On 14/09/14 16:31, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Zos,
I guess, you were asking about the reference to the effective
resolution of the lenses combined with a sensor.
Here is the link:
http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/
(from the thread "OT? In case you are having some insomnia tonight..." )
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg703996.html
He starts talking about the interplay of the high resolution lenses
and the sensor shortly after 4:00.
Personally, I'm too lazy to look up that right now, but I'm thinking
that it might make sense to have a sensor resolution of up to 8x the one
of the lens. I'll leave it as an exercise to find out how I came up with
that number (told you I was lazy.) But I'm also wondering if one could
make that 6x instead, and also reorganise the sensor (see above.)
- T
HTH,
Igor
Zos Xavius Sat, 13 Sep 2014 04:45:44 -0700
Can someone cross post this video or at least let me know the thread
that it was in so I can scan for it? :)
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Igor PDML-StR <[email protected]>
wrote:
I.
First, just a quick comment that while talking about outresolving
lenses,
one should also keep in mind that due to the discretization of the
pixelated
media, the effective resolution of a lens can be still reduced, even if
the
sensor's pixels/mm number is larger than lines/mm number for the lens.
(The
guy in that recent Nikon vs Canon video that was linked a few days ago
in a
different thread discusses that.) So, increase in the pixel density of a
factor of 1.28 in principle can produce some significant effect for some
lenses if you are going from 6 MP to 7.7 MP.
In this case, the same argument may apply for the sharpest lenses.
(Maybe even prime * lenses of Pentax?)
--
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.
