On 12/10/2012 2:59 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
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.
Some cameras do exactly that. I can't remember which off the top of my
head right now.
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
--
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.
