No offense, but I think you're in denial. You 'disagree' with the fact that a '100% crop' from a 14MP APS-C image is apples to oranges comparing it to an original image almost half its size to begin with? You think I'm pulling some kind of trick with my examples?
Did I say you were "pulling a trick?"
Frankly, the katydid crop is a little soft. Same with your oft-used face crop. You have a lot of complexity in both of those scenes and have no doubt tweaked sharp levels just so, but I for one can see the limitations in detail a mile away. I've done graphics professionally since 1988 and I'm telling you that neither of those crops work as a 'stand alone image' unless all you're doing is posting to a web blog or similar. They wouldn't hold up as a small print.
I did graphics professionally for eight years, and wrote for a magazine for six years on the topic of image processing, color separation, and graphics.
(The Katydid is not soft. So far your only silly statement)
As DPR said: "While it outresolves the downscaled Nikon D60 image and almost matches the resolution of the ten megapixel Ricoh, it cannot really compete with a modern 10 megapixel DSLR such as the Nikon D60." ...and "While the DP1 delivers a large amount of detail at its native resolution of 4.6 MP the upscaled RAW output cannot keep up with the 450D. The Canon is sharper and shows more detail."
If you read my posts, I stated quite firmly, that I
choose to shoot my wildlife photography with a Nikon
because I needed the additional resolution that the larger sensor provides.
The DP series X3 simply does not out-resolve a 14MP+ Bayer camera. Period. Absolutely. Which is what I said.
No, but whatever detail it DOES resolve, it resolves with far more clarity.
So let me give you a longer explanation, since this may be a semantics problem.
When I first saw the output of the SD9, I was tremendously impressed. I was not impressed by the images themselves, but what happened when I zoomed into them. Even at 400 or 600 percent, the images maintained their pixel clarity. Unlike a Bayer images, they never became "muddy." Ok, so what does this mean? It's not as if the images were of any use at 600 percent.
It means I can interpolate these images up, almost indefinitely,* (well, within reason) as compared to Bayer pattern images. Does this mean that we cannot interpolate up a bayer image? Obviously no. I print at 16x20, and my Bayer images are just fine. I like to get a 100 Meg or greater file, and the larger the image, the less interpolation I have to do. Now, I've printed Bayer images interpolated up from 1600 pixel images. Not a problem. Of course it wasn't a problem since the images had no detail. Here's an example of such an image.
Looks just fine at 16x20
And I'm sure I could do the same with your grill.
But your mountain shot ain't gonna hack it. Sorry, no, even with good interpolation tools, it's just too muddy. Now that Katydid image would work just fine at 16x20. True, not as good as I'd like, and I wouldn't normally do it,
but at a normal viewing distance, that tiny 800 wide image would look just fine, even at 16x20.
So when I use the expression, "Stand alone image," I am using it in the literal sense. I can actually make use of it for prints. At 8x10 you couldn't tell I interpolated it up, unless you were using a magnifying glass.
Dave
--
"Everyone who has ever lived, has lived in Modern Times"
