I could be wrong, but probably the resolution of the sensor does not
have a great deal to do with it, just its physical shape and size.
Number one is that a smaller 1.5 or 1.6 sensor cuts of more of the
bad part of the image from the lens designed for full frame. All
those soft corners with the CA are still there with a full frame
sensor. They were there with film as well. We just did not look at
100 percent sections of film images to find it.
Second, since the sensor is analogous to a rectangle with holes
drilled in it with a sensor site at the bottom of the well, the holes
at the edge of a physically large sensor get light that is a little
dimmer and at more of an angle, illuminating more of the side of the
well and less of the bottom. The sensor designer can try to make
things a little better by making the holes a bit bigger and using a
filter on top that bounces more of the light straight down at the
edges. But there are limitations to each of those, circuity
requirements and softer images. None of that is needed with a flat
sheet of film which functions more uniformly regardless of the angle
of light. And the maker can redesign the wide angle lenses for which
it is a problem which some like Oly have done. But even Oly or Nikon,
successful as their new wide angle digital lens designs are, would be
hard pressed to cover a 35mm frame sized sensor with the near
parallel rays the sensor needs to function best and without abberations.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jul 29, 2005, at 11:01 PM, Stephen Scharf wrote:
> I'm also saying that
> the problem on a 1Ds full frame sensor is more noticeable because
> the 1Ds full frame digital sensor has more resolution than 35 mm
> film. It is markedly less of a problem on a 1.3X or 1.6X sensor.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|