From: Bowser on
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:51:33 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote:

>
><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> You really can't understand even simple concepts can you. Let me make this
>> a bit more simple for you Alan. The manufacturers raised the MP count on
>> smaller sensor cameras higher and higher, past the point where it improved
>> IQ purely for marketing reasons. And in your wisdom, you think this don't
>> happen to Dslrs?
>
>I can't speak for Alan's wisdom, but I can speak from my experience. Canon
>has done exactly the right thing in the 5D2. (I'd guess Alan's experience
>with prints from his 20+MP dSLR is similar to mine.)
>
>I make 12x18 prints. On an Epson R2400. From 5D2 images, such prints are
>breathtaking in their detail, color rendition, tonal range. From 5D images,
>the detail rendition in landscape work leaves a bit to be desired. You
>really can see that 300 ppi is better than 240 ppi.
>
>It's a significant improvement for the work I'm doing.
>
>So it really is exactly the right thing. Before the 5D2, I needed to shoot
>my Mamiya 7 for that quality of print at that size: 645 and 6x6 are just
>beginning to lose it if you want 18" in the long direction. Now I have a
>much wider selection of lenses (macro, tilt/shift), all the flexibility that
>an SLR brings. And the detail I want in my prints.
>
>There is very little wrong with this picture. So your extrapolation from
>your experience with 4/3 and smaller cameras is simply wrong. If I wanted to
>make exhibition quality 20x30 prints, I'd be interested in 40+MP MF
>digitial. But I don't, I've always been happy with MF quality images, and
>the 5D2 is very much in that range (noticeably better than 645, close to
>6x7).

David,

Your experience mirrors mine. While I did not upgrade from the 5D to
the 5D II simply for more resolution, the added resolution is clearly
visible in prints as small as 8 x 10. And while camera makers do pixel
stuff their consumer cams, there isn't really any clear evidence that
they're doing it for marketing purposes in their high-end slrs. Take
the Canon 7D. While some have claimed that Canon stuffed, the results
it produces are simply excellent, and ahead of similar 12MP cams. And
if you can get extra resolution without paying a penalty, why not?

Anyway, enjoy the 5D II. I sure do.
From: Bowser on
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com"
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says...
>>
>>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>>
>> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
>> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>
>A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?
>
>B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.

I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my
Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more
film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors,
despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less
resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure
that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I
had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best
handling camera I've ever owned.
From: MikeWhy on
"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molon(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2602e994c867cf0598c25c(a)news.supernews.com...
> In article <hn93o5$v2c$2(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says...
>> B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>> highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> You mean MF glass is unable to resolve 40MP?

6 micron pixel pitch is 167 lines/mm.

From: RichB on
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:25 -0500, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com"
><stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com says...
>>>
>>>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not a
>>>> huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide angle
>>>> $$$ MF glass etc.
>>>
>>> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
>>> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>>
>>A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?
>>
>>B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>>highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
>I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
>would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
>but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my
>Nikon, there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more
>film means higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors,
>despite that the glass may, theoritically, be capable of less
>resolution? I'm guessing yes, but I'll wait and see. Anyway, I'm sure
>that anyone with a Pentax MF system loves this news. The 645 N II I
>had (for a short time) was a stellar machine and maybe the best
>handling camera I've ever owned.

Judging by your photography posted to the SIs that was money well wasted.
Matter of fact, anyone that has submitted photos for the SIs so far have
wasted their money on camera gear, when it could have been put to good use
on something of which any of them might have an inkling of aptitude. We can
rule out photography as a choice judging by everyone's posted entries.



From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:29:25 -0500, Bowser wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:42:19 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com"
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <hn7ckt$g4d$1(a)news.albasani.net>, stephe_k(a)yahoo.com
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> But is a crop camera 44 x 33 mm vs 56 x 42 mm of full 645 format. Not
>>>> a huge increase over 36x24mm for the price and what you lose on wide
>>>> angle $$$ MF glass etc.
>>>
>>> 68% more area, that is a significant increase. It's also nice to have
>>> 40MP resolution - no DSLR comes close.
>>
>>A: Is is equal resolution to what a good full frame DSRL has now?
>>
>>B: Is the MF glass resolving enough to do anything if it does resolve as
>>highly. i.e. are you actually gaining anything.
>
> I've seen these questions before, but back in the "film" days. Testers
> would *prove* that MF glass has lower resolving power than 35mm glass,
> but when comparing images from my hassy 500 C/M to those from my Nikon,
> there was NO comparison. So will the reality that meant "more film means
> higher quality images" hold true for larger sensors, despite that the
> glass may, theoritically, be capable of less resolution? I'm guessing
> yes,

You guessed right. Image quality still improves as the sensor resolution
increases, even beyond the optical limits of the system.



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com