Frage von aight8:
My question is brief.
Why are installed in a professional or semi-professional cameras leglich 1 / 3 "sensors? At DLR cameras in low-price category can be found already a lot more then a 35mm.
Why do we find this only in the extremely high priced again, or not even there. What does this have for ne logic?
Antwort von Wechiii:
Why do you want to have more than one third "Chip?
Antwort von Tuffy:
He wants a smaller depth of field, some buy for a 550D;)
Antwort von rush:
Moin,
in the "more professional" environment, such as EB-area before you find usually 2 / 3 "chips. ...
Why not more? Because you usually get of trouble in terms of sharpness ... With 2 / 3 and 1 / 3 inch can be synonymous Schonmal hide minor blurring or falling on much less.
For larger chips sitting on the other hand, the sharpness to the point ... Therefore, it is operated synonymous rather scenic, or has a sharpness assistants etc.
Antwort von WoWu:
The focus has always been sitting on the point of no preference whether large or small sensor. And the sharpness problem is rather with the small chips, because the longer the Lenses can not afford.
Thus, it is in fact with larger sensors problematic.
There is always a function of sensor size and count on it is "pixels" (and thus their size) and the imaging performance of the lens.
In addition, newer sensors have a design of 16:9, compared with the old sensors, which have 4-3 (or very often from the photograph again a different design).
A large part of the pixels are thus not available in 16:9. In this sense, third (new) no longer synonymous equal to 1 / 3 (old) ".
Only in the photo sensors, it is just as that video too many pixels on it are, what is very significant, new problems in the video area.
Antwort von rush:
Well Wolfgang,
principle, you probably right ... The focus should always sit - no question. But in everyday life there are always times unexpected situations ... .
But you must of course consider the Focal synonymous. If I move in the wide angle I have with smaller sensors is plenty of room ... Caused virtually no blurring, even when the sharpness is not quite time to the point ... .
If I but with a larger sensor and work at the same aperture, it is a focus of the light next to it in my opinion already on sooner. Conversely, it is as you say, this is because the correct focus can be more easily synonymous ...
Antwort von WoWu:
Yes, yes, only you forgetting that in bonsai sensors, the depth of any case almost zero to almost infinity focus setting ranges and it almost superfluous.
But it is equally that there are great sensors with a limited number of pixels are not s.Markt. Therefore, they must within. But then the lens performance does not match with the binning more ... So there is Alias | Wavefront Mayaing Effects. Smaller sensors, with adjusted number of pixels are already there for more frequent and affordable synonymous drawn up with Lenses. With the tiny sensors with image circle for a 5mm focal then again it is difficult and sometimes the appearance of house already so blurred, that is not necessary before the setting, or may be even worse.
So there were only two options .... TV must be at least 6k, transmitted, or does one compromise on the middle back.
And with the right lens, which is optimized for aperture (eg, a Fujinon E), is at least an equally good impression, as in a subsequent binning and photo optics with artificial blur to get the effects off. If not better, because there are more detailed.
But the question was why small .... Counter question ... why large, if the problems (for video not go away) get?
