Mike Fulton

Wow, it's amazing to me how people can simply dismiss images which show even the slightest hint of noise. Back in the early and mid '80's when I was shooting night football games under poor...

Even a 36mp sensor is still falling a little short of ideal for capturing images projected by lenses that achieve about 100 lines per millimeter, which is well within the specs of most decent...

Looks great in most respects but too bad they only went down to a 28mm equivalent at the wide angle end. Should have gone to 24mm like many of their recent P&S offerings.

With my 1DS Mk3, I shoot mainly at ISO 100 with studio flash.

The increased frame rate of the 1D X does nothing for me, because my lights don't recycle that fast. The improved ISO sensitivity does...

Maybe a simple "*no*" was a little too absolute. Sorry about that. If you want to say that larger pixels hide diffraction because the resulting image lacks enough resolution, I would accept it...

No. Diffraction is simply a part of the process of how the image projected by the lens is created. The high frequency data affected by diffraction has already been filtered out of the image by...

Absolutely not true. The *only* thing you can possibly do with an image sensor of a given size that will result in lower resolution captured in the final image is *increase* the pixel size. ...

The wacky link in the original post won't work if you're not on Facebook, and even if you are it's kind of a weird way to get there. Here's the image it ultimately gets...

Diffraction has nothing whatsoever to do with the image sensor. Diffraction is the process of light being redirected ever so slightly by gravity when it passes near the perimeter of the lens...