I find it ironic that someone who has been so quick to point out logical fallacies on others falls back into major logical fallacies.
You just made two straw man arguments in your response to Jochenb. First, he never said megapixels don't matter, and did not argue that 30 is the same as 60. He showed side by side crops showing the actual real world difference between the cameras in question is exceptionally small.
Then you bring up 8K in your response, and I don't recall a single person, and most certainly not Jochenb, making the case in the last few threads that 8K was anything more than a tick on the spec sheet for marketing. We are discussing the still capabilities of a camera.
As to the pixel shift example posted - yeah, it looks nice. Some artifacts on the bird on the right, and I can 100% guarantee that the water and sky have all been selected and blurred in post...as I've done long exposure pixel shift on a similar scene, and have done that process myself. Yes, it can be used in very specific circumstances. Notice that the entire subject is stock-still poles. These situtations, however, where pixel-shift is useful, are few and far between, and often require significant post-processing to weed out artifacts. It's a non-starter for me, and for the majority of situations where super high resolution would be desired.
Aug 07, 2020 at 07:51 AM
Previous versions of Jman13's message #15308388 « Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 »
