Five megapixels derived from FF sensor?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Dec 25, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    What would such a camera cost?
    It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.
    IMO, they could put out a P&S with such a sensor
    for about $700. This would produce excellent images,
    low noise and sufficient resolution for most photographic
    tasks. The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.
    A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm and basic manual and automatic
    controls would be a good product and relatively portable. Could be
    the ultimate easy carry camera.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >What would such a camera cost?


    Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?


    *****************************************************

    "He that we last as Thurn and Taxis knew
    Now recks no lord but the stiletto's Thorn,
    And Tacit lies the gold once-knotted horn.
    No hallowed skein of stars can ward, I trow,
    Who's once been set his tryst with Trystero."

    "The Crying of Lot 49"
    Thomas Pynchon
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >Rich asks ...
    >
    >It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    >a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.


    Why bring out a 5 Mpixel camera with a sensor this large?

    >The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.


    This is similar in size to the sensor used in the new Sony DCS-R1,
    which is 21.5 X 14.4mm but has over 10 Mpixels instead of only 5. 20mm
    x 13mm is only slightly larger than the Oly 4/3 sensor and they are
    also packing 8 Mpixels into that one.

    >A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    >35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm ..


    The R1 has a 24-120mm equiv focal length zoom but a bit slower, f/2.8
    /4.8 ...

    >What would such a camera cost? ... they could put out a P&S
    >with such a sensor for about $700


    Could be, but the Sony is selling for $1,000 with twice the megpixels
    and a wider zoom range so I doubt the camera you describe would find
    much of a market unless it is very light and compact ... you want an
    f/2 lens and I think that will kill off 'light' and 'portable' too ...
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 25, 2005
    #3
  4. "Bill Hilton" <> writes:

    > >Rich asks ...
    > >
    > >It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    > >a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.

    >
    > Why bring out a 5 Mpixel camera with a sensor this large?
    >
    > >The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.

    >
    > This is similar in size to the sensor used in the new Sony DCS-R1,
    > which is 21.5 X 14.4mm but has over 10 Mpixels instead of only 5. 20mm
    > x 13mm is only slightly larger than the Oly 4/3 sensor and they are
    > also packing 8 Mpixels into that one.


    Yes, but it's clearl too much. The idea would be to make a *low
    noise* camera.

    I'd want a 24-120mm f2 lens minimum, though.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Dec 25, 2005
    #4
  5. Rich

    Marvin Guest

    Rich wrote:
    > What would such a camera cost?
    > It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    > a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.
    > IMO, they could put out a P&S with such a sensor
    > for about $700. This would produce excellent images,
    > low noise and sufficient resolution for most photographic
    > tasks. The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.
    > A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    > 35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm and basic manual and automatic
    > controls would be a good product and relatively portable. Could be
    > the ultimate easy carry camera.
    > -Rich


    Why don't you go into business and do it?
     
    Marvin, Dec 25, 2005
    #5
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:39:15 GMT, John A. Stovall
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >>What would such a camera cost?

    >
    >Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?


    Someone who doesn't want to carry a DSLR all the time.
    Same people who've bought the less than inspiring Fuji
    T10, because it had low noise.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 25, 2005
    #6
  7. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:16:38 -0500, Marvin <>
    wrote:

    >Rich wrote:
    >> What would such a camera cost?
    >> It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    >> a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.
    >> IMO, they could put out a P&S with such a sensor
    >> for about $700. This would produce excellent images,
    >> low noise and sufficient resolution for most photographic
    >> tasks. The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.
    >> A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    >> 35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm and basic manual and automatic
    >> controls would be a good product and relatively portable. Could be
    >> the ultimate easy carry camera.
    >> -Rich

    >
    >Why don't you go into business and do it?


    Sure. What does a sensor fab cost, about $1.5B?
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 25, 2005
    #7
  8. On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:53:39 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:39:15 GMT, John A. Stovall
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>What would such a camera cost?

    >>
    >>Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?

    >
    >Someone who doesn't want to carry a DSLR all the time.
    >Same people who've bought the less than inspiring Fuji
    >T10, because it had low noise.


