On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 1:01:42 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 12:12:57 UTC-5, -hh wrote:
On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 7:17:11 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 9 January 2005 at 07:50:12 UTC-5, Roland Karlsson wrote:
Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:MPG.1c4b414a3...@news.supernews.com:
I guess there are lots of people who would like to have the low noise of
DSLR CCDs in a much more compact package (and don't need interchangeable
lenses, an TTL viewfinder etc.), so why has no manufacturer yet launched
such a compact camera ? Given that DLRs now cost less than $1000, it can't be the cost alone.
Me to.
My guess is that the manufacturers, faulty or not,
believes that there exist no market.
Funny thing about seeing this old 2005 thread …
…is that I bought just such a camera a few years ago.
The nuance is that it wasn’t using an APS-C sized sensor, but a 1”. The goal
was optimizing performance while still staying in the compact P&S form factor.
Only because increasingly senile old photogs could never adapt out of 35mm.
So they are stuck hauling around 15lb telephoto lenses because they are too
stupid and too stubborn to understand that you can get amazing images with
APS or even m4/3rds if you actually try to.
Technology can only compensate for physics of aperture to a finite degree. Sure, tech has enabled much much better performance out of a given aperture
size, but increasing the aperture invariably ups the performance even further.
Overall, it becomes just a question of how much is good enough for the application.
But almost no application requires it, except for bragging rights, otherwise you are saying
what came before today's high-performance 35mm digital (smaller formats, more restricted
dynamic range, lower resolution and all film shots) should basically have never been done
because they were worthless.
Incorrect: one can never employ technology that's better than what exists at the time.
The motivation towards increased image quality (plus ease of use, etc) is what prompts using
better technologies as they becomes available. Similarly, it can also enable image captures
which were previously impossible or impractical, sufficiently lacking in quality, etc.
Case in point, consider the following image. I believe that I've shared this before, but can't
find it in the archives: it is an image of a Ruppell's Parrot:
<
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2016/Namibia/rueppells_parrot-7Y8A1520_66%25.jpg>
Now YMMV on if that image is of "presentation quality"; my opinion is that it is not. But it is
nevertheless adequate for species identification, which is all that some birders may personally
care about.
From a technology standpoint, the bird in this image is ~432 pixels tall. That level of resolution
is what enabled its identification. YMMV on how many fewer pixels on target would permit this,
but it will reach a point where there won't be adequate pixels. For example, take the same lens
setup and change from a 7Dmk2 to an older dSLR body technology of a 6.3 MP Canon 10D, and
the vertical pixels resolution drops from 3647 to 2048, so this would calculate to just 242 pixels
tall .. roughly half the resolution: will it still be adequate to resolve identification? Short answer
is yes (just tried this in Photoshop).
Similarly, here's a (reduced) jpg of the uncropped original to show the full ~1 degree vertical field of
view, as the 7Dmk2 was equipped with a 1.4x teleconverter behind a 400mm f/4, which yields a
896mm equivalent on the glass:
<
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2016/Namibia/reuppells-uncropped-7Y8A1520.jpg>
Knowing this, one can do taxonomy and trigonometry to figure out that since the bird is roughly
10 MOA in height, it is therefore roughly 100m distant.
So now let's go back another technology generation as Rich wants us to do, namely to an older
digital P&S I once used, to a 4MP Canon A80 (1704 vertical pixels), with max effective focal length
of 114mm (equiv): we're now looking at an image that's <20 pixels in height.
Here's my de-rezzed approximation as to what the bird in that image would have (de)resolved to.
<
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2016/Namibia/reuppells-convert-A80equiv2.jpg>
Think you can still ID it? I know I can't.
FYI, if the above is too tiny to see, here's a now too large upsized version of the same image:
<
http://huntzinger.com/photo/2016/Namibia/reuppells-convert-A80equiv.jpg>
Again, "good luck".
In certain specialized applications (huge prints, ultra-low light) it can be made use
of, but those requirements are rarely encountered by most shooters.
Aka "lowest common denominator".
-hh
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
