Thats nice to read. Its just more crucial to get a good exposure I guess. The shot in question was an ISO200 image fo 5 mins I took yesterday night, pushing the limits in any camera. When I look at the images there seems to be noise the equivelant of an ISO 640 shot from my 5D, thats what got me thinking. As soon as I resize the image to 5D files its all gone. Again the camera takes some getting used to...

dave chilvers wrote:

If pixels are good why do they need extra help? is it noise reduction blurring that is taking the edge off of high pixel count sensors? and they then need top resolution lenses to bring back/invent more IQ. What we gonna do when sensors get over 30 million pixels?
We might get sales pitch like this " Yes sir, if we only had better lenses I could demonstrate just how good this camera is but alas

Dave



Having a camera sensor which finaly outresolves the lenses would be great as the sensor would not need an AA filter as the lens might provide this service for free, even the best lens would be diffraction limited at f4 or 5.6 with a SLR sensor of 50m. At least thats what I understand

Andi Dietrich wrote:

Having a camera sensor which finaly outresolves the lenses would be great as the sensor would not need an AA filter as the lens might provide this service for free, even the best lens would be diffraction limited at f4 or 5.6 with a SLR sensor of 50m. At least thats what I understand

I agree. When the 1Ds3 first came out, the general impression among users was that it had a stronger AA filter than the 1Ds2. Then Chuck Westfall mentioned somewhere that the AA filter is similar on both models. The truth is, 1Ds3 images look softer at 100% not because of a stronger AA filter but because of the sensor vs. lens resolution. In fact, Canon should have used a weaker AA filter instead. In my understanding, AA filters are indispensable for the current Bayer sensors, but they can become weaker and weaker with the increase of sensor pixel count.