I guess I'm being difficult today, but I disagree. The size sensors used
on the E-1 and Pent*x, Nik*n and Can*n DSLRs are already roughly equal
in overall performance to 35mm film, clearly better in some ways,
perhaps a bit worse in some ways, but certainly not much. So why would
there ever be a need for better performance to serve the photographic
purposes long served by 35mm SLRs? The fact is, the resolution and other
characteristics of sensors this size will only get better, as the
sensor/amplifier technology is not near maturity yet.
There are already full 24x36mm sensor cameras available for both Can*n
and Nik*n mounts and lots and lots of lenses for them, but they will
eally be competition/replacement for MF film. The only "possible
development of CMOS, CCD production techniques." that can occur is
improvement in performance. The only thing that can mean for DSLRs is
smaller sensors with equal performance or better performance with the
same size sensors. Neither development obsoletes these lenses, at least
until, or if, even smaller mounts and lenses appear. My guess is that
the problems of difraction limits for aperture sizes and excessive DOF
will mitigate against smaller sensor sizes for DSLRs, for reasons
completely unrelated to sensor performance, and the current sizes will
pretty much stabilize for quite some time, although the performance of
the sensors will increase for some time.
Moose
Luca A. wrote:
>Moose ha scritto:
>
>
>
>> Although they will continue to produce higher
>>sensor size true pro cameras, they believe the sensor size of the
>>30-60-10-20-300D bodies is sufficient and are producing a line of lenses
>>for that size sensor.
>>
>>
>
>It seems to em a pretty shortsighted view, ignoring possible development of
>CMOS, CCD production techniques.
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|