Ronj2

Ronj2

Lives in United States CA, United States
Joined on Jan 30, 2007

Comments

Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6

All this does not explain why experts could not tell the difference from prints made from a 14mp P&S camera and a Mediun format digital one. Let see some actual 100% crops that show the difference between a 6mp lens and 16mp lens through a 24mp sensor.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Direct link | Posted on Dec 24, 2012 at 21:37 UTC as 7th comment

Well, if folks start to put faith in this measuring system it could put pressure on lens manufactures to produce better lenses across the board now that high MP sensors are becoming the norm. Why would we want to use a lens that only resolves 12mp or less on a 24 or 36 MP camera unless we just want bigger files without any real increased detail. So far there does not appear to be a single lens according to DXO that resolves 24-36mp. 18-24mp would seem to be plenty for any DSLR camera at this point with the best lenses.

Time wil tell.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2012 at 16:33 UTC as 27th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Kinematic Digit: Do we really need another standard that frankly is just as confusing? Lines Per Height has always worked well for me. It covers both resolution of the body, the lens. Perceived resolution is just as confusing if not more so.

Looking at those numbers seem relatively meaningless to me considering that much of the Perceived numbers are changed by lens profile correction of in camera and also software applications that correct for some of those issues without any compromise to image quality.

I don't think this makes it any easier to decide which lens (or body) is better to pick from at all.

From most of the lens scores it looks like we don't need more than 10-16 MP. Zoom lens scores are mostly under 10mp the new 28-300 is about 5mp. Even some newer primes score low. Interesting how the best score is close to wide open rather then around F 5.6 -8.

Lets see some 100% crops to prove it.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 17, 2012 at 17:46 UTC
In reply to:

slncezgsi: 163 ppi is indeed quite a bit less than 263, but on the other hand it is still 60% more than 'common' MacBook Pro laptops. And with a screen of just 8" there is not too much space for photo work and for viewing it should be OK.

Where I would expect to see more of a difference to iPad 3/4 is the price tag which is only some 20 - 25 % (in Germany , cellular models, and depending on the memory) less. So it seems that the screen is not the main price-driver.

So I say - 163 ppi may be OK, but not for the price quoted by Apple at the moment...

I can hardly see the difference between our old Ipad2 and our new Ipad3 so putting the older Ipads resolution into a smaller space should be even better.

Too bad there's no SD slot yet.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 02:50 UTC
On Sony announces Alpha SLT-A99 24MP full-frame camera article (92 comments in total)

That grip looks way too big for the camera and does not seem to fit well. Otherwise nice looking camera.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2012 at 06:07 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

adrianlew: Nokia is retarded. What will a user do with a 41 mega pix? Its the quality not the size that counts... Those photos will only take space. No wonder the almost went out of business.. Same poor decision to run windows instead of android on nokia phones... I think the really should close the doors...

The shoot out was clearly in favor of the down sampled 808 images over the Panasonic LX5 at 1600 ISO. Much better than most P&S cameras, only without the controls and zoom lens.

http://asia.cnet.com/shootout-nokia-808-pureview-vs-panasonic-lumix-dmc-lx5-62216561.htm

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2012 at 06:15 UTC
Total: 6, showing: 1 – 6