Canon loves 24mp…where’s the new FF32mp?….R6 mk3!

thunder storm wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

thunder storm wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

dmartin92 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

Foskito wrote:

"Yeah, you should document that marketing talk for when they want to sell you the R6III with 30.4Mp."

Exactly!! I dont buy the "our new 24mp sensor magically offers more resolution than 30mp sensors" BS.

Seems like it would be a very easy thing to test.

Wouldn't it have to be via those tests where they take pictures of converging lines ? The actual number resolution might be less, but maybe when you look at photos of converging lines, the 24mp might do as well as the 30mp.

That is to say, if they cut back on the anti-aliasing filter.

That seems reasonable. It should be easier to simply do that kind of test than just arguing about it endlessly with no data.

The problem is the lack of a definition when talking about "resolution". The digital resolution is nothing else but the Mp-count. You can change things in the optical part, like changing the anti-aliasing filter or mounting a better lens, but that digital resolution determines a maximum amount of possible detail being captured when the optical part is as good as it gets.

If resolution is defined as the optical part being included, statements about one sensor being better than the other are pretty meaningless without taking the lens performance into account.

That’s why it’s best to just do the experiment and see the results.

I have no problem with testing, but I think you're missing the point. Without a clear definition you can't determine what should be tested.

It’s a photo, you

who? we might be testing different viewers?

What viewer matters more to you than yourself?

can either

that's a big digitally stated, try to think dermatological

see

With an measuring instrument, or a human eye?

Do you normally have your photos viewed by human eyes???

How are these instruments performing? What's the quality of the intercalibration protocol? How are your eyes performing?

Since you’re the one so fired up about this, the more important question is, how are your eyes performing?

it

What? what's it? As that was my point. Define the "it" here please. Are we seeing optical performance of an anti-aliasing filter, a lens, the performance of a sensor cleaning tool, the performance of a screen, the performance of a calibration tool for screens, or are we seeing the performance of a printer, the quality of paper, the immanence of a Fata Morgana or the transcendence of an oasis in this knowledge desert?

What's the "it."

It’s obvious that you just want to endlessly debate this without any resolution.  If you’re going to call Canon liars, show us your evidence.

or not,

or not, while the "it" is still there

it’s a provable claim.

Yeah right.

-- hide signature --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb7XV6E0v1Q