Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ted, Kisses you will have to see Irene; KISS see below. A. Small sensors run "hotter" so when one pixel fires it can set off the neighbors. Therefore small sensors show more "grain" as the effective ISO is turned up. Like a poor quality stereo, as you turn up the gain, the sound goes downhill. Your point in A is obvious, if the chip is not 24X36 then your 50mm lens will magnify more and more as the chip gets smaller and smaller. B. Large sensors are much more expensive to make. I think the industry runs on 9" silicon wafers and you can visualize the difference in yield; you get more sand in a glass than marbles. What is not readily apparent is that flaws appear in the chips so that one dead CCD can loose an entire chip. C. Larger sensors allow much better images at higher ISO's, currently CMOS chips provide cleaner images than CCD chips, and larger sensors allow the use of existing lenses with less loss of wide angle coverage. D. Kodak, Olympus, and others are trying to standardize on a 4/3 chip (about APS size) as a good compromise of yield in manufacture, good performance at higher ISO's, compromise with effective DOF control, easy translation on lens focal length (2X). Nikon appears to be headed in the same direction and Canon is having a blast thumbing their nose at everybody with their full frame chip and their new 1.3X CMOS in the Mark II that is producing stupendous images. E. Panasonic appears to be spending some serious money in post processing in-camera technology to take advantage of the image coming off the Leica lenses up front. The final image even after some "grain" reduction is extremely good for the tiny sensor that they are using as your experience proves. I will repeat, tests by unbiased experts find the image coming out of the D 2 is better than the one coming out of the Olympus E1 at ISO's of 100. I hope this helps. Don dorysrus@mindspring.com -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+dorysrus=mindspring.com@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Ted Grant Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 2:20 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] More RD-1 Samples Feli said: > Another reason why I wish there will be a full frame M.<<<<<< B. D. Colen responded > Well,I'd like a full-size sensor just so I could use my lenses as > designed. But you don't need a full-size sensor to get high quality > images.<<<<<<<< So gentlemen do I understand this correctly? A: the small size sensor is still capable of excellent quality capture, however it doesn't allow for a full 35mm frame as we expose on film? And this is why a 21mm lens becomes a 35? or whatever? B: There is a design or production problem in making a full size 35mm sensor due to the light capture capabilities as it comes through the lens? Therefore the sensor is the biggest problem with this whole digi camera and using our existing lenses to their fullest with anything other than a full size 35mm sensor? So how am I doing? And it's not likely the new digital M whatever, will have a 35mm size sensor, but the one it does will still produce extremely fine re-productions with only some loss of lens coverage? I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible and like one step at a time. So please don't get into techie jargon or the whole exercise is going to go down the tube from not understanding the words. over to you folks, thank you. KISS IT! :-) ted _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information