 bits is getting "gritty".

The smaller sensors smaller pixels have better dynamic range especially at higher ISO. Even the V1 beats the D40 above ISO 800.

You can try the same thing with the Nikon D70 (a "semi-pro" camera from 10 years ago) which is bettered by the Sony and the Nikon 1 is close.

So if the D70 and D40 were good enough for a lot of people a decade ago then ...

What's an 'enthusiast camera?'

Further yet what is an 'enthusiast?'

I went with the APS-C sensor because that is this enthusiast is currently using (Fujifilm X series). Ctein said in an interview on Luminous Landscape that the difference between APS-C & Micro 4/3 was a quibble. I suspect he is correct. Is there a correct answer? My friend who is also an enthusiast prefers the Canon 5D MkIII, so who is right? It was indeed an odd question

I'll do a different sensor size comparison. I can make 15x20" prints from M-4/3s captures that are superior in all parameters except ability to handle subject brightness range, to similar pictures I made in the 80s with a Hasselblad loaded with the state of the art color negative films of the time. If subject brightness range isn't an issue, the winner is clear.

I don't have any systematic data, but I will say that I get pictures out of my iPhone 5/6 that are certainly comparable to, and sometimes better than, what my old D200 did in 2007. And not just in good light either. Even in marginal and dim light.

The iPhone will lose in the resolving the finest detail, and obvious NR artifacts.

The m4/3rds is certainly better than the D200 was, and is competitive with later APS bodies and event he D700 under the right conditions.

Almost... all but for high ISO!

Pak

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-Cyber-shot-DSC-RX100-III-versus-Konica-Minolta-DYNAX-7D___957_215

Size is increasingly meaningless for most applications. Interestingly, if you look at the high ISO performance of the iPhone, it is better than the APS-C size chip in the Canon 20D of just a few years ago: http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2012/12/the-iphone-as-camera-where-to-now/

Where it really matters is the quality of out of focus bokeh and even that is potentially adjustable in optics or in software when captured or in post.

My answer would be whatever size is in the Canon S120 (but I could probably pick a similar good compact camera). I can get pretty enthusiastic about picture making with that camera (which happens to be my wife's).
If you're talking about a camera enthusiast (opposed to a photography enthusiast), I'd also go with 4/3 - I love my micro 4/3 cameras. Doesn't mean I take any better pictures, though.

I have an affinity to 1" sensor cameras, as I found the files from the Sony 20 mp sensor to be good enough to do considerable amount of processing unpenalized (for web display, not printing). I would think that even something as small as that could make for a satisfying enthusiast system, pushing the bound lower than 4/3s.

This systems with 1" sensors leave much to be desired though - and if we think of enthusiasts as photographers who want to have control to experiment within various genres rather than just point-and-shoot, most 1" systems are straight up disappointing - the lenses are fixed, and do not seem to have distortion and aberrations under control. Nikon 1 system is possibly the only (pricy) exception ...

Okay---we now all want to know WHY? (about the Mamiya trade).

Mike,

My first DSLR was the KM 7D and I current have a Sony RX100. DXOMark's comparison of the two is interesting. It claims the 7D was a bit less noisy through a measured ISO 1600 or so. I find high ISO images from the RX100 more pleasing, but I note that the 7D had nominal ISOs that were pretty accurate - 1600 was 1600, so that may explain some of it. I found 1600 to be my upper limit on the 7D; 3200 was only usable for b/w, and even then, the contrast was lousy. OTOH, I'll shoot ISO 6400 on the RX100. DXOMark rates the RX100 better for dynamic range. I notice it more at higher ISOs. Their chart claims the RX100 has higher color response at base ISO, while the 7D did better at high ISOs. That's one thing I did notice; loads of color in high ISO images from that 7D and I could reduce noise by dropping saturation and getting a more natural looking photo.

Anyway, aside from the inability to get very shallow DOF when I want, I'd rather the RX100's sensor than the 7Ds.

