keith_w wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>
>> I haven't heard these 24MP rumors but I guess that may be the next step.
>> I recall Reichmann (of Luminous-Landscape) lamenting that the 16MP
>> bodies were really stretching the capability of some of the lenses. I
>> wonder can a lens designed originally for 35mm film resolve 24MP.
>>
>
> Geez, I really hate to sound obstreperous, folks, but...who NEEDS 24 MP?
> No, seriously, I suppose it's a nice thing if you want to pay the freight,
> but, somewhere around 12 MP would do about as good a job as any reasonable
> person would want to do!
>
> Seems to me there's a point beyond which it's primarily bragging rights, not
> a
> discernible improvement in quality.
>
I certainly agree. I have a 12 mp camera, and I can't see where more
resolution would really add anything. It starts to challenge the
resolving power of a fair number of pretty good lenses. The fact that I
could so clearly see differences between the very good macro lenses I
tested would seem to indicate that the sensor can out resolve them all.
More mps in a larger sensor could still make sense, but much more in
24x36 mm gets deep into diminishing returns.
On the other hand, more mps means bigger files. Even huge disks fill up
at a frightening rate. Double the resolution and double the storage
space required.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|