| Joined: | Mon Apr 2nd, 2012 |
| Location: | South Lakeland, UK |
| Posts: | 4066 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
The quest for a small sensor really took off with digital, before that 110 film was about as small as the 'sensor' size went. Size seems to be driven by convenience, image quality by what is achievable. I wouldn't use my iPhone photographs for anything other than snapshots when I don't have a 'proper' camera to hand. I have used both to take the same subject under the same conditions and there is no comparison.
One question seems to be begging: Where do we go from HERE?
I suspect the IQ from the iPhone size sensors will improve but is there sufficient imperative to go smaller, after all it's small enough to fit in a matchbox now, apart from covert stuff, I can't see any need to go smaller, so, are camera designers due to be retired once they have an iPhone sensor up to it's maximum practical resolution and IQ? This stuff has limits, the laws of physics will get in the way of development eventually, not to mention the laws of diminishing returns.
For me the D200 takes a very acceptable photograph. If I had a pot of money I might be tempted to get a D3 but I don't see any reason to go beyond that for my needs.
I think the most pertinent point the chap in the video makes is that the most important part of the photography process is the nut behind the camera.
It's said, an amateur worries about the gear, a pro worries if the client will pay up and the master worries about the light.
I have to admit I haven't read the article yet either... I suspect it will make my head hurt! LOL
Back to the manuscript!
____________________
Robert.