On 12/10/2012 10:23 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote:
From: William Robb <[email protected]>
On 10/12/2012 3:34 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but since diffraction is actually
affecting what's projected on the sensor, in other words its effect
being the same regardless of the pixel count, why would the end result
be worse for a higher resolution sensor?
Isn't that only because we're now used to pixel peeping, which means
applying different magnification levels (and quite insane ones, too)?
I will have to bow to the knowledge of pixel peepers and mathematicians.
I am but a simple photographer who neither pixel peeps nor can add past
nine with his shoes on.
By the way, IMO 24MP and higher resolutions (even in APS-C) are
inevitable; Pentax will have to update their sensors anyway when Sony
would phase out the older ones.
More pixels!!!!
I never realized you were missing a finger Bill.
I look at it very simple-mindedly. With more pixels one is potentially
able to capture more detail. If the lens is not up to the sensor
performance, i.e, light is diffracted or spread across more pixels
(not really capturing more detail), the fact that their ARE more
pixels exposed to the image means one can either crop and retain
resolution or enlarge to a greater degree before evident pixelation
occurs.
But there's a tradeoff, as pixel density contributes to noise. The K-5 sensor
is still one of the most highly rated in the camera biz. I wouldn't trade
low-noise at high ISO for more detail. Perhaps others would, but the K-5 works
well for me as is.
Having more pixels is nice, it's good to be able to produce smooth
continuous tone sharp detailed output at large sizes, but it really
depends on the output medium, and the viewing distance. I've had images
from my K20D displayed on the sides of buses and even on billboards.
Viewed up close the grid patterns are quite visible, in fact the
billboard image dots are as big as your thumb. Viewed from the intended
distance they look fine.
Tom C.
--
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.
--
Don't lose heart, they might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a
lengthly search.
--
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.
