Will DPReview admit they need to eat some crow?

Started Sep 15, 2009 | Discussions thread
rwbaron Forum Pro • Posts: 13,962
Re: Dunno?

GeorgeML wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

While I agree with this thread in general, "small pixels receive less light" is not twisted logic, it's fact.

It may be fact, but it's not necessarily relevant, because it is only a fact about individual pixels. When you try to translate it directly to facts about the "image", then the logic is twisted.

It's naive to think that shrinking the megapixels has no effect on their quality - and how can an image be better overall if it's combined from pixels of lesser quality?

Since the 5D was announced in 2005, Canon have increased the megapixels on 1.6x cameras from 8mp -> 18mp.

At the same time, in 2009 they still do not have a 1.6x camera that produces better image quality than the 5D.

What is the above supposed to mean? That's like saying a 4 cylinder engine still does not produce as much HP and torque as an 8 cyl. It's basic physics. FF will always show an advantage over crop with the same technology applied to both but lowering pixel density on either will not necessary provide the results you think it will.

So, it's not a coincidence that some people totally dismiss the 1.6x crop factor.

Canon have not done anything to prove that 1.6x camera can have same/better image quality than FF cameras.

See above.


 rwbaron's gear list:rwbaron's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow