Winsor Crosby wrote:
> I initially felt that way, but I am persuaded that you are just
> throwing away too much to make a large crop because you are in the
> wrong place or have the wrong lens.
>
> Phil Askey showed a MP comparison near the bottom of the page here:
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page25.asp
>
> I think it even exaggerates the differences by lining up two edges.
> You can see that almost any substantial crop as a substitute for a
> longer lens from even a 12MP image is quickly going to get you down
> into D30 3MP territory, unless you are talking about lens differences
> like that between a 180 and a 200. :-)
>
We do rapidly lose sight of the start of threads. This branch of this
thread started with AG stating
> "Frankly, 3-5MP is more than sufficient for
> 99% of all pictures and will be so for many decades to come.
> Even though technology keeps advancing, the uses and users
> don't."
That was where my specific crop by 2x from 12mp = 3mp comments came
from. And I agree with him in many regards. I have great 8x10 prints
from a 2mp camera.
However, to address another part of your post, a simplistic graphic
comparison like the one in your link doesn't tell the whole story.
Megapixels are somewhat like vehicle horsepower and amp wattages; some
are more equal that others. My personal, specific interest was in the
ability of a FF sensor to give as good results when cropped to 1.6x,
APS-C size as the 1.6x body I already had, while also giving all the
other positive aspects of a FF frame body.* If that were not possible,
then going to the larger sensor would mean having to get bigger,
heavier, more expensive, longer lenses or sacrifice my beloved long tele
shots. In that case, I would have been better off with a 30D. But then,
of course, I would have to buy a WA zoom useful with the 1.6x sensor.
Part of my justification of the cost of the 5D, once I was reasonably
sure it would do what I wanted, was that I wouldn't need to buy more
lens(es) for one end of the focal length range or the other.
And as I've posted before, it turns out that the 5.1mp in an APS-C sized
central portion of the 5D sensor easily and obviously resolve more
detail in the subject than the 6.3mp of the 300D sensor
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Canon%205D%20vs%20300D/C300v5D.htm>.
I'm not talking theory, but practical, demonstrated fact. I haven't
tried the next logical step, but I'm guessing that something between 3
and 4 of the higher quality mps of the 5D will resolve the same detail
as the 6.3 of the 300D. I have no idea how this kind of relative
performance plays out within and between other sensor systems. It is,
however, proof positive to me that not all pixels are created equal and
that 3mp of first rate quality probably can meet AG's 99% of uses
standard; 5mp of them certainly can.
Phil Askey refers to this quality of mps factor when he refers to "per
pixel sharpness" in some of the comparison pages of his reviews. In the
30D review, he says "In RAW the EOS 5D produces .... noticeably better
per pixel sharpness than the EOS 30D". More proof, by the way, that the
30D sensor is the same one used in the 20D, and not a later evolution
based a downsize of the 5D sensor.
Moose
*No, I'm not saying the FF is inherently better, only that it looked
like the best solution for my particular set of needs and existing
equipment.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|