Well, the fact is that 4MP can still make a passable 8x10. But why have
a 21MP camera if your happy with 4? You have to look carefully but
there are most certainly big differences in the two photos. For
example, near the center and at the top of the building is a large
square red logo with "H", "K" and a stylized "S" shape in the center. A
little over twice its width and to the right of that logo is what looks
like a fan in a gray metal housing. In the f/4 image the louvers in the
fan housing are quite sharp and distinct. But in the f/22 image they've
been nearly blurred out of existence. And these are straight lines
which are the easiest things for the eye to see. In fact the eye
sometimes sees straight lines where they don't exist by trying to
connect fragments of detail. In other words, the detail here has been
obliterated. Can I prove it's now a 4MP image? Nope. Can you prove
that it's not? All I can say is that it has lost fine detail that the
camera and lens are capable of resolving and did resolve at a wider
aperture.
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
>> So at F22 the image only have 4MP resolution, right? But this 4MP image
>> looks pretty good to me.
>>
>
>
> Wow, that F22 image is just horrid. I can plainly see that the lens is
> diffraction limited at F4.
>
> NOT!
>
> Good example of how diffraction limits seem to have a different bearing in
> the digital world than in the dark ages of film. Now, can anybody show me
> hard evidence that we really are running into diffraction limits with our
> new fangled digital cameras?
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|