keithreeder wrote:
That's a given, I think - but sports and wildlife 'togs will be all over this like a rash if it even gets close to living up to its potential...
Jman is right of course. However, there are some who like to print at 240 ppi (or 300 or whatever) and see more MP as yielding a bigger print without realizing that the blurs of all sorts will be geometrically magnified more according to the smaller pixel size (DoF, camera-shake and diffraction).
No, it's not independent of sensor size...it's ONLY dependent on sensor size (given the same aperture and optics.
This is because for a given print size, the output of larger sensors has to be magnified far less than it does for smaller sensors. An 8x12 print will magnify those small little diffraction blur circles by about 8.5 times on a full frame sensor (given the same framing), and will magnify it by 13 times on an APS-C sensor, resulting in a larger blur on the final print.
You are correct that the actual softening of the optics is completely independent of the sensor, but what is visible in the output is massively dependent on sensor size.
Jman13 wrote:
Everyone does realize that diffraction does not increase with pixel density, right? It does at the 100% level, so you might not see all 18 MP advantage at smaller apertures, but for a given print, the pixel density has absolutely nothing to do with the diffraction effects. That tiny little blur circle may be picked up by a neighboring pixel now, but on a print, it'll still be the same size for the same size sensor. A 200MP APS-C sensor printed at 20x30 will have the exact same diffraction effects as a 20x30 print on a 15MP APS-C sensor.
Yes well then, what's the point of a higher resolution sensor then?
orangefirefish wrote:
Yes well then, what's the point of a higher resolution sensor then?
Exactly.
We do realize very well that diffraction does not increase with pixel density.
The practical implication is that for a certain print size, you need a certain sensor size.
If you want to print larger, you still need a bigger sensor.
Increasing the resolution on a smaller sensor does not actually allow you to print larger because diffraction will be more evident.
So, why increase the resolution on the smaller sensor then?
alundeb wrote:
Given the same aperture, the DOF will be different. Note that I didn't say Diffraction is independent, I said the DOF/Diffraction tradeoff.
For the same print size, and the same DOF, the diffraction is independent of sensor size.
orangefirefish wrote:
Yes well then, what's the point of a higher resolution sensor then?
Marketing? Megapixel sells cameras.
Paolo beat me to it. Yes marketing. I know some SLR shooters (who should know better) that believe that more megapixels is BETTER, without understanding the impact of more megapixles has on noise and DR.
If the given rumored specs are true the only negative one I found is the increase in megapixels. If the 7D truely has the AF of a 1 series, and noise is not too bad (due to the increase in megapixels), and it is sub $2K, it might be my next camera.
Does anybody know if the mirror on APS-H is small enough to fit an EF-S lens. If it hasnt been in the past I cant see how it cam be made so now either.
I've mounted a 10-22 efs (with the back yanked off) on a 1D2 and used it successfully out to 11mm. Just FYI.
We do realize very well that diffraction does not increase with pixel density.
The practical implication is that for a certain print size, you need a certain sensor size.
If you want to print larger, you still need a bigger sensor.
Increasing the resolution on a smaller sensor does not actually allow you to print larger because diffraction will be more evident.
So, why increase the resolution on the smaller sensor then?
