Digital BW, The Print

> Personally I would be wary of any 1.6x sensor dedicated lenses for the
> simple fact that full frame sensors are very much likely to become the
> norm.
> 

I doubt it.  Moore's law is based in large part of the economies of having
smaller chips.  That gets more chips per wafer.  So, there will always be a
major price difference between 1.6 and full frame.  As the noise levels
decrease and resolutions increase, the need for the larger sensors will
decrease also, making them, I suspect, a low volume specialty item. 

I think 8 mp can already do weddings, etc.  Above that level, demand for
portable, hand-holdable cameras seems to decrease dramatically.  For the
view camera and other tripod-only markets we probably will have a
Hasselblad-type camera with swings, tilts, etc.  However, from the DOF I've
seen, I'm even wondering how much I'll ever use tilts, which used to be
critical to me.  (I haven't even tried my Canon 45 TS lens on the XT yet.)

It would be interesting to hear a physicist's analysis of what the smallest
pixel size works well.  Since light has a wave character, I suspect that at
the small end of the scale the wave nature of light starts to interfere with
the sensor's ability to absorb light. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com