There is a 15% improvement in theoretical resolution (sqrt(16/12))-1 but
as Moose has demonstrated recently with his comparisons of the 300D and
same size crops from the 5D there is a lot more to image quality than
the pixel count.
Chuck Norcutt
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> With 39MP medium format I am not sure that is completely true. It is
> true you run into the image quality wall if you keep upping the
> pixels without increasing the size of the sensor, but that wall keeps
> getting moved back a bit at a time. And of course it is bragging
> rights. Marketing likes that.
>
> My impression with the results of the MP race has been that you
> really have to nearly double the megapixels to make a significant
> improvement in image quality. I have seen at least one review by a
> very careful guy that seemed to indicate there is only a very small
> difference in image quality between a 12MP ND2X and a 16MP C1DsII, at
> least at reasonable ISOs.
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, CA
> USA
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2006, at 7:06 PM, keith_w wrote:
>
>
>>Seems to me there's a point beyond which it's primarily bragging
>>rights, not a
>>discernible improvement in quality.
>>
>>Not so?
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|