Hi!
You've mentioned 24 MP a few times. How large are you printing that
you need 24MP?
Also, what APS-C camera has that resolution? 4000x6000 pixels, on a
16x24mm sensor, that gives 4um on a side for a pixel. Using the
diffraction calculator at:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
... the rest snipped for brevity
Larry, if I understand correctly, the linear resolutions is relative to
square root of pixel count. Therefore the linear resolution difference
between 16MP and 24MP is square root of 1.5 or 1.224.. or 20% give or
take. Thus, in fact, the 16MP camera (such as K-5 or D7000 and somewhat
more so Canon 18MP offerings) is almost "there". There - being the
problematic world of diffraction limited photography.
Yet both you like your K-5, I like mine and other people like their
cameras. As we have a saying going in Russian - "when a centipede was
asked how it walks, it could no longer make a single step"...
Further, if I understand correctly, all these articles (as a matter of
course) assume ideal conditions - sturdy tripod, accurate focusing,
correct light measurement, and so on.
In real life people shoot handheld, focusing mechanisms are imprecise
and light measurement is flaky. The anti-shake systems of various kinds
may or may not add another unknown to the equation. Yet we make pictures
that we and our peers quite like, some of which we print rather big,
although personally I never printed bigger than 30x45 cm (just once I
printed 40x60 cm and it was from K10D file and it was pretty darn
beautiful).
Additionally, Larry, in my very humble opinion, it would seem that this
branch of discussion is not 100% relevant here. I think that the correct
abstraction is that we have a several "companies" that make "gear". The
specs of the said "gear" are improving and the "companies" compete at
the marketplace for yours and mine hard earned money. Each "company"
decides on their specific manner by which they try to attract the new
customers and keep the existing ones.
The knowledge of physics that you demonstrate may be applicable to the
truly tiny percent of the customers and even those who can reason in
these terms and apply correct math as well as physics don't always are
guided by their knowledge.
In order not to be over-generic, which is known to be my Achilles heel,
I should say that (as I wrote in another message on this thread) even if
Pentax was absolutely right in terms of physics and some high principle,
they still appear not innovating to me.
Very often Galia and I are shooting at the same time on the same spot.
She's shooting with K-5 (the one I bought brand new here in Israel) and
usually either with D-FA 50/2.8 macro or DA 21/3.2 Limited. Both are
modern lenses, both are not damaged in any way, both should yield good
photographs. Her camera is set to -0.3 EV compensation. Or may be
-0.7EV, it is morning and I am too lazy to come up and check.
My Ricoh is either set to -0.3 EV compensation or to no compensation at
all. Though Galia is not as technically experienced shooter as I might
be, she does the job. However, the colors and the accuracy of her gear
is far behind that of mine. I should probably post few images to
illustrate that. Will do later.
Now, how is that possible that a small pocket camera (even as advanced
as Ricoh GXR) produces more consistent light metering and more
consistent color representation than Pentax semi-pro top of the line
DSLR (as of just less than 0.5 year ago)?
So the bottom line - regardless of resolution - there are great many
more areas in which modern cameras can improve. Again, in my view Pentax
cannot be bothered to pay sufficient attention to that. They pay some
attention but not nearly enough.
The AF module of Nikon D700 (not very new camera, I should point out) is
bloody amazing. How come Pentax is still trying to feed you and me with
their "advanced" <-- sarcasm, 12 areas AF module?
Clarification: if we were talking in person, my voice would have been
leveled and cheerful throughout all of the above "speech".
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
