Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/11/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Thanks, Frank, that's a clear, sensible answer. I wasn't thinking it through. But, yes, what I ultimately want is 35mm DOF, anything else doesn't make digital a substitute for film. The potential is however huge. Yes, and I suspect that the yield figures for such chips would be terrible at least at first...of course if the feature size were driven down and the effective pixel count driven up as a consequence.... Does anyone know what the current feature size is on these chips? BTW, all, since I don't parse "bokeh" I didn't understand most of the previous comments - probably I don't want to :-) Save me - and all of us - - from 2000 emails explaining the meaning though ;-) Peter Dzwig Frank Dernie wrote: > Sorry Peter, > Not on digitals with minuscule sensors (less than 3/8" wide) because > f11 is already causing serious deterioration due to diffraction on 7mm > focal length lenses (and must be difficult to manufacture an iris with > an accurate aperture less than .025" diameter)! These sensors are a > fraction of the size of minox film never mind 35mm, depth of field > effects we are used to are impossible on them. It is surprising how > good the enlargements are from such tiny "negatives" but if you want > 35mm type DOF you will need a 35mm size sensor - very expensive at > present, thought the "in betweens" (Nikon, Fuji and most Canon digi > SLRs and Leica in a year or so) are an excellent compromise IME. > cheers > Frank > > On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 08:25 pm, Peter Dzwig wrote: > >> Looks like what I want, but I still want head-up info - and PLEASE >> can we have a minimum stop smaller than f11. >> >> Peter Dzwig >> >> <big snip> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html