Why Big Sensors are Better - size not pixels count.

[johnastovall]

Very interesting article just up on Luminous Landscape about sensor design and why larger sensors are better regardless of pixels.

Well worth reading.

[iCe]

Thanks John... Good answer to my rhetorical question

Great article...

[xseption]

thanks for the link to an interesting article ... I actually understood the content

[fran reisner]

Well there ya go! Now I understand why I love my 1DsMarkII for the big stuff (large wall portraits). Thanks for sharing!

[evil4blue]

Truthfully, not one of their better articles. There is some interesting stuff, but nothing groundbreaking. Also I don't like it when an article is so full of subjectivity. Does my D200 "feel" like it produces higher quality images than my D70? Well sure, but I knew that before. Also, I think everyone can agree that larger photosites should reduce noise. The 5D and 1DS MKII prove the theory.

Hey I'm all for bigger sensors and more pixels. My pocket book is waiting.

Edit:

And one more thing, the article never talks about the "Quality" of light hitting those outside photosites of the sensor and how the COC does not equally cover a FF sensor (corners recieving less light). FF Sensors are going to force lens makers to change their designs to ensure equal light distribution to the sensor. This is good IMO, but the consumer will feel it in the wallet, since those design changes won't be cheap.

I still believe the best of both worlds is the 1.3x crop. Current lens designs will work and larger photosites for better quality/less noise. Just my $0.02.

[Daniel Bates]

Interesting info, but I don't have the funds to verify it by experimentation... *cough cough*

[PeteQ]

H2D's are in stock at B&H

[CaptainG]

Originally Posted by PeteQ

H2D's are in stock at B&H

OMG!

[iCe]

Whoa!!! That's like the John Holmes of digital camera's!!!!

not that I have ever seen any films with ^^^ or anything...

[zeroendless]

H2D's are in stock at B&H

camcorder is so expensive these days..... glad i shoot still images.

[PeteQ]

Daniel, the H2D is a still camera. Not sure if you clicked the link...

Shoots a whopping 35 frames a minute!

What a piece of junk huh? Maybe when they get that up to 40 frames a minute I'll consider it....

[iCe]

Originally Posted by PeteQ

Daniel, the H2D is a still camera. Not sure if you clicked the link...

Shoots a whopping 35 frames a minute!

What a piece of junk huh? Maybe when they get that up to 40 frames a minute I'll consider it....

At "only" $30k, I can hear the thunder of footsteps as people run out to Walmart to buy one

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by iCe

At "only" $30k, I can hear the thunder of footsteps as people run out to Walmart to buy one

It's ok for a medium priced digital rig but now this is the one!

As for the 'Blad it may be an H2 dinosaur.

[zeroendless]

Daniel, the H2D is a still camera. Not sure if you clicked the link...

Shoots a whopping 35 frames a minute!

What a piece of junk huh? Maybe when they get that up to 40 frames a minute I'll consider it....

just a joke, Pete... i meant it looks like camcorder. LOL. Does it not?

I never seen one in person, i bet the finish and feel has to be godness for $29.99 ( missed a few zero there) but it looks silly for that price tag.

[Silvernic]

Back to the sensors here. I'm wondering why other companies don't persue the foveon (spelling?) type sensor. It just seems like an amazing concept to me in fitting more photosites (well, sorta) in a smaller place. Plus, it seems logical that each photosite would be so much more effective due to not losing 1/3 of color information for each site.

Anyone know more about these sensors and why they're not as popular as it seems to me that they should be?