Comparing Olympus 4/3lenses to FX "Full Frame" offerings

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,320
Like?
Re: Just shot down your own argument
In reply to Art_P, 11 months ago

Art_P wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

Enlargement in the digital era is all about numbers of pixels coupled with cleanliness/sharpness per pixel. It has little to do with sensor size (although I have been arguing that the larger sensors can have larger photosites which trap more photons and you can have more of them to boot!).

Yes, how much you can enlarge is based on the total number of photosites, not the size of the sensor,

Neither of those things is really true. How much you are willing to enlarge and still get acceptable resolution depends on the captured resolution, a mix of lens, pixel count and AA characteristic. How much you have to enlarge to get the output size you want depends on the sensor size.

but given the same technology, you have to enlarge the sensor to increase the number of photosites. Cramming more, smaller sites can reduce the image quality for various reasons. So yes, sensor size matters

that is also not really true. The emotional term 'cramming' doesn't really fit, and small pixels really don't perform worse than big ones in practice.

But really, the question isn't 'How much do I need to produce an eight foot print?', it's 'How much do I need to print the size I normally print, with room for cropping?'

-- hide signature --

Art P
"I am a creature of contrast,
of light and shadow.
I live where the two play together,
I thrive on the conflict"

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Oh?New
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow