If the rumours are true and Sony puts out a full frame A7s 12mp camera with 4K video...
Yes agreed.
Nothing "ludicrous" there for me, smaller pixels will be effected more by airy disks of a similar size.
My comparison was based on maximising the sensors performance, the D800 having more pixels will obviously take away some of the crop factor.
I don't see any claim that the pixels and airy disks have to "line up" just that a larger airy disk will obviously be more likely to have more overlap thus more negative effect.
..and a smaller sensor with the same or more pixels than a larger sensor will need to be enlarged more.
It does effect a calculation(well an estimate) that involved the crop factor though. If your measuring the point at which sharpness on a per pixel level will be effected by diffraction to the same degree then the D800 having more pixels will mean that a similar level of IQ loss will be happening earlier than merely looking at crop factor would suggest.
. You buy some lens due to it´s price, size and THE SPEED, and now you are (sensor)RESOLUTION LIMITED to that lens. You can buy 10Mpx sensor cam for it and enjoy low diffraction effects, You can buy 18Mpx to get most of it, and you have useless piece of gear(sensor) with 40Mpx, because there is no more detail anymore. For compact cam you don´t decide all this, but for good glass for your ILC, where glass is more expensive than body, you will be pushed to do so later in time, until they make new system of light gathering than normal "lens".
The claim is implicitly there I think
He [and others] can claim that indeed. Common usage does not alter physical realities, it can be an inadequate description.
There's no such requirement in either engineering or physics.
I superficially quoted a lens like the Otus that seems to offer enough performance for the very early effects of diffraction to be notable exactly so we wouldn't end up with this kind of technical and sematic debate.
The degree of enlargement obviously depends on the size of the print though and I don't think its pushing things to say that printing size maybe influenced by megapixels. Post's like that at the start of this thread specifically seem to point towards that line of thinking.
Again this seems to be descending into a sematic/technical debate when ultimately what you saying leads to the same result in real terms.
The maybe was more taking into account things like marketing, its possible for a camera to not be designed for ideal performance and instead push specs the manufacturer thinks will sell. I suspect this is much more likely to be the case with the RX100 than it is the m43 bodies at 16 MP.
A similar level of IQ loss in this case would be a decline in the sharpness when viewer at pixel level, obviously sensor performance would also be a big factor.
I´d agree. As I am not able to get the same detail level of the grass across the field (total green mush) with compact cam, I can get decent result with DSLR with the same resolution. I don´t have the same megapixel cound DSLR and compact cam right now, but I´ve tried this.
Angle of view. You have more pixels at the place, so more pixels are crippled. So it has something with the number of pixels. That´s what matters in end result. More pixels, more mess in original image on pixel level.
If you crop...
What is this? You need the same image with two different cameras, and as general user you really don´t care about magnification factor. We are not comparing magnification, we are comparing end result.
Do you have a link to prove this? From what I've read the opposite is true, and unless I am mistaking correlation with causation progress in cameras bears this out.
I couldn't disagree more. An explanation rooted in the truth becomes easy to understand once the principles it's based on are understood. A simplified explanation only becomes more difficult to understand as you dig deeper (and at some point, you'll realize that it's a lie).
No answer then. What is this 'certain level'?
I took out the irrelevant bit. The number of pixels makes no difference to diffraction. And of course, why would you be using the same f-number with a smaller sensor? If you were trying to look for the resolution sweet spot, you'd choose a smaller f-number on the smaller sensor.
Do you really think that printing size is influenced by megapixels - that people with 24 MP cameras spend all their time looking at bigger images than people with 12MP cameras. Do you think that people with 16MP compacts look at their images at the same size as people with D4s? I think that neither is the case. I think that people decide on the size they want to view (maybe by default - the size of their TV or computer screen) and one way or another the image gets scaled to that viewing size. And of course, the degree of enlargement to the same size output image depends on the size of the sensor.
It doesn't at all lead to the same 'result in real terms' You keep on introducing pixel count, which is largely irrelevant to the diffraction question and because you've lumped it in unnecessarily with the things that do affect diffraction, you claim it's the 'same thing'. No.
Very few next gen cameras are worse than teh last gen. There have been one or two cases, but they are very rare.
It isn't stuck. The MP will gradually increase for all sensor sizes up to the limit that can be tolerated for each sensor size using the existing sensor and in-camera processing technology.
