And improvements made to 35mm film can be applied to 8x10 ... It didn't
matter much to the majority of the market. Very good images can be made with
a 35mm SLR.
I'm quite happy uploading an E300 file to Costco and picking up 11x14 prints
on the way home (or having them mailed). I don't think fourthirds has maxed
out yet. The quality right now is very acceptable from a simple convenient
low cost digital. (The convenience is even better than when I could drop off
Kodachrome at a processing plant two miles from home.) Throw in the ability
to stitch together multiple images and the cost of the extra performance of
a large CCD vs. benefits ... I think you better buy a full frame CCD now if
you want one. I was thinking about buying one but couldn't justify it to
myself. Maybe if I go take more pictures of birds flying in low light I'll
be able to...
If better has little or no cost, better might sell (betamax vs. vhs). I
would love to see more sensor choices too. I think cost pressures are
reducing choices.
I really think that the E300/E500 is what the fourthirds system was aiming
for. A camera that targets the majority but can support some high end needs
(7-14 D. Zuiko).
-jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Dacey
Well he was simply saying that all other things being equal that the smaller
sensor will always be noisier than the larger sensor. Any improvement in
noise performance on a small chip can be applied to a larger chip.
------
On 12/20/05, Jeff Keller <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> His belief that bigger CCD's will always be better ... ? When small is
> good enough, small wins. Cost is very important.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|