steve harley wrote: >on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote >> >> P.J. Alling wrote: >>> 46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of >>> physics. >> >> That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3. > >did the math K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be >the one pushing the ragged edge > >megapixels per square millimeter: > >46 mp / 864 sq mm = 0.054 (that's only 54,000 pixels per square millimeter) > >vs > >24 mp / 367 sq mm = 0.065
I really like the idea of judging sensors by pixel density rather than simple pixel count this puts APS-C and FF sensors on equal footing. By most reports, the 36-megapixel cameras are pushing the ragged edge, so the 24MP APS-C cameras are over it (as would the 46MP sensor). At this point they really seem to be pushing pixel density to the point of uselessness. Filling up hard drives with bigger files that carry no image benefit. It's all marketing. But if it works, more power to 'em. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- 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.
