Sounds reasonable to me. As was mentioned a couple of times before
pixels are getting better, whatever that means. It was not too long
ago that a 100 % view from a pretty good digital camera looked soft
and fuzzy. Now views at 100 percent from the newest cameras look much
better.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Jul 6, 2006, at 3:13 PM, Moose wrote:
> Based on the numbers I come up with above, both from theory and
> from the
> dpreview tests, no, I don't see any reason to do my reproduction of
> the
> resolution chart tests. As to why my simplistic tests show what
> they do,
> who knows? I don't see how it can be the methodology. I just replaced
> one camera with the other with the same lens on the same QR on the
> same
> tripod, without changing or moving anything else. Theory says one
> should be sharper and the simple test shows the opposite. Maybe I
> have a
> particularly lame 300D and/or a particularly great 5D, I don't know.
> Maybe the sharpening on the 5D is different than the 300D, but I don't
> see how I could sharpen the 300D image to equal the 5D. I seem to
> recall
> that I tried that briefly.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|