    Their lose...



    ********************************************************

    "...bray a fool in a morter with wheat,
    yet shall not his folly be beaten out of him;.."

    "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"
    William Blake
     
    John A. Stovall, Dec 25, 2005
    #8
  9. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:53:39 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:39:15 GMT, John A. Stovall
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>What would such a camera cost?

    >>
    >>Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?

    >
    >Someone who doesn't want to carry a DSLR all the time.
    >Same people who've bought the less than inspiring Fuji
    >T10, because it had low noise.
    >-Rich


    F10?
    Fuji is not marketing a T10 that I can see.

    Low noise is not the be-all and end-all of cameras.
    Loast of people don't want to carry DSLRs all the time.
    But remember, the larger the sensor, the larger the camera must be to
    hold a decent range zoom lens with a wide aperture. Wanting low noise
    adds to the size of the sensor, and, thus, the size of the lens,
    which, in turn, makes the camera larger.
    Maybe the R1 is what you're looking for? But you might as well be
    carrying a DSLR.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 25, 2005
    #9
  10. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:55:11 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:16:38 -0500, Marvin <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Rich wrote:
    >>> What would such a camera cost?
    >>> It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    >>> a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.
    >>> IMO, they could put out a P&S with such a sensor
    >>> for about $700. This would produce excellent images,
    >>> low noise and sufficient resolution for most photographic
    >>> tasks. The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.
    >>> A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    >>> 35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm and basic manual and automatic
    >>> controls would be a good product and relatively portable. Could be
    >>> the ultimate easy carry camera.
    >>> -Rich

    >>
    >>Why don't you go into business and do it?

    >
    >Sure. What does a sensor fab cost, about $1.5B?
    >-Rich


    You could buy the sensors. If someone would make them.
    Which brings up the point that, if the camera makers are all the
    greedy bastards some think them to be, or at the least good managers
    of the companies with the well-being of the stockholders in mind, why
    isn't such a camera being offered now? The technology is certainly
    there.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 25, 2005
    #10
  11. Rich

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> Why don't you go into business and do it?

    > Rich writes ...
    >
    >Sure. What does a sensor fab cost, about $1.5B?


    You don't need to build your own fab, just buy the sensors from Sony or
    Kodak ... or if you have your own design just have TSMC in Taiwan fab
    it for you for a couple hundred bucks a wafer ...

    >The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.
    > A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    > 35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm


    As I mentioned before, this is not too much larger than the Oly 4/3
    sensor size ... they have a lens roughly this focal range (14-45 mm or
    something like that) but it's much slower than f/2 ... to give you an
    idea of what f/2 will cost you, Oly also has a 35-100 f/2 (equiv to
    70-200 in 35 mm systems) but it sells for over $2,000 and weighs close
    to four pounds ... in other words, you probably can't build the system
    you mention with an f/2 lens that's $700 and "relatively portable".

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 25, 2005
    #11
  12. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:57:53 -0700, Bill Funk
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:55:11 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:16:38 -0500, Marvin <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>Rich wrote:
    >>>> What would such a camera cost?
    >>>> It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    >>>> a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.
    >>>> IMO, they could put out a P&S with such a sensor
    >>>> for about $700. This would produce excellent images,
    >>>> low noise and sufficient resolution for most photographic
    >>>> tasks. The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.
    >>>> A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    >>>> 35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm and basic manual and automatic
    >>>> controls would be a good product and relatively portable. Could be
    >>>> the ultimate easy carry camera.
    >>>> -Rich
    >>>
    >>>Why don't you go into business and do it?

    >>
    >>Sure. What does a sensor fab cost, about $1.5B?
    >>-Rich

    >
    >You could buy the sensors. If someone would make them.
    >Which brings up the point that, if the camera makers are all the
    >greedy bastards some think them to be, or at the least good managers
    >of the companies with the well-being of the stockholders in mind, why
    >isn't such a camera being offered now? The technology is certainly
    >there.


