eskimochaos wrote:
I doubt that as the resolution increase of the 5D2 became apparent in 8x10\" prints. Noting a 24\" print from a 12MP D700 to a 24\" print from a 36MP D800 would be identical is simply ignorant.
Challenge. There is no way you are seeing any appreciable increase in visible resolution from a 12MP print to a 21MP print on an 8x10. Just not happening. Unless you are examining the prints with a magnifying glass, there\'s just no way.
A 12 MP print is 353 ppi on an 8x10. A 21 MP print is 467 ppi. That sounds huge. The thing is, the human eye at a normal viewing distance can\'t resolve that level of detail. You would need to be holding the print two inches from your face (and be able to focus) to see the difference. (At 12\" viewing distance, the human eye can generally resolve about 300 dpi...do you often view photographs at 8x12\" from 6\"?)
In fact, at a normal viewing distance, I bet you could have 24\" prints from a 10 MP camera, a 20MP camera, and the D800 and you would not be able to see any difference in resolution. Go up close and examine a 2\" area? Yeah, you might be able to, when comparing side by side...but who does this in real life?
I am not saying there isn\'t a market for this...there certainly is. If you print large, this could be fantastic...but most people don\'t print large enough to make the resolution increase substantial, and therefore, that extra resolution is basically just taking up storage. I still find the lack of a smaller RAW format a really odd choice here.
Feb 07, 2012 at 09:18 AM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #10318807 « D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out »
