Quote:
1/2" chips will only make the issue worse. 1/3" will make it worse still. Cost etc may exclude the use of a 2/3" camera, but if there's no cost advantage to a 1/3" camera over 1/2", then in this respect the 1/3" camera is at a clear disadvantage. |
All things being equal yes. But, what if you could have a 1/3" instead of a 1/2" but the lens would be much better as they can make a better performing lens to cover the smaller chip for less money than the same performance lens would cost to cover 1/2"? That seems like it may be the case with the Canon, and that the 1/2" to 1/3" difference may be smaller than the difference made by a better quality lens.
Just a thought. Steve |
It's a good thought, Steve, and the quoted figures for max aperture (if you believe them) are f1.9 for the EX, and f1.6 for the Canon. That half stop does mean that if both cameras are used wide open, the difference half negates the 1/2"-1/3" advantage in respect of both depth of field and low light performance.
But it is now becoming a camera v camera discussion. Does a good lens (and a heavier price tag) at all make up for an inherent 1/3" v 1/2" disadvantage? And it doesn't get away from the fact that if the new Canon had 1/2" chips, but still a f1.6 lens, it would be much better still. Instead of being an EX1 challenger, a definate EX1 beater. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Is the lens ramping not partly due to the fact that the Canon is 18x vs 14x for the Sony? When does the Canon start to ramp, maybe around 14x?
Also, at telephoto range like that the dof would be pretty small even at f2.8. At max zoom and f2.8 and the subject at 20 the depth of field would only be just over 1 foot. Steve |
Re: xf-300 vs sony EX1R sensor size?
Quote:
Go to a big observatory. Notice the HUGE telescopes. Size matters when it comes to light-gathering power. Steve |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 PM. |
DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2024 The Digital Video Information Network