    Because marketing latched onto the only thing it could that was simple
    for joe public to understand; Pixel counts. Why waste millions
    trying to educate the consumer about anything else when you can
    simply say this 1/1.8 sensored camera has 9 million pixels? No matter
    how bad the thing performs.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:20:43 GMT, John A. Stovall
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:53:39 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:39:15 GMT, John A. Stovall
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>What would such a camera cost?
    >>>
    >>>Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?

    >>
    >>Someone who doesn't want to carry a DSLR all the time.
    >>Same people who've bought the less than inspiring Fuji
    >>T10, because it had low noise.

    >
    >Their lose...


    Arguably, it would be interesting if everyone had the fortitude
    and discipline to walk about with a DSLR and a bag of lenses,
    but it's not going to happen.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:55:14 -0700, Bill Funk
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:53:39 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:39:15 GMT, John A. Stovall
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>What would such a camera cost?
    >>>
    >>>Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?

    >>
    >>Someone who doesn't want to carry a DSLR all the time.
    >>Same people who've bought the less than inspiring Fuji
    >>T10, because it had low noise.
    >>-Rich

    >
    >F10?
    >Fuji is not marketing a T10 that I can see.
    >

    Sorry, T10.

    >Low noise is not the be-all and end-all of cameras.
    >Loast of people don't want to carry DSLRs all the time.
    >But remember, the larger the sensor, the larger the camera must be to
    >hold a decent range zoom lens with a wide aperture. Wanting low noise
    >adds to the size of the sensor, and, thus, the size of the lens,
    >which, in turn, makes the camera larger.
    >Maybe the R1 is what you're looking for? But you might as well be
    >carrying a DSLR.


    True, which is WHY I said 5 megapixels and not 10. You'd get the same
    low noise levels, quality of a big sensor (owing to pixel size being
    maintained) but you'd sacrifice the resolution needed if you wanted to
    make big enlargements. I think people are too wrapped up in the idea
    of having a single camera that literally does everything, some things
    well, others not so well.
    BTW; Olympus's 35-100 f2 is expensive, but it's quality is probably
    as good as that of a Canon L lens. It might not be necessary to have
    such quality in order to have a lens at all. Their 40-150mm which is
    admittedly slower (but longer range) is very high quality in terms of
    it's resolution and contrast but costs only about $170.00. F2 while
    handy will be used as a last ditch resort to get "A" picture, based on
    available light. It might not even matter too much in such a case if
    the edges aren't quite perfect, which was much the case with many
    old fast 50-80mm lenses of the past.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:13:47 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:55:14 -0700, Bill Funk
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:53:39 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:39:15 GMT, John A. Stovall
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>What would such a camera cost?
    >>>>
    >>>>Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?
    >>>
    >>>Someone who doesn't want to carry a DSLR all the time.
    >>>Same people who've bought the less than inspiring Fuji
    >>>T10, because it had low noise.
    >>>-Rich

    >>
    >>F10?
    >>Fuji is not marketing a T10 that I can see.
    >>

    >Sorry, T10.


    Not marketed at present.
    >
    >>Low noise is not the be-all and end-all of cameras.
    >>Loast of people don't want to carry DSLRs all the time.
    >>But remember, the larger the sensor, the larger the camera must be to
    >>hold a decent range zoom lens with a wide aperture. Wanting low noise
    >>adds to the size of the sensor, and, thus, the size of the lens,
    >>which, in turn, makes the camera larger.
    >>Maybe the R1 is what you're looking for? But you might as well be
    >>carrying a DSLR.

    >
    >True, which is WHY I said 5 megapixels and not 10. You'd get the same
    >low noise levels, quality of a big sensor (owing to pixel size being
    >maintained) but you'd sacrifice the resolution needed if you wanted to
    >make big enlargements. I think people are too wrapped up in the idea
    >of having a single camera that literally does everything, some things
    >well, others not so well.


