Digital BW, The Print

There is a discussion here about the optimal pixel size under digital image
sensors:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:36:29 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other
> way around
> 
> 
>  
>> 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
>