Joel Wilcox wrote:
>
> I see what you mean.
>
> Most of what you wrote, which I snipped, were qualifiers related to sensor
> operation as a system. I think we must be clear when we talk about a "sensor
> out-resolving a lens" on whether this is about the entire sensor system or
> about a more limited feature set of that system, i.e., the net number of
> pixels involved, etc. Chuck seemed to be addressing the latter, and you the
> former, and I think these are different. Straighten me out if I'm wrong.
>
Except for the comments on AA filters, my intent was to address the
simple issue of net number of pixels.
I guess you could say that I had an unspoken assumption of equal sensor
system performance, other than in pixel count and AA filter (as
appropriate for sensor pixel pitch), in talking about the possible
effects of a larger pixel count sensor system vs. a smaller one on IQ
issues beyond simple B&W test target resolution.
I am well aware of sensor system performance differences between cameras
with the same number of pixels. As I anticipated from published tests,
my own tests showed that the 5MP portion of the 5D sensor of physical
size equal to the sensor on the 300D outperformed the greater pixel
count, 6MP, of the 300D, in IQ, including resolution of color detail in
non-test target images.
I was not commenting on that sort of difference at all in this case. I
consider it a different issue.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|