I enjoy taking photos of brambles and woods, and these combine a low
magnification level with lots of detail. The differences in resolution
between sensors, and between MF film and sensors, is quite apparent even
in small prints. The lower the resolution, the more the details merge
together. I've taken some shots of scrubby woods in winter and found the
small branches of brush blended together, basically looking a haze.
Usually, though, details like that merge together form a texture that
suggests the reality, even if the detail is not really present in the
capture.
For macro work I have not seen a huge difference, terms of resolution,
since the days of the *ist-D. At 1:1 magnification each Pixel on the 6mp
*ist-D corresponds to about 0.0003 inches. On the K5 each pixel
corresponds to about 0.0002 inches. There is not that much detail in any
of the macro subjects that I shoot that would be revealed in the extra
10,000th of an inch there. I mean, a gnat's eyebrow is way bigger than
that.... Aside from the inherent lack of detail to be captured, optics
and technique limit things far more than the sensor resolution. But,
there has been plenty of other sensor improvements that have made it
worthwhile to upgrade (noise, ISO performance, D range)...
Mark
On 9/23/2012 1:08 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
In real world experience, how often has the sensor resolution directly impacted
the quality of your photos?
What were the situations? How did you tell that sensor resolution rather than
something else was the key factor?
--
Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est
--
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.
