There's nothing wrong with the theory here. The simplistic theory only
considers the maximum that is possible... not the maximum that is
likely. As I mentioned with respect to film resolution, the maximum lab
measured limit is highly dependent on contrast. The same is true of
digital. I expect that the higher dynamic range of the 5D results in
higher contrast pixels than the 300D. Thus the effective or real
resolution of the 5D is better than the 300D despite its extra pixels.
With respect to a MF digital in competition with a 6x7 film image I
suspect you are correct about the digital making a better image with
even greater *visible* resolution. But I didn't need to go that far to
make my point.
Chuck Norcutt
On 11/3/2014 3:37 PM, Moose wrote:
Running the numbers is fine, and useful, but not always the whole story.
When I upgraded from the APS-C 300D to a 5D, I calculated that the
theoretical resolution of the 300D is greater than that of the matching
size central portion of the larger FF sensor of the 5D.
However, as I suspected from review images, with actual test shots on a
tripod of static subjects, using the same lens, there was very slightly
more visible detail in the lower pixel count shots from the 5D.
As scientists find regularly, the theoretical calculations may or may
not match the experimental results. Sometimes the theory has to go.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|