Here's an ISO 6400 shot I took of my daughter from the back seat of the car at dusk - I typically shoot it in S mode in low light to get the shutter speed I want (the algorithm defaults to opening up the aperture all the way, which is typically fine) and use Auto ISO to get to where the meter says I need to be. So I think I was probably at about 1/125s.

http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com/Other/RX100-Samples/i-bK3r9cp/0/O/DSC01777.jpg

- Dennis

Having used my wife's Nikon 1, 1" is good enough I think

I think it's an interesting question and a measure (albeit indirect and subjective) of how much digital sensor technology has improved in the last few years. My vote is actually for a 1" sensor based on first-hand knowledge of what the RX100 III can do. At low ISOs, noise control and dynamic range compare favorably to cameras with larger sensors, and resolution (from the lens and 20MP sensor combination) is more than enough and allows me to get good 24"x36" prints. As an enthusiast, I am not sure what more I could ask for especially considering the size. Some folks may want to have better DoF control than what a 1" sensor can provide but, for the type of photography I like to do, I am finding that narrow DoF is becoming less and less important. Not that long ago, by the way, my answer would have been absolutely no smaller than APS-C.

Sorry -- the smart money is with the Mamiya 6, it collapses, which makes it much, much smaller to transport, and square is significantly cooler, which is important when shooting photographs with the alternative process known as "film"...

I'm with you, Mike. Micro 4/3 is really the lower limit for me, at least among my current flock of cameras. I stopped buying cameras about three years ago and will shoot the ones I have until something gives up the ghost; Olympus EP-2, Fuji X-Pro 1, Nikon D3, Leica M9, Nex 5, the Ricoh with the Leica M module (blanking on the alphabet soup . . .) - These are more than sufficient. I even went and repurchased a Canon Digital Rebel for my kids to use (and so they stay away from my toys). I have all my bases covered. When something breaks, I will look around and see whether an upgrade makes sense, or whether purchasing a replacement on the used market is the way to go.

Wow, does that ever seem like the wrong question. For one thing, it's a moving target. For another, size doesn't map directly to any aspect of performance except depth of field. I might be tempted to say 4/3 myself, but as I recall, a certain single-named bearded guru who sometimes frequents these here parts did a lot of professional (not enthusiast) grade work with a 2008-vintage 2/3" sensor...

From a purely emotional standpoint, 4/3 is the smallest I would feel comfortable with. This has no basis in rational thought, which is why I know that my mind won't be changed any time soon.

Your modern 1" sensor vs. old 6MP APS-C comment reminded me of this Honda Odyssey minivan vs. 60's era sports car comparison test:

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-revenge/

Yes, the Odyssey beat an old Porsche and Jag in a timed autocross.

Enthusiast sensor size? For me, it could be 1". I think I'd enjoy a Sony RX100 as my sole "enthusiast" camera -- it has all of the control options and image quality that I want. I'm pretty much an APS-C shooter though ... maybe full-frame one day so that I can use my old lenses at their native focal length, no crop factor. I'm waiting for the <$1000 full-frame body. One day!

While I understand that large sensors are better than small sensors, it is a bit of a trade-off in terms of size, weight, cost, ease of lens design, depth of field (depending if you want shallow or deep),
sharpest lens aperture, etc. etc. Sensor size is now the obsession. Previously it was megapixels (some ached for less, some ached for more). Personally I don't care how big the sensor is provided the camera performs adequately and I like the ergonomics. Camera gear heads intone technical specs of camera bodies and lenses a bit like the Top Gear presenters reciting obscure or extreme car suspension characteristics - interesting if you like that kind of thing, makes you feel part of a group in a pub, but not always relevant to day-to-day experience.

The answer really depends on what kind of enthusiast you're aiming at.

For instance, the only small sensor cameras that I've been enthused about are the Nokia Lumia 1020 and the Fuji X100. Thankfully for my wallet, Windows killed my enthusiasm for the Nokia and lack of IS and dodgy autofocus killed my enthusiasm for the the Fuji.

I have zero interest in compact cameras, especially the absurdly expensive high end ones that get labeled "enthusiast". They're boring, expensive, and completely unsuited for everything I like to shoot.

Definitely 4/3 for me. The sensors are good enough and I can do ISO 3200 comfortably and print to 8x10s or even 16x20s with very careful work.

Mike, currently traveling with my Olympus OMD EM 1, several primes and the 12-40 f 2.8 lens. I am getting some terrific images in all kinds of light. The more I use the camera the more I love it. The whole kit weights less than 5 pounds, a consideration given that I am an old guy now. My "big iron" D800 is resting quietly in my closet.