    Probably true, but the market is driven by what sells, not what is
    "better".
    >BTW; Olympus's 35-100 f2 is expensive, but it's quality is probably
    >as good as that of a Canon L lens. It might not be necessary to have
    >such quality in order to have a lens at all. Their 40-150mm which is
    >admittedly slower (but longer range) is very high quality in terms of
    >it's resolution and contrast but costs only about $170.00. F2 while
    >handy will be used as a last ditch resort to get "A" picture, based on
    >available light. It might not even matter too much in such a case if
    >the edges aren't quite perfect, which was much the case with many
    >old fast 50-80mm lenses of the past.
    >-Rich


    All of which doesn't negate what I said above.
    To get that f/2 lens at a reasonably long zoom, the lens size makes
    the camera larger. At what point is it indistinguishable from a DSLR
    size-wise?

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 26, 2005
    #15
  16. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:04:18 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:57:53 -0700, Bill Funk
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:55:11 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:16:38 -0500, Marvin <>
    >>>wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Rich wrote:
    >>>>> What would such a camera cost?
    >>>>> It's sensor would essentially be a section of
    >>>>> a current FF sensor, but with 2800x1800 pixels.
    >>>>> IMO, they could put out a P&S with such a sensor
    >>>>> for about $700. This would produce excellent images,
    >>>>> low noise and sufficient resolution for most photographic
    >>>>> tasks. The sensor would be approx. 20mm x 13mm in size.
    >>>>> A P&S, with a fast lens (f2) and a max zoom of say a
    >>>>> 35mm equiv. of 35mm to 100mm and basic manual and automatic
    >>>>> controls would be a good product and relatively portable. Could be
    >>>>> the ultimate easy carry camera.
    >>>>> -Rich
    >>>>
    >>>>Why don't you go into business and do it?
    >>>
    >>>Sure. What does a sensor fab cost, about $1.5B?
    >>>-Rich

    >>
    >>You could buy the sensors. If someone would make them.
    >>Which brings up the point that, if the camera makers are all the
    >>greedy bastards some think them to be, or at the least good managers
    >>of the companies with the well-being of the stockholders in mind, why
    >>isn't such a camera being offered now? The technology is certainly
    >>there.

    >
    >Because marketing latched onto the only thing it could that was simple
    >for joe public to understand; Pixel counts. Why waste millions
    >trying to educate the consumer about anything else when you can
    >simply say this 1/1.8 sensored camera has 9 million pixels? No matter
    >how bad the thing performs.
    >-Rich


    If you only look at things from one side, you never see the other
    side.
    If the camera makers market items people won't buy, where is the
    capital and incentive to improve the item? Thus, makers make things
    tghat sell. Without that, there will be no items to sell.
    Educate people? We can't even educate people to not drink and drive
    (which, you will agree, is definitely in their best interest). You
    think we can educate them about what's important in a *camera*?
    Sit back, and thank those who buy the stuff they do, because they pay
    the freight for the things that we buy. :)

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 26, 2005
    #16
  17. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:38:42 -0700, Bill Funk
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:13:47 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:55:14 -0700, Bill Funk
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 13:53:39 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:39:15 GMT, John A. Stovall
    >>>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 02:48:27 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>What would such a camera cost?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Who cares what it would cost. Who would bother to buy it?
    >>>>
    >>>>Someone who doesn't want to carry a DSLR all the time.
    >>>>Same people who've bought the less than inspiring Fuji
    >>>>T10, because it had low noise.
    >>>>-Rich
    >>>
    >>>F10?
    >>>Fuji is not marketing a T10 that I can see.
    >>>

    >>Sorry, T10.

    >
    >Not marketed at present.
    >>
    >>>Low noise is not the be-all and end-all of cameras.
    >>>Loast of people don't want to carry DSLRs all the time.
    >>>But remember, the larger the sensor, the larger the camera must be to
    >>>hold a decent range zoom lens with a wide aperture. Wanting low noise
    >>>adds to the size of the sensor, and, thus, the size of the lens,
    >>>which, in turn, makes the camera larger.
    >>>Maybe the R1 is what you're looking for? But you might as well be
    >>>carrying a DSLR.

