If you are using autofocus, that will be the limiting factor in resolution. IIRC, they quit at about 50lpmm. Then there is the antialiasing filter, which reduces resolution. The EOS-1Ds Mark II has an AAF that doesn't filter much, so it is more prone to aliasing problems, but also produces a sharp image.
Hanna, Mark (x9085) wrote: > This makes good sense Art, however I'm curious about pixel density. > (apart from the obvious larger pixel = more photons landing in it > sensitivity advantage which is often the case with the larger sensor) > > Can the lenses being used on the cameras in question, satisfactorily > resolve the number of lines per mm required for the smaller pixel > density of the smaller sensor? > > I have read about lenses having 40LPmm (crap consumer zoom)or 100LPmm > (reasonably good lens), is this figure in relation to the intended > projected plane? If so, 40LPmm for a 35mm film plane or FF sensor would > be 24mm by 36mm which at 40LPmm, equals 1.3824 MPixels. 100LPmm = > 8.64MP. > > For an APSC sized sensor, 15 by 24mm I think, you're looking at 0.576MP > and 3.6MP for 40LPmm and 100LPmm respectively. > > So in theory, you may be able to crop the FF pic to emulate a 1.3 or 1.6 > sized sensor, and despite possibly having less pixel density, the sensor > may be capturing the same actual sharpness or resolution, in which case > you could simply upsize the resolution to match in PS, and get the same > resolution, same sharpness, but lower noise photograph, due to larger > pixels, but pixels that may actually match the resolution of the lenses > better than the smaller sensor. > > I don't know much about lens resolution, however if the average L series > lens is around 100 to 120LPmm, I know I'd be wanting the larger sensor > if my above assumptions are correct. I have a 5D, and the size and > resolution of the images never fail to amaze me, as good as my old > Mamiya M6451000S. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich > Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 9:47 AM > To: Hanna, Mark (x9085) > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography > > Let's say you have two sensors, each 12 MP. One is FF the other smaller > using 1.3X factor. To get the same multiplication factor with the FF, > you have crop about 1/4th of the area out, which means you have reduced > the resolution by that much. If the FF is about 1/4th higher res to the > smaller sensor, then you are correct, no disadvantage. > > Considering cost and weight of a FF, may not be as great an advantage as > it first appears. > > Art > > gary wrote: > >> I simply see no advantage to have a smaller sensor. I don't see how I >> spent pixels. This makes no sense to me. >> >> Nikon has an option on some models where you can toss the outer area of >> the sensor to save space on the memory card. >> >> R. Jackson wrote: >> >> >>> Sure, but you "spend" pixels of your total sensor resolution to get >>> there. >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2007, at 9:37 AM, gary wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> A cropped sensor really doesn't give you more reach. If you think >>>> about >>>> it, you could just crop a full size image to get more "reach." >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message > title or body > Notice > This email, and any attachments transmitted with it, is confidential and may > contain sensitive or privileged information. If you are not the named > recipient you may not read, use, copy, disclose, distribute or otherwise act > in reliance of the message or any of the information it contains. If you have > received the message in error, please inform the sender via email and destroy > the message. Opinions expressed in this communication are those of the sender > and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Crown Castle > Australia Pty Ltd. No responsibility is taken for any loss or damage > sustained from the use of the information in this email and Crown Castle > Australia Pty Ltd makes no warranty that this material is unaffected by > computer virus, corruption or other defects. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