Sensor size never means the number of pixels, and it's clear from dpreview's poll they too mean the physical dimensions of the chip, because they list 6 sensor sizes plus "none" as the choices.

I don't think the person in the street makes this mistake either. No television salesman every tried to tell me the 32" 1920x1080 screen was bigger than the 40" 768 pixel one. Quite the opposite. And I've never heard that Nokia phone with the 41Mpx camera described as having a "large sensor".

Did your Mamiya ever become a smaller format because you switched from Velvia to Ektachrome?

I think a camera can have a smaller sensor than the 4/3 format. For me, 1" is the limit. There are models with such a sensor today that can be called an enthusiast camer. eg. Sony RX10.

Woo-- why 7 to 6?? Don't have one, but lusted after a 7 with 43mm lens ten years ago. Challenge of square format? Interested in thought process.

P.S. support your idea of 4/3 being "enough" Loving my change from Canon 7D to Oly E-M1 with three primes and FABULOUS 12-40. Saving madly for the outrageously wonderful 75mm 1.8. Borrowed one and fell deeply in love.

As big as you're happy to always carry it around.

The smallest sensor cameras I have are a Medion fixed focus compact which is rather poor but has its charms, an old Canon Ixus which is probably about as good as a more modern smartphone and a Panasonic LX5.

Of those small chip cameras I'd say that the LX5 is the best and gives adequate image quality at low ISO. It lacks dynamic range and higher ISO ability but if these things could be improved I'd say that it would make a good enthusiast camera for many people as it can (IMVHO) give good images for on screen viewing and even for quite large prints when viewed normally. Whatever "normally" is for you may change your views but for me it's ok.

So, my answer is whatever size sensor is fitted to the LX5 if the rest of the package and controls etc make it an enthusiasts camera.

However, the lack of a VF spoils it for me as I don't like shooting with just the back screen but that's a different argument to sensor size.

I would consider my J1 on a par with my D50, but I don't think either could be called recent.

I did a comparison of a 1" sensor in a pocket camera and a full-frame sensor with a Zeiss Otus 85mm. (Warning, it's meant to be a bit of fun, but still the results are interesting.) You can check it out here http://randolphimages.com/otus/

I'm with you on M4/3rds, but I have to say, I've seen things out of the 'larger' sensors in 'pocket' cameras now that would be usable in any magazine at a page or less. I'm looking forward to the introduction of the Lumix LX8, with it's lens range up to a 90mm equivalent (perfect lens range eqiv. is 24-28 ish to 85-90 ish, none of these crazy superzooms please), to buy and test, and I'd be willing to bet that I could use it to shoot a lot of magazine assignments that don't need to be a double page spread (or maybe even!).

The thing with sensor size and image usage is more acute than in the world of film. As some one said on here before, M4/3rds has basically replaced 35mm film (in the sense that if you were happy with the quality level of 35mm film, then M 4/3rd's easily replaces that). On the other hand, it takes a large sensor $50,000 camera to even approach what people were doing with the best of 120 and 4X5 (let's not even speak of 8X10!). That's what keeps me out of the pixel/sensor size race: the realization that once you've hit 24 megapixels and APS-C, everything else is, especially for reproduction in a print vehicle or on line, just incremental improvements. The best of the 50 and 80 megapixel large sensor capture can certainly complete somewhat with 120 and 4X5, but why bother when it's actually cheaper and easier to shoot film (well, if you have a processor near by...).

My Sony RX100 definitely has better image quality than the 6mp sensor in my old nikon D50. Also better than my Panasonic GF1 4/3rds sensor. Hard to say with the Panasonic G3.

I tend to think of sensor size and lens opening together. I like to have a lens that is at least one stop wider than the "optimum" stop diffraction-wise. For "full frame", the optimum stop seems to be around f/8, so I would like a lens that stays at least at f/5.6.

The problem comes as the sensor gets smaller. At 4/3, which I shoot, I want a lens that is at least f/2.8, because the optimum stop for 4/3 is at f/4 (lens factor of 2). That lets out all the kit zooms.

At 1", the optimum stop works out to around f/2.8, so I would really want an f/2 lens. I don't think there are any 1" cameras whose lenses stay at least as wide as f/2 over their whole range. So I would have to say my current vote is for 4/3.

