Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If they were the same cost, could easily store the same number of images, operated at the same speed - sure, why not take the higher resolution. But those are enormous Ifs. I would still argue, David,that people are focusing - sorry - on the wrong issue: we should be talking about the quality of the image produced by the sensor, not the sensor size. If the smaller sensor produces a high quality image - in terms of the work being done - there is no need for a larger sensor. I'm talking here about the use of cameras as tools used to get certain jobs done. If a small sensor won't produce sufficient resolution at the sizes you'll be printing, obviously you need a full-size sensor. ;-) B. D. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of David W. Almy Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 9:12 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Nikon Digital SLR's BD, The premise that "photo journalists...neither need, nor, in most cases want a full-frame digital SLR" is bunk. That technology practically limits chip sizes is one matter, but no good argument can be made that "most" photographers willingly prefer to use less of the imaging capability of their lenses/cameras than their original design (and size) intended. If camera manufacturers offered identical cameras with the option of either full frame or partial frame chips at similar resolution and cost, why would you imagine that the partial frame would outsell the full frame? Why wouldn't anyone prefer to use a 35mm lens as a 35mm lens? David W. Almy Annapolis - ----- Original Message ----- From: "bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:31 AM Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Nikon Digital SLR's > This thread is really becoming quite amusing, because it is > degenerating into such a classic "mine is bigger than yours." > > The question for Nikon, Leica, or any other manufacturer, is what > makes sense for their customer base, not "how to we market the > 'biggest one.'" Nikon's customer pro base is photo journalists, who > neither need, nor, in most cases want a full-frame digital SLR. What > is important is the quality of the image produced within other > realistic constraints - battery life, capture speed, ease of feature > use, durability of equipment, ability to use lenses across different > bodies. Sure, Nikon may some day go to full-frame. But for now, from > what I've been told, Gary, and from what you have been told, Chris, > they aren't planning to do so. > > That does NOT mean that Nikon has given up the ghost, left the field > to Canon; it simply means they have adopted a different strategy for > waging the digital wars. Is it the right strategy? I have no idea - > nor for that matter do I care in any real sense. > > The real question here, in terms of this thread anyway, is why some > people have the notion that a sensor has to be a certain size to > produce quality images - look at the astounding improvement in image > quality over the past several years, all coming from sensors that are > less than 35 mm size. > > Anyway, am I not right, Gary, in recalling you write that you neither > own or use Nikon equipment? If I am, I have to ask why you give a > rat's behind about what Nikon does or doesn't do? ;-) > > B. D. > > -- > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html