-snip
4. Clocking data out of a larger sensor at high rates of speed results in
more noise.
Everything I have read says that noise is higher with physically
small sensors. The 11.1 sensor in the Canon has been commented upon
for being particularly noise free.
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.
Apparently the choice right now is chromatic aberration with a full
frame sensor and an ultra wide angle lens or no image at all because
no one has been able to design an ultra wide for a small sensor. The
size of the sensor is not the "kludge". The sensor is the "kludge".
Evidently they need to be completely redesigned so as to be able to
handle light from different directions. Rangefinder users consider
SLR lenses as a "kludge" because they are retrofocus designs that,
while accomodating the mirror box, degrade the image compared to a
non-retro design. So are we to get "kludged" super retrofocus
designs to accomodate the limitations of CCD chips?
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 don't either. But since Olympus has announced that they are not
committed to producing a lens system for their new camera I think
what we will get is another tiny digicam modeled on the E20 with a
removable telephoto and a larger sensor. While the E20 is apparently
a great little digital wonderbrick it does usually get lumped in with
the point and shoot crowd: automatic, menu driven, tiny, few easily
accessible controls.
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
I really wonder whether this marketing driven featuritis will lead to
demise of photography as a popular activity with skilled amateur
participation. It is akin to BMW's addition of a menu selecting
computer control knob to the new 7 series sedan. You have to read
the manual before you can get in and drive away. Why make something
simple complicated and difficult? It seems to me that cameras such as
the OM4Ti, Contax Aria, Leica R7, and Nikon FM reached some sort
platonic ideal in camera design melding electronic and ergonomic
design for intuitive ease of use, but marketing departments
everywhere decreed development in areas where no one should have gone
in order to sell more and more "product", not cameras.
The reason Oly and no one else wants to commit to new pro systems is
that everything will change in 18 months. A buyer will have to
commit to a camera and a complete system at the time of purchase
because everything will be gone. Don't expect someone to make the
equivalent of a 350/2.8 for any digicam. The turn over in compatible
bodies will just be too fast and the purchase of something like that
requires confidence that it will be usable for a long time.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|