I use µ4/3, and the pleasure of its performance makes my answer "either 1" or µ4/3".

Re: new 1" versus 6 megapixel APS-C.

My Nikon 1 V1 has a sensor that is not quite good enough for an enthusiast camera. My old Pentax K100 was great.

I understand that it's a matter of expectations. Back when I had a K100, it was a few generations behind, like my Nikon 1 now. It's not quite a direct comparison, but like people speak of the old Canon 5D files had snap, that old Pentax had snap. The Nikon V1 files are flat, and I find that I have almost no room to adjust curves in Photoshop.

I loved that camera, and the Nikon 1 leaves me lukewarm. What makes me hesitate about going back has everything to do with convenience. That camera took AA batteries (awful), autofocus was noisy and not too fast, and it's a small-ish DSLR, which is much too bulky.

I still resent proprietary batteries rather than AAs in all my cameras, personally. I bought the battery grip for my last two Nikon's largely to enable me to use AAs. And one issue driving my phone upgrade choice is how user-replaceable the battery is; the one with the better camera, of course, has an integral battery with more capacity than the replaceable battery in the other choice (because the universe hates me).

I'm with Thor on this (see above), at least until someone comes out with a small sensor camera with amazing dynamic range, tonal depth and computer enhanced, believable background blurring (perhaps even mimicking the bokeh and contrast of classic lenses). I would not be surprised to see such a camera within fifteen years.

Maybe not minimum, but I think optimum sensor size would be this:

http://largesense.com/

:)

Any size of sensor can be adequate for an enthusiast's camera if the enthusiast is enthusiastic about it. I have known pinhole photographers for whom the word "enthusiast" might have been coined, despite the significant technical limitations of their chosen equipment.

Even so, my answer to the question was 4/3. How about for you?

It depends: For someone who doesn't or rarely prints, the answer is probably 1". For someone who routinely shoots in dark or dim spaces, the answer could be be APS-C or even greater.

I'm using an OMD, so to a large extent one can infer my preference from what I primarily shoot with.

An enthusiast is someone who inflates the importance of his (usually it's a him) interests in a particular area vs. the interests of others, usually the general consumer, in those same areas.

I started my motorcycle photojournalism odyssey ten years ago with the Nikon D70. And I've used the Nikon 1 V1 on several trips. They are very close in capabilities, except that the V1 has better AF, faster FPS, more megapickles, and is considerably smaller.

The 1" sensor is the future.

Mike,
Enthusiast camera: my old Nikon F. Why did they take my Kodachrome 64 away...sob.

Joe

I like m4/3 cameras not because of sensor quality or size, but because of the aspect ratio. I simply think it's better (for me) than FF or APS-C. I have a Nikon D800, but I can't remember printing a full-frame shot -- I always wind up cropping. I don't always do that with m4/3.

For me, it would currently be 1", based on my experience with the RX100 series. I unreservedly use that camera on professional jobs side by side with my D800. There are, of course other shortcomings to the camera as a camera, but the images that the sensor produces are plenty good enough for everything I do short of giant prints.

My Nikon 1 V3 1" sensor, though it has its uses, I don't consider the output quality sufficient for professional work. I have that camera because of other camera and lens features, despite the sensor, not because of it.

So I guess the bottom line for me is, given the current state of the art, 1" the smallest I would consider, but not all 1" sensors meet the mark.

Dear Tom,

I gotta say my experiences been somewhat different. I spent my whole film career using a Pentax 67 because I didn't find 35mm to be of high enough quality. I'm entirely satisfied with what I'm getting out of micro 4/3. Overall, the image quality is as good or better than what I was getting from film. Oh, I could quibble** about certain subsets of image quality where one medium or the other might have an edge. But the collective effect? Micro 4/3 is good enough to make me happy.

Everyone's mileage will be likely to differ, and it may be dependent upon one's preferred subject matter. People can know what mine is from looking at my website.

But, overall, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend micro 4/3 to a medium format film photographer who was thinking of going digital.

(At which point someone is bound to chip in with “but what about shallow depth of field!” in which case I refer them back to paragraph 2.)

