What I don't understand is the feigned negativity or brush-off of an 8MP sensor vs. a 6 MP sensor.
All things being equal (a phrase now in popular usage on the PDML) an 8MP sensor should provide a higher resolution image than a 6MP sensor. Just because one does not immediately perceive it in a given shot, or at particular print size, does not mean it is not there, or that it will not be of value when cropping an image. If 8 or 9% is considered trivial, than I would gladly invite any and all to donate between 8 and 9% of their paycheck to my cause. I won't turn it down. :-) For that matter it seems that 8MP DSLR's will be considered passe in the immediate future. Tom C. "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered." >From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: Full Frame/Canon >Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:04:47 -0400 > >Godfrey DiGiorgi ramarren at mac.com Tue Aug 29 16:04:37 EST 2006 > > >> .. 6mp camera is adequate for the most application. In fact, it > >> would be > >> ideal, as far as I am concerned, if the upcoming K10D would have > >> something > >> like 8mp but with better dynamic range etc. ... > > > Since I don't have one to judge yet, I can't say that the K10D is or > > isn't better than an 8Mpixel variant of same would be. I do know that > > between 6 and 8 Mpixel produces very little real difference in output > > prints, 10Mpixel does pull more detail out on wide views, with a > > 28-29% improvement in linear resolution. I can see it when comparing > > *ist DS vs Sony R1 captures where it is extremely difficult to see > > any difference comparing *ist DS vs KM A2 captures (only 8-9% linear > > resolution improvement for the latter). > >This is well known but when I see Canon's future offer of 20mp or 16.4mp >etc >(mind you, these are for the pro offering) I shiver :-). >I do not have a 10mp camera but I am comfortable with 6mp and 8mp is just >for having a bit of margin when it's required, plus 8mp sensors are off the >shelf standard item. Other than that, I just took the 8mp figure off the >air. If I do commercial photography, I might have to choose at least 10mp >body by necessity, but glad I'm not. I just wish to enjoy taking photos >and >print them. Once in a while, I have to go up to A4 size but 6mp will do >and >8mp will just enhance the confidence. I know that between 6mp and 10mp, >one >can see the difference particularly in the larger size print. But this is >where you begin to see other potential problems (other than the lens issue) >such as the sensitivity to the camera shake etc. Perhaps SR will take care >of it, and it might actually be a necessity. >In my genre of photography, I do not see any need of FF size sensor. >Besides, the current DA lenses have larger image circle to take care of the >sensor movement for SR, thus 40mm for example is usable in 35mm film >cameras. But I do not know how much larger image circles the FF lenses >might need in relation to the SR. Pentax have obviously been revamping the >whole lens line in the last 3 years or so, and the next lens line will be >longer telephotos DFAs with USM. I am curious to see what the image circle >size for these lenses would be. But evry maker has been saying that the FF >(or larger sensor) is almost strictly a matter of cost, and when everybody >else offers so called FF size sensor, I do not see any reason why Pentax >won't. But I wish every maker retains the APS size sensor anyway. >So, to me, the FF issue at the present is a moot point. DA lenses are >mostly to take care of wider ends of APS size sensor, which they pretty >much >completed, and any future lenses would be DFA. I do not think Pentax would >offer something like 200/2.8 in APS image circle. No reason for it. > >Cheers, > >Ken > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
