Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
rrr_hhh Veteran Member • Posts: 6,023
Re: Pana is rumored to plan CFF (compact full frame) for post M43

forpetessake wrote:

rrr_hhh wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

rpm40 wrote:

forpetessake wrote:

rpm40 wrote:

As time marches on and sensor tech advances, it is the SMALLER format that will become more accepted as being good enough by a wider range of users, not the larger. At one point, 35mm WAS the smaller format. Now, we have progressed. 35 mm is the older, larger format. So where do we stand?

And what are your beliefs are based upon?

Are you familiar with quantum properties of light? The noise of the camera is in a large degree determined by light intensity and the area of the surface it is collected from. The modern sensors QE is about 50%, there isn't much improvement left in this regard. It's doesn't take a genius to understand that even ideal m4/3 sensor will not achieve SNR of the modern non-ideal FF sensors. When technology is perfected, the 4x difference in area will be the only determining factor and unbridgeable gap between these two formats.

I agree that a 35mm sensor can produce better IQ than an m4/3 size sensor. My point is that eventually, it just won't matter anymore. As technology improves, it benefits both sizes, so yes, 35mm IQ is, and will remain, superior to m4/3. But when small sensors are good enough for most people, most people will buy them.

In the same way that 35mm is superior to m4/3, medium format is superior to 35mm. Why isn't medium format the future?

Answer a simple question. If two cameras have the same size and weigh, ergonomics, cost, but one can have potentially better image quality better technical parameters, larger selection of lenses, etc., which one would you choose?

Your question is flawed because a bigger sensor will always need bigger lenses.

This is interesting. Despite of so much discussion, pictures, references posted people still insist on this myth. So let me ask, why do you believe this?

Hint: think about this:

I'm fully aware of this I've had an Olympus XA for years, which is not bigger than the Minox. But things change when you speak of interchangeable lenses cameras allowing the use of fast lenses and more extreme focal ranges. I have used two RF brands (Leica Ms and Contax Gs). The limits come from the sensors and the need to have incident lights not striking at a too steep angle. Or else, tell me why it has taken so much time to Leica to produce a digital back for their lenses (hint micro lenses with a different orientation at the edge) ? Why I could never get a digital Contax G ?  and the brand went down ?

Why don't you answer to the two main issues : the angle of incidence of the light hitting the sensor and the need to collect enough light to lower noise. Your compact film SLR pucture diesn't proove anything.

As a side note, I don't care for compacts with fixed lenses. I have zero interest for the new coming Sony RX1.

-- hide signature --


 rrr_hhh's gear list:rrr_hhh's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS 6D Sony a7R Olympus E-M5 II Sony a7R II +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow