On 2/25/2015 6:04 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
My skepticism is due to thinking that as the realm of electronic micro
devices progress is usually in terms of doubling the density with each step.
But for imaging sensors, it means a doubling in both axes, meaning a
quadrupling. That would equate to 32MP or 40MP based on the E-500 and
E-510/520.
Correct, in a way. And yet, and not entirely correct in others. Number of pixels sets an upper limit on resolution, but
various other factors always reduce that. How much varies with different cameras.
A fairly simple example is the HD mode of the E-M5 II vs. the Nikon D800. Oly HD has more MP, the Nikon resolves a
little more fine detail in some sorts of subjects, the Oly more in others. If the D800 had an AA filter sufficient to
fully tame its moiré, it would resolve less than the Oly HD mode across the board. It isn't simple.
When I replaced my Canon 300D with a 5D, careful tests confirmed my guess that the fewer pixels in the part of the 5D FF
sensor that cover the APS-C size of the 300D sensor actually, with complex, real world subjects, resolved slightly more
fine detail.
The switch from 12 MP to 16 MP sensors in µ4/3 cameras with the E-M5 should result in very little more practical
resolution, as your numbers above demonstrate. The practical increase in ability to resolve fine details was greater
than one would expect from the MP alone. How much is sensor, AA filter, processor, firmware, I don't know, but the
combination is a real step up.
Fully Resolved Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|