In a message dated 10/21/2002 Winsor Crosby writes:
<< I am still confused by your distinctions based on the physical size
of the CCD. The size of the image and the ability to move it is the
same whether it is a 4/3 CCD or a full frame "kludge" as you put it.
The larger camera also has more room for buffer. I don't care one way
or the other. I am not about to go out and buy a new 10 or 15
thousand dollar system. Just not sure why you think a physically
larger lower noise image chip system is worse than a smaller one
designed around a point and shoot paradigm. >>
I'm not a chip designer. However, I have read enough from those who are
(including at least one who posts on this here list). Some key points I have
made mental notes of include:
1. There is no reason, except for lens compatibility to make image sensors
fit the 35mm format.
2. The production cost of these larger image sensors is higher than smaller
sensors.
3. Smaller sensors can and will be capable of high pixel counts too.
4. Clocking data out of a larger sensor at high rates of speed results in
more noise.
CCD and CMOS imager design experts, please correct me if I am making any
wrong assumptions above.
This all means a smaller imager with lenses designed specifically for
digital use is a preferable basis of design than "kludging" to 35mm lens
standards.
I was reading with great interest first impression reviews of the 11.1
megapixel full frame imager Canon D1 yesterday. While on the one hand
performance was nothing short of stunning, on the other hand wide angle
performance (the entire reason for a full frame sensor) sucked--really bad
chromatic aberration was the apparent norm. So, still a "kludge" and you
don't even get the multiplication factor anymore that is actually used and
enjoyed by sports shooters.
Now, the 4/3 system. If one can have a (35mm equivalent) 600mm f2.8 that is
the size and weight of a common 35mm 300/2.8 that offers a high level of
performance combined with true ultra-wide angle lenses, all designed for
digital sensors so inherent digital problems (such as serious CA with wide
angles) are kept to a minimum. It sounds to me like a better way to go, and
less of a "kludge." Compact physical size of the system (especially lenses)
is an important feature to me. Performance is (of course) the most important
feature.
I do plan to invest in a new system someday for digital work at a
professional level for motorsports work. I'm totally clueless at this point
what system that investment would be in today, because I'm not making that
investment today (it helps to have the funds available--I would need more
revenue to justify borrowing for tools at this point). I do hold out hope
for what unfolds from Olympus, and whoever they get to jump aboard the 4/3
format, and am in a wait and see mentality. I don't see the 4/3 concept as
being "designed around a point and shoot paradigm" whatsoever simply just
because it is physically smaller. I see it as being a potentially better way
of optimizing a digital camera system design.
All that said...I'll ask the question one more time. Does the "APS sized
sensor" that Pentax is referring to possibly mean they are becoming a 4/3
format player? If so, that makes four (Olympus, Fuji, Kodak being the first
three).
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|