At 12:33 AM 12/6/2006, Moose wrote:
>Your calculations are all correct, as far as I know. But I also wanted
>my Zuiko WAs to be WA and for my favorite zoom to go down to 28mm. Not
>buying a small sensor zoom for the 30D was one part of the cost
>justification for the 5D. I'll probably get a Tam 17-35/2.8-4 one day,
>but I've done fine without so far.
I wondered about that but figured you already had your wide angle
needs covered by what you were already using on the 300D. That point
sure swings things back to the 5D instead of the 30D.
>As
>it turns out, the central 5mp of the 5D resolves more than the 6.3 mp of
>the 300D, so I won.
I still don't understand how that could be but - I need to run my
tests again comparing 5D to 10D - maybe I'll find something different
on a retest.
>Also, the Tammy is pretty good, but I'm not sure that the higher
>resolution needed for the 30D sensor will be there, not just at the long
>end, but in general. So I might get better results with the FF sensor
>due to lens limits.
That's certainly a possibility, depending on the quality of the
lens. If I'm not mistaken the DP Review tests were run using the
50/1.4 prime and I'd expect it to out resolve a Tamron zoom,
especially one with a long zoom range.
..
> Using your numbers, I only need 64 lpm at 160 mm on
>the 5D, but need 82 lpm at 100 mm for the same shot with the 30D And
>there are other reasons to prefer the 5D, so I went that way.
>
>No regrets either, what a wonderful image maker.
I know that's right!
And thanks for humoring me and my pixel pitch calculations once
again. It's fun for me because I usually gain a fresh insight or two
when I go through the exercise and have the discussions with
you. Today, for example, I was thinking about the 30D pixel pitch
and the claim made by some on the Internet that there is no need to
continue the mp race because the 12 mp 5D is already pushing the
resolution limits of the available lenses. But, the 30D has a 27%
denser pixel pitch than the 5D and in the DP Review tests it resolved
28% more per mm on the sensor which, to me, shows that the 50/1.4
lens, and probably many others, can handle that higher pixel
pitch. So, if the lens can handle that pixel pitch let's start
manufacturing a 5Dn with the 30D pitch. If we work backwards using
the 30D pixel pitch of 155 sensor sites per mm but use that pitch on
a 5D sized sensor we would have an image size of 5549 x 3705 pixels
or about 20.6 mp. Now that would make me happy - a 13" x 19" print
at close to 300 pixels per inch. In a wide angle landscape shot I
might be able to get my nose up to the print and count the leaves on
a tree instead of seeing green mush. Kinda like I once did when I
shot Velvia. (Your mileage will certainly vary if you're happy with
images printed in the 114-137 pixels per inch range) :-)
Later,
Johnny
__________________________
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
mailto:jjohnso4@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|