[Leica] To Sell or Not to Sell now Canon/Nikon

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

The analogy with film is not exactly.
Acreage wise, I agree.

A larger sensor means each pixel grabber is bigger and can be nicely
isolated not jam packed and operate with lower noise.
Those puppies like some room to breath.
This translates to higher ISO's as a default.
You can shoot iso 1600 without circumcision.

A smaller sensor means smaller pixel grabbers all rammed up against each
other making for a default much lower iso.
You can shoot iso 100 with no consumption.

Its like "I like 72 on a roll so I'll just shoot plus X instead of tri x and
it will come out the same."
I don't think it does.

Those pixel grabbers are much happier campers when they have room to breath
and can be bigger.




But I don't understand medium format digital why the ISO's can't be higher.
Instead they're lower.
And you're supposed to over expose it; not keep the exposure down with 24x36
and smaller. Or slides.


Mark William Rabiner

I don't think just using smaller ISO's with smaller formats digital or film
makes up for the smaller format size.



> From: Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie at btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 18:03:06 +0100
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] To Sell or Not to Sell now Canon/Nikon
> 
> I do not believe that the size analogy is exactly the same as film.
> Sure larger sensor is better but this is more about dynamic range and
> high iso not smoothness of tone and detail, like it was with film.
> Bigger is better but in different ways (that are not so important for
> me). If you were talking film, I would agree.
> Frank