Resolution was the d200 any good....

Started Sep 7, 2011 | Discussions thread
Cytokine Contributing Member • Posts: 688
Re: Resolution was the d200 any good....

antonoat wrote:

All the demands for increased resolution kind of make me think we are missing the point a bit.
The large print from this surprised a few people.
The lens was my old 200-400f4

Reading this old article written in 2008 regarding CMOS catching on in cameras, there is an interesting quote from Kodak's Mike DeLuca, Kodak's CCD market manager for professional and applied imaging at that time.

"One problem with CMOS is, it's difficult to get the manufacturing process optimized both for the imaging part and the processing part, In contrast, "CCD technology was built for imaging. The architecture was set up to optimize the imaging characteristics available on the silicon."

I don't want to get into the CCD V CMOS argument but it is this other statement regarding the requirements of the professional and applied imaging professionals that used large CCD sensors that is pertinent.

"For those customers, the first, second, and third priority is the image quality the sensor provides,"

Compare this with today's DSLR requirements: Hi number of pixels, high ISO performance, hi fps, longer battery life, video. And so we find ourselves waiting for a D400 that we know will be a Swiss army knife camera. But many doubt it will have the same image quality as the current offerings let alone much better.

I wander where we went wrong!


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow