JasmineCorp Directory   
Usenet News Group Archives!!!

Usenet Groups:






Re: Are IS lenses doomed ?
Newsgroup: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Posted by:
2007-01-31 01:30:38

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:24:48 GMT, Rebecca Ore wrote:
>Conversion factor still is more logical. :).

It is also hopelessly vague. What is being converted and why? Somtimes
being clear and slightly incorrect is better than being absolutely
correct but devoid of meaning.

>In article ,
> John McWilliams wrote:
>For people who have shot with their lenses on 35 mm full frame bodies,
>then knowing what to expect would be useful, but over time, there are
>going to be fewer and fewer people buying DSLRs who've shot film cameras
>first. And I suspect we'll see "Bigger than Full Frame 35 mm" in 35 mm
>form factor cameras in the next two years.

I think not, at least outside of specialized applications willing to pay
high prices.

In semiconductors, smaller is better. Cheaper, faster, better yielding,
less power hungry. Moore's law is all about doing more in less area.
Cost and performance with fixed area does improve but it does so much
more slowly than with a shrinking die.

Trying to increase sensor size is bucking well established manufacturing
trends in a 200 billion dollar industry.

I think we will see pixel density continue to increase, mostly at the
APS-C form factor until the point where it is obvious to even the
average idiot that more megapixels doesn't help. Deprived of their
chief means of luring customers to buy new gear, manufacturers will be
shrink sensors as part of an overall effort to reduce costs. Maybe we
will see optical solutions. CCD's already employ microlenses to focus
light onto light sensitive regions so it doesn't seem all that far
fetched that a future camera might employ a built-in "wide angle
converter" to focus light onto a diminutive sensor.

Photos and travelogues from Africa and Southeast Asia: http://www.exile.org




More >> 

Domain Registration:
.com .org .net
.info .biz .us