    >>
    >>True, which is WHY I said 5 megapixels and not 10. You'd get the same
    >>low noise levels, quality of a big sensor (owing to pixel size being
    >>maintained) but you'd sacrifice the resolution needed if you wanted to
    >>make big enlargements. I think people are too wrapped up in the idea
    >>of having a single camera that literally does everything, some things
    >>well, others not so well.

    >
    >Probably true, but the market is driven by what sells, not what is
    >"better".
    >>BTW; Olympus's 35-100 f2 is expensive, but it's quality is probably
    >>as good as that of a Canon L lens. It might not be necessary to have
    >>such quality in order to have a lens at all. Their 40-150mm which is
    >>admittedly slower (but longer range) is very high quality in terms of
    >>it's resolution and contrast but costs only about $170.00. F2 while
    >>handy will be used as a last ditch resort to get "A" picture, based on
    >>available light. It might not even matter too much in such a case if
    >>the edges aren't quite perfect, which was much the case with many
    >>old fast 50-80mm lenses of the past.
    >>-Rich

    >
    >All of which doesn't negate what I said above.
    >To get that f/2 lens at a reasonably long zoom, the lens size makes
    >the camera larger. At what point is it indistinguishable from a DSLR
    >size-wise?


    There are ways to shrink physical lens length while achieving a long
    focal length, moreso than is suggest by the physical length of the
    lens itself. The use of negative lenses in the assembly makes this
    possible.
    A 110mm lens of f2 focal ratio needs a front element 55mm across.
    The lens on my C8080 goes to 140mm with a 2/3 sensor and protrudes
    about 80mm from the body at longest zoom. The last lens element
    (which terminates in the camera body) makes the lens assembly
    about 4" long. So, it achieves 140mm focal length at around 100mm
    physical length. They could probably make the f2 110mm (same f.l.
    as the Sony R1 lens at max zoom) around 70mm (2.8") long at max zoom
    and have it nearly retract into the body at minimum zoom.
    In fact, you could nearly flatten it to the body by use of an internal
    reflex mirror, much like the Fuji Z2. It might be as compact as the
    smaller Pentax DSLRs with that 40mm pancake lens they have which
    is a fixed lens with an f2.8 max speed but it would be a zoom.
    It wouldn't be inexpensive, but then neither is the R1.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 27, 2005
    #17
  18. "Rich" <> wrote:

    By the way, my calculation has it that a 5 MP crop from the 5D sensor would
    have a 1.6x crop factor relative to FF.

    Is that the crop factor you are expecting???

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 27, 2005
    #18
  19. Rich

    Rich Guest

    On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:01:04 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >"Rich" <> wrote:
    >
    >By the way, my calculation has it that a 5 MP crop from the 5D sensor would
    >have a 1.6x crop factor relative to FF.
    >
    >Is that the crop factor you are expecting???
    >
    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan
    >


    I didn't write it. Crop factor is unimportant when you aren't dealing
    with SLR lenses.
    -Rich
     
    Rich, Dec 27, 2005
    #19
  20. Rich

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, Rich
    <> writes
    > Crop factor is unimportant when you aren't dealing
    >with SLR lenses.


    Crop factor (= focal length multiplier [= a nonsense]) is not
    constrained to SLR lenses, it is a conversion factor used by people who
    have difficulty comprehending different formats, hence digital P&S
    cameras are often quoted with a factor, i.e. 6.5. This of course that my
    MF camera has a factor of .67, my sub-miniature is 4, and my dSLR is
    1.6. Note that it is referred to 135 format; and the marketing
    assumption that you are not bright enough to understand that different
    formats requires different length lenses for a 'normal' view.
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
     
    Prometheus, Dec 27, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    351
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  2. Bob Williams

    Megapixels vs Sensor size

    Bob Williams, Jan 25, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    729
    frederick
    Jan 27, 2006
  3. Caulfield Man

    Google derived postings

    Caulfield Man, Jun 28, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    346
    §ñühw¤£f
    Jun 28, 2009
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    262
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    396
Loading...

Share This Page