(** And what I mean by ‘quibble’ is that I've yet to attempt a photograph with my OMD where I looked at the result and thought to myself dammit, that would've worked if I'd had my Pentax 67 instead. So practically speaking, any differences I'm noting really are quibbles. That's not true of truly large format. There are definitely photographs I pass on (or toss out) because it's pretty obvious to me that I needed 8 x 10 view camera quality to make it work. Which was also the case when I was using the Pentax 67. But, was I going to lug around one of those monsters? Noooooo...)

pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

Gee whiz, I recall seeing a taped interview with Frederick Sommer in which he said that he started making his horizonless Arizona landscapes because the 8x10 film batch he had had a systematic flaw, and it was possible to hide it if he didn't include any uniform areas like the sky. I wonder what size sensor he would prefer?

4 x 5 inch! For real pro's it's 8 x 10 inch of course. Ah, yes I'm selling all my photography crap......photography is dead in my humble opinion.

Greets, Ed.

I'd venture to claim that all the Ricoh GR Digitals were enthusiasts' cameras (and my GRD4 still gives me warm fuzzies), so 1/1.7" seems a good starting point.

I just bought an Original 5D in Japan.

I could have gotten a number of new 1" cameras for the same price. Sometimes you just like a certain sensor and it's results. Like I prefer PlusXpan to TriX or god forbid, TMax (except the 3200).

Does this constitute an answer?

The sensor is pretty much the heart of the camera so it seems to me the question is basically the same as "which camera should I buy"? Which sensor/camera depends on how you are going to use it: mainly low light situations or very high shutter speeds, landscapes, wildlife, etc. How you want to share your work can be a factor also: web only, small prints, large prints, etc.

I just don't see how one can say "this x size sensor is best for the enthusiast camera". One needs options.

James Liu: have you tried DXO Pro9 with the V1's NEF? They are anything but "flat".

Presumably any intergenerational comparison of sensors is highly skewed by changes in RAW processing software, the profiles of lenses and so on...

IMO the quality of the Nikon 1 NEF is, for example, higher in all areas than that of PEF from my beloved Pentax * IST DS and K10D. And for usability, it's night and day.

I think that "poll" is a clear sign of what type of audience DPReview has today, what someone has called "measurbators"...

I'm afraid to be the only one confused by the continuos offer of new different models arriving on the market. My only digital is a Leica x1 bought almost for years ago. I would say they aps-c is ok for what I shoot not printing larger that A3+.
Recently a friend of mine bought an OM-D (second hand) and it seems me the IQ are not so bad at all.
robert
PS: for me it is not so important the "sensor" but I value more easy of use, simple controls and simple menus.

I have to agree with Warren (and Ctein) that the difference between M43 and APS-C is a quibble. But what's not a quibble are the advantages of M43 (at least with APS bodies from the legacy CanNik juggernaut).

The bodies and lenses are much smaller and lighter. Any slight advantage the legacy cameras have in image quality is more than made up by M43's portability and stunning lens quality.

My "big boy" camera is the 5D Mark III and L series primes. My small camera is an Olympus E-P5 and the lovely little primes and couldn't be happier with them. I use the M43 for street photography and photojournalism in Bangkok all the time and just got back from a week in George Town, Penang. Took just the M43 and it worked flawlessly. The Canon stuff is getting less and less use.

I guess we will never get our 6 mp dslr back again. My old d70 is reaching the end of her life and it seems you can't get a new nikon dslr with less than 16 mp. Imagine how beautiful could be the images from a modern 6 mp APSC sensor ...

In 2008 I would have said Nikon or Canon full frame, because I wanted a fast 35mm FOV lens (f/2 or faster) and low noise; full frame was the only real option back then. Since then however, 3 things have changed: first, sensors have all improved to the point where m43/1" is good enough for my needs (usable ISO 1600); second, Lightroom's noise reduction engine and on-camera Jpeg engines have gotten REALLY good, often rendering great jpegs at high ISOs without obliterating details; and third and most important, Fuji and Olympus came out with 35mm FOV equivalents for their respective systems.

My most important criterion is not sensor size at all, it's whether the camera has a fast (f/2+) 35mm FOV lens option, since 80%+ of my photos are taken at or around that FL. Nikon and Canon APS-C (and Nikon 1) don't have it, and full frame is just too big and conspicuous (overkill for family stuff, IMO, unless, to paraphrase, they hang out in unlit coal mines wearing all black). So even though a bigger sensor is better, it's hard to make images without the right lenses.

