Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Well, the fact is that 4MP can still make a passable 8x10.
I've done some nice ones with 2 MP. dont' hold up well under magnifying
glass scrutiny, but that's not what they are for.
> But why have a 21MP camera if your happy with 4?
I'm not quite convinced that the theoretical charts agree with practical
experience. The subjects are complex, the lenses are complex and the
releation of lens to sensor still a bit murky. I've done tests where
more MPs in the same size actually resolve less than fewer.
While the theory is generally correct, I'm not sure it plays out that
simply in practice. C.H.'s f22 image lookslmore like 6+ MP to me than 4.
It's really easy to get confused with these MP numbers. resolution is a
linear measure, while MPs are square area measures. To double the
resolution of a sensor, you need to quadruple the MPs. Twice 4 MP is 16
MP, Half 21 MP is 5.25 MP - and the practical difference between 4 & 5
MP can easily come down to sensor system quality, rather than # of MPs.
> But why have a 21MP camera if your happy with 4?
That isn't quite the point, at least to me. he has a 21 MP camera for
many situations and uses. For some others, it may do less well, but will
always do as well or batter, in the sense being discussed here, as a 4
MP camera. How is that bad?
I'm actually interested in the 5D II more for it's improved low light
performance than for the additional MPs. But the better high ISOs with
13 MP option doesn't exist without changing brands, which has its own
issues. If they made both a 21 MP 6D and a less expensive 5D2 with the
same resolution , but enhanced high ISO performance, I'd be pretty excited.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|