Johnny Johnson wrote:
> At 12:33 AM 12/6/2006, Moose wrote:
>
>
>> .... Not buying a small sensor zoom for the 30D was one part of the cost
>> justification for the 5D. I'll probably get a Tam 17-35/2.8-4 one day, but
>> I've done fine without so far.
>>
> I wondered about that but figured you already had your wide angle
> needs covered by what you were already using on the 300D. That point
> sure swings things back to the 5D instead of the 30D.
>
I have one of those 17-35/3.5-4.5 zooms sold under many names. On the
smaller sensor, it's theoretically 27-56 mm eq. and has worked well.
With the FF sensor, it's weaker outer area is used and it is less
successful. If I really want sharp to the edges, I have to use a MF
Zuiko, but for much use, it's fine.
>> As it turns out, the central 5mp of the 5D resolves more than the 6.3 mp of
>> the 300D, so I won.
>>
> I still don't understand how that could be
I did my testing to find out how much I was losing - and was surprised
to find the result I did. I really have to believe it, as I was quite
careful, using a tripod and changing nothing but camera bodies on QR
plates. I can only conclude that there is leakage of some sort at the
physical pixel level that reduces effective resolution in the older
sensor that has been reduced considerably in newer designs.
>> Also, the Tammy is pretty good, but I'm not sure that the higher
>> resolution needed for the 30D sensor will be there, not just at the long
>> end, but in general. So I might get better results with the FF sensor
>> due to lens limits.
>>
> That's certainly a possibility, depending on the quality of the
> lens. If I'm not mistaken the DP Review tests were run using the
> 50/1.4 prime and I'd expect it to out resolve a Tamron zoom,
> especially one with a long zoom range.
>
Also, they methodology is to shoot the target at several apertures and
use the best one, to make the test as much a test of the sensor as
possible. In ordinary shooting, we often have to use other apertures. :-)
> And thanks for humoring me and my pixel pitch calculations once
> again. It's fun for me because I usually gain a fresh insight or two
> when I go through the exercise and have the discussions with
> you.
I find such calculations useful for focusing my thinking. I must admit
that I have on occasion set out to prove a point I think to be so, only
to prove myself wrong in the process and kill the message I've been
working on.
> Today, for example, I was thinking about the 30D pixel pitch
> and the claim made by some on the Internet that there is no need to
> continue the mp race because the 12 mp 5D is already pushing the
> resolution limits of the available lenses. But, the 30D has a 27%
> denser pixel pitch than the 5D and in the DP Review tests it resolved
> 28% more per mm on the sensor which, to me, shows that the 50/1.4
> lens, and probably many others, can handle that higher pixel
> pitch. So, if the lens can handle that pixel pitch let's start
> manufacturing a 5Dn with the 30D pitch. If we work backwards using
> the 30D pixel pitch of 155 sensor sites per mm but use that pitch on
> a 5D sized sensor we would have an image size of 5549 x 3705 pixels
> or about 20.6 mp.
I've assumed that's roughly what will show up in the next top of the
line Pro body. Then they can replace the 5D with something in the 15-16
mp range without getting too close to the next body up the line.
> Now that would make me happy - a 13" x 19" print
> at close to 300 pixels per inch. In a wide angle landscape shot I
> might be able to get my nose up to the print and count the leaves on
> a tree instead of seeing green mush. Kinda like I once did when I
> shot Velvia.
A nice idea, but I'm not sure how many $ it is worth to me to be able to
do that. :-) That kind of detail seems to me to be largely beside the
point for most prints. If I really valued it, I suppose I'd have been
shooting LF, or at least MF.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|