Jman13 wrote: skibum5 wrote:
That\'s a complete myth. An average human eye is considerably better than that. Once you get above 540PPI then differences begin to quickly diminish.
Cite?
use google
Hah and yet a pile of 8x11\" prints on my desk with one copy of each at 8MP and one each at 16MP had people walking up, taking a glance, and asking why some of my didn\'t look as sharp.
Uh huh. Amazing. And yet, I\'ve never once had a SINGLE person comment that the 30\" print from my 6MP digital Rebel looks worse than the 30\" print RIGHT NEXT to it from my 16 MP 1Ds II. (though, if you go up close you can easily see a difference...though that\'s not the case for 8x10s or IMO, even 10x15s).
Methinks when you were using the 8MP camera you probably didn\'t process them in the way you should, or you were using a worse lens, etc.
No, some super crisp 1Ds2 samples then downsized/sharpened using state of the art custom methods.
And you completely forget about cropping. Often needs to be done quite majorly for wildlife.
Cropping is a different story. If you are regularly cropping for your shots, you might need the extra pixel density, though I\'d say you\'d probably be better off spending the money on the proper focal length glass you need than cropping the absolute heck out of your image. (And, in that case, why not go for a crop sensor camera with higher native pixel density to start with?)
1. because 800mm lens weighs a ton and costs even more (and still may be short)
2. because of all the times when you don\'t need to crop and want the full full frame frame
Feb 07, 2012 at 08:11 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #10321629 « D800, 36mp, af at F8, ect, press release out »
