On Dec 10, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Tom C wrote: >> From: Paul Stenquist <[email protected]> > >> >>>> 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.
You should have seen the trouble Bill got into just before he told the hostess he needed a table for eleven. >>> >>> 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. > > That argument is starting to be like telling someone that if it rains > things may get wet. The K-5 sensor has a higher pixel density than > any other APS-C sensor Pentax has used. Yet it has the lowest noise of > any APS-C sensor they've used. Is that correct? > > So obviously that argument doesn't hold true across the board. One can > have high density sensors and low noise. The real issue is, at what > point does noise become unacceptable and wipe out the benefit of > increased pixel density? I submit it depends on the photographer, the > subject, and all the other shooting conditions, ISO, aperture, and > shutter speed playing a larger factor. There are more factors than just pixel density. Sensor technology plays a huge role, as does the analog circuitry connected to the sensor. However, physics is physics. All things being equal, smaller pixels mean more noise per pixel, particularly during long exposures and at high ISO. It boils down to "One size doesn't fit everyone", or "Low noise, high resolution, low cost, pick any two". On the flip side, I don't know why image processing software can't bin the smaller pixels, when resolution isn't needed, to produce the same effect as larger pixels. Arguably, equivalent noise and higher resolution by being better able to guess which spikes are noise and which are part of the signal. > I also submit that if Pentax releases a higher than 16MP APS-C camera > you'll purchase one, because they can't keep making 16MP APS-C bodies > forever. :) True, but if Pentax produced a K5-III with no difference between it and the K5-II but a higher resolution sensor at more cost, I probably wouldn't choose it over the K5-II. -- 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.
