At 3:26 AM +0200 6/5/04, Listar wrote:
>
>From: Brian Sledz <brianhome@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] Re: E-1 discussion
>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:14:23 -0500
>
>
>
>>
>> I don't think one can draw any such conclusion. Astronomers all use
>> CCDs, not CMOS sensors, and astronomy works right up against the
>> theoretical limits.
>>
>Actually CMOS chips are being used more for astronomy and they cost
>less too. I did lots of astrophotography and used CCD chips. You
>always took dark frames to subtract out the noise, the CMOS chip users
>rarely took darks.
I wasn't clear about this, but when I say "astronomers", I mean the
pros, the ones with the telescopes costing hundreds of millions of
dollars. In that world, for the image sensor, cost is simply not an
issue, so they push the technology to its limit, allowing us folk
with lesser budgets to see where those limits are.
>Their photos, though, lacked the snap of a ccd
>image, but they were smooth looking and still very nice. I noticed the
>same when I went from D100 to 10D and now to E1. I like the snap of
>CCD not the smoothness of CMOS. Where I still like my Canon is for the
>long FL IS lenses and faster <f2.8 lenses for indoor sports. I like
>the way the E1 in-camera processes. I got tired of always having to
>play with WB and sharpness with the 10D for what anyone would consider
>snapshots or family. I like just setting the camera up and then
>getting "usable" shots when I am just tinkering.
>but that is just me lazy by nature I guess
Snap versus smooth? What exactly is it about these two sensor
technologies that would do such a thing? And what exactly do we mean
by "snap"? Contrast? Resolution? Edge sharpness? This may be
another key question.
Joe Gwinn
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|