Quantity, quality, size, and sizzle are all factors that affect sharpness,
but aren't a pure mathematical equation. It would be so nice to say that x
number of pixels at x pixel pitch will always produce certain results, but
the math is thwarted by other non-math factors.
Using my Canon 6D and the Olympus E-1 as examples, both cameras have nearly
identical pixel-pitch For a given amount of surface area, the sensors
possess the same amount of pixels. If I crop the 6D image to match the same
equivalent coverage of the E-1, you would think that the images would be
pretty much identical.
But they aren't. Nor do lenses that work well on one work well on the
other. Some lenses will give fringing or CA issues on one body, but not on
the other body and vis-versa. How I apply sharpening to the images is also
very different. With the E-1, I use a radius of around 0.7 pixel, but on
the 6D, I stick with something between 1 and 2 pixels.
The OM Zuiko 28/2 is pure disaster on the E-1 with more artifacts and
issues than you can shake a stick at, but is perfection on the 6D.
Now, what if I use the E-3 with a higher pixel-density than the E-1 or 6D?
The E-3's sensor is much more prone to color fringing issues than the other
cameras with same lenses. One can say that it's because the lenses are not
up to the increased resolution. That is sometimes true. But sometimes it is
because of how the lenses interact with the specific
filter-stack/microlenses on the sensor. Back to the E-1/6D comparison, the
microlenses on the E-1 sensor are highly problematic with some lenses,
non-issue with others. The 35/shift lens performs perfectly on the E-1, but
not so on other digital bodies.
AG
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|