[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

["R. Jackson" <jackson.robert.r@comcast.net>]

Well, I don't really care for the idea of crop sensors much, either.
There are people who go on and on about how they like their 1.3x
sensors more than FF, though. Having never worked with a 1.3x sensor,
I don't know if the appeal is practical or if they're hysterically
defending what they're used to using. If your income depends on
stalking famous people and a 1.3x sensor makes your image stabilized
100-400mm zoom behave like a 130-520mm zoom then maybe it makes a
certain sense. As far as how you "spent pixels," I was referring to
the need to crop the image to get the same field of view from a FF as
from a 1.3x crop sensor.

I imagine the big appeal of the 1D series is its speed, though. That
and its relatively low cost in comparison to the 1Ds. Other than that
there's not a lot of difference between the two.

FWIW, I like the Nikon cropped high-speed mode just because you can
see outside the area of the crop in the viewfinder. I like being able
to see outside the frame lines like that. You can tell what's getting
ready to enter your frame. I wish all pro DSLRs had viewfinders that
allowed sort of an "underscan" view with at least a little area
outside the framelines. Of course, it's hard enough just finding
cameras with 100% viewfinders, let alone 125%.

On Jul 10, 2007, at 10:43 AM, gary wrote:

> I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I
> spent pixels. This makes no sense to me.
>
> Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer
> area of
> the sensor to save space on the memory card.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body