Germaine to digital and sensors, I just read through (mostly) this paper
by a Kodak engineer, though written nearly 4 years ago:
<http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/papersArticles/ultimateSensor.pdf>
Interesting that the graphic on page 3 places the 4:3 sensor in the
"prosumer" category and is topped out at ~9MP. Progress in EK puts it
at 12MP, but interesting to note that at time of writing "professional"
was considered in the 16MP range.
Not intending to start a pixel war... I am not of the belief that more
pixels is the ultimate goal.
Had fun shooting with my SP today...
Earl
Moose wrote:
>Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
>
>
>>The Kodak DSLRs, which use software to deal with the resultant moire
>>problems, are the exception to the rule. No anti-aliasing filters.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Ah, didn't know that. Then again, I've never seriously looked at them.
>
>
>
>>I read somewhere that none of the digicams have anti-aliasing filters.
>>Not sure if it is true.
>>
>>
>>
>I think it is, if only for the simple reason that the filters are
>expensive. With complete control of the lens design and the fact that
>more resolution costs size, weight and money (not necessarily in that
>order :-) ), it would seem more practical to design the lens to the
>purpose and leave out a filter.
>
>I seem to recall that the lens that had served the 'D' series and A1
>well had pretty well reached its limit with the higher sensor resolution
>of the A2. Probably other examples I don't know about where an increase
>in resolution with the same sensor size outstripped the capability of
>the lens.
>
>Moose
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|