Daniel Heineck Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.2 #19 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1? | |
veroman wrote:
thedigitalbean wrote:
Yea but why care about the pixel pitch? Its the size of the photo diode and the microlenses that are actually important since that is what actually does the light collecting.
Pixel pitch ... better known as the space between photo sites ... is something many of the manufacturers DO care about.
When tightly spaced — as they are in cameras like the Canon 5D II, Nikon D300, etc. — and unless properly compensated for by design, the light directed at one photo site can easily spill over to the next, causing blown highlights and other undesireables.
A poor choice in microlens design isn't something we lowly consumers would ever know about or hear about since microlenses aren't exactly a hot topic or something the reviewers dig deeply into. But that poor or relatively compromised design can make one camera just not quite right compared to another, where the microlenses have been specifically designed for a specfic pixel pitch and pixel size (ie the Kodak sensor made for the Leica M8).
I believe pixel pitch, more than pixel size, is what gives up so much trouble with p&s cameras.
- Steve
I don't agree with most everything you just wrote there. Put as strong a color filter as the 1Ds on a 5DII and then we'll talk. Pure and simple.
Alignment of the microlenses is not a big deal--in comparison to mask alignment in chip manufacturing (e.g. a 45 nm node or so) the minimum feature size in a DSLR chip is huge (>250nm or so). Heck, Kodak just made a new sensor for the M9, amazingly enough it's a full frame sensor, which was poo-poo'ed earlier by Leica as being impossible due to telecentricity.
If Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc could make a scaled up 24x36 version of their tiny P&S sensors, the game would be over. The little sensors are much much better per unit area.
Daniel
|