I wish FX sensor is my answer because a long time ago we had point and shoot camera that can be filled with 135mm film so i guess FX sensor can be fitted in a digital P&S camera nowadays if the manufacturers want it.
but, i think sensor size has become a 'social class', the larger the higher. i think there won't be any FX sensor camera being sold new in US$300 range in the near future.

to Yoram Nevo: we can buy nikon d3200 and use her small file 3002 x 2000 px to match our d70 6 mp apsc sensor. yes, the original supplied pixels can be considered 'get wasted', but we know we have choices there.

Dony says: "i don't think there won't be any FX sensor camera being sold new in US$300 range in the near future."

That's not going to happen just because of "class issues". It's going to continue to happen because 36x24mm (type 2.5-inch) sensors cost more than APS-C sensors (type 1.6-inch).

A good rule of thumb is cost of goods (COG) for the bill of materials (BOM) for a retail product is about 20% of the retail cost. A $300 camera is going to have about $60 of parts in it. The sensor will be the most expensive part but $60 COG is not going to stretch to an APS-C sensor today (perhaps $30). This rule of thumb hints that an enthusiast camera COG is around $180 + sensor cost.

Some time back Canon pointed out that they could get 18 or so 36x24mm sensors from an 8 inch wafer with 3 duds. So perhaps 40 with 5 duds from a 12" wafer: 35 good sensors. You get perhaps 130 APS-C sensors from the same 12" wafer with about 5 duds: 125 good sensors.

In addition to how many you can fit on a wafer the 36x24mm take longer to mask and require more steppers (or more time on a single stepper) as you have to "stitch" the masks for the sensors together (as you can't mask a single 36x24mm sensor in a single step -- you can do that for APS-C). That puts up the time on the steppers and time, again, is money.

The 36x24mm sensor COG is maybe five times more than an APS-C sensor. A company selling them (like Sony) might even add a bit more for a "premium" product that's not made by many manufacturers. But you're not going to see a $300 camera with a $150 sensor.

The same argument applies to the new Sony 50 megapixel 645D (44x33mm) sensors. They have 1.7x more area than 36x24 giving maybe 20 or less on a 12" wafer and perhaps 15 (or less) good sensors per wafer. Making them perhaps three times more expensive (or even more) than full frame or 15 times more expensive than APS-C. Probably in the several hundred dollars per sensor range.

This isn't going to change in the future either. You can improve yield a little but they still take more time on the fab. 32x24mm is always going to be around 5 times or so more expensive than APS-C.

The question is would you pay perhaps $2000 for a full frame "Fuji X200" or about $3500 for a 645D "Fuji X645"? Or would you prefer the sub $1000 APS-C or 4/3s camera? Rough ballpark figures but I think they're realistic.

to Kevin Purcell: yes, i agree with you. in fact, as soon as i realize my typo, i sent another comment to Mike to clarify that "i don't think there won't be any..." should be "i think there won't be any..."
so was also my typo 3002 x 2000 px should be 3008 x 2000 px.
apparently my second comment didn't appear even until i write my third (this one). that's all right with me. my typo leads to a well explanation by you.
thank you for your explanation.
btw, i read somewhere in some internet forum a long time ago that sensors are cheap. what make them expensive are the intellectual rights involved in tinkering and engineering the firmware/software for the sensor to work. maybe that needs to be explained too.

[Hi Dony, I didn't post your second comment because I made the correction to the first one. I don't post "please correct"-type comments, I just make the corrections asked for. --Mike]

Ooohhh, an 11x9" sensor?! If they can make it cost less than 10k I'd probably have bought my last camera.

Dear Mike, i am sorry that my careless writing costs you your time. i understood your policy and it's completely all right with me.
btw, i'd like to add that i still lean on "class issue" re: sensor size, because today's technology backs what Kevin Purcell explained, but tomorrow's technology may cut the cost of goods. We know Canon and Nikon broke the 'barrier' of DSLR sub-us$1,000 with their Rebel (300D) and D70 and again the 'barrier' of FX DSLR sub-us$2,000 with D600. who knows what happen next... the breaking of the 'barrier' of FX DSLR sub-us$1,000? may be, but not in the near future, i think.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007