If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
"RichA" wrote in message
... Because the FF stuff inherently lacks sharpness compared to some APS stuff. It may, MAY have high resolving power, but that isn't the same. Esthetically, sharpness "looks" better. So, if the 800E can provide a sharper looking image, then it makes even more sense to have it. So are you really saying that the lenses aren't up to 36 MP? David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
"RichA" wrote in message
... On Mar 20, 11:26 am, "David J Taylor" david- wrote: "RichA" wrote in message ... Because the FF stuff inherently lacks sharpness compared to some APS stuff. It may, MAY have high resolving power, but that isn't the same. Esthetically, sharpness "looks" better. So, if the 800E can provide a sharper looking image, then it makes even more sense to have it. So are you really saying that the lenses aren't up to 36 MP? David No, but what I started noticing some time ago (between my Pentax K10D and K20D 10-16mp jump) was that initially at least the images out of the K20D did not look as sharp. Same thing with some Olympus gear I owned. Resolution is there, but sharpness needs a bit of work. If you're viewing at 100% zoom (pixel peeping) that's about what is expected. Supposing you resample the 10 MP and 16 MP images to your native display resolution. Can you see any difference then? Supposing you print both at the same physical size - any difference then? David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
On 21/03/2012 6:18 a.m., David J Taylor wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message ... On Mar 20, 11:26 am, "David J Taylor" david- wrote: "RichA" wrote in message ... Because the FF stuff inherently lacks sharpness compared to some APS stuff. It may, MAY have high resolving power, but that isn't the same. Esthetically, sharpness "looks" better. So, if the 800E can provide a sharper looking image, then it makes even more sense to have it. So are you really saying that the lenses aren't up to 36 MP? David No, but what I started noticing some time ago (between my Pentax K10D and K20D 10-16mp jump) was that initially at least the images out of the K20D did not look as sharp. Same thing with some Olympus gear I owned. Resolution is there, but sharpness needs a bit of work. If you're viewing at 100% zoom (pixel peeping) that's about what is expected. Supposing you resample the 10 MP and 16 MP images to your native display resolution. Can you see any difference then? Supposing you print both at the same physical size - any difference then? You're wasting your time explaining - it's been explained to him dozens of times before. Even if could understand that, he drinks absinthe at breakfast time, and has strange mushrooms for lunch. Perhaps if he looks at the watch in the raw samples from DP Review (which aren't actually raw samples, they're jpegs - converted from raw with ACR), then looks at the bottom of the watch, there are some characters at the bottom. Compare D800, 5d, and 645d, and see which one can be read most clearly. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
Me wrote in :
On 21/03/2012 6:18 a.m., David J Taylor wrote: "RichA" wrote in message ... On Mar 20, 11:26 am, "David J Taylor" david- wrote: "RichA" wrote in message om... Because the FF stuff inherently lacks sharpness compared to some APS stuff. It may, MAY have high resolving power, but that isn't the same. Esthetically, sharpness "looks" better. So, if the 800E can provide a sharper looking image, then it makes even more sense to have it. So are you really saying that the lenses aren't up to 36 MP? David No, but what I started noticing some time ago (between my Pentax K10D and K20D 10-16mp jump) was that initially at least the images out of the K20D did not look as sharp. Same thing with some Olympus gear I owned. Resolution is there, but sharpness needs a bit of work. If you're viewing at 100% zoom (pixel peeping) that's about what is expected. Supposing you resample the 10 MP and 16 MP images to your native display resolution. Can you see any difference then? Supposing you print both at the same physical size - any difference then? You're wasting your time explaining - it's been explained to him dozens of times before. Even if could understand that, he drinks absinthe at breakfast time, and has strange mushrooms for lunch. Perhaps if he looks at the watch in the raw samples from DP Review (which aren't actually raw samples, they're jpegs - converted from raw with ACR), then looks at the bottom of the watch, there are some characters at the bottom. Compare D800, 5d, and 645d, and see which one can be read most clearly. You must be mentioning absinthe as a highly alcoholic drink as it's mythical hallucinagenic properties were disproved in 1999. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
On 21/03/2012 2:47 p.m., Rich wrote:
wrote in : On 21/03/2012 6:18 a.m., David J Taylor wrote: wrote in message ... On Mar 20, 11:26 am, "David J Taylor"david- wrote: wrote in message om... Because the FF stuff inherently lacks sharpness compared to some APS stuff. It may, MAY have high resolving power, but that isn't the same. Esthetically, sharpness "looks" better. So, if the 800E can provide a sharper looking image, then it makes even more sense to have it. So are you really saying that the lenses aren't up to 36 MP? David No, but what I started noticing some time ago (between my Pentax K10D and K20D 10-16mp jump) was that initially at least the images out of the K20D did not look as sharp. Same thing with some Olympus gear I owned. Resolution is there, but sharpness needs a bit of work. If you're viewing at 100% zoom (pixel peeping) that's about what is expected. Supposing you resample the 10 MP and 16 MP images to your native display resolution. Can you see any difference then? Supposing you print both at the same physical size - any difference then? You're wasting your time explaining - it's been explained to him dozens of times before. Even if could understand that, he drinks absinthe at breakfast time, and has strange mushrooms for lunch. Perhaps if he looks at the watch in the raw samples from DP Review (which aren't actually raw samples, they're jpegs - converted from raw with ACR), then looks at the bottom of the watch, there are some characters at the bottom. Compare D800, 5d, and 645d, and see which one can be read most clearly. You must be mentioning absinthe as a highly alcoholic drink as it's mythical hallucinagenic properties were disproved in 1999. So, you're just ****ed - not necessarily hallucinating? I find that hard to believe. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
"RichA" wrote in message
... [] If you're viewing at 100% zoom (pixel peeping) that's about what is expected. Supposing you resample the 10 MP and 16 MP images to your native display resolution. Can you see any difference then? Supposing you print both at the same physical size - any difference then? David I could see a difference on screen at less the 100%, but as for seeing it in a print, it would depend on the print size. Certainly not 8x10 or 11x14. So you haven't made prints? Nor compared at native display resolution? Just seen the comparison at pixel-peeping level? David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
"RichA" wrote in message
... [] No, everytime I use a computer, it's at native resolution, but that doesn't preclude me from viewing the image at its native resolution, which is about 4 screens wide by 3 screens high, or thereabouts. So having resampled a 10 MP and 16 MP image to your PCs native screen resolution (what's that - 2 MP?), can you see any difference in resolution? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:26:00 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote: "RichA" wrote in message ... [] No, everytime I use a computer, it's at native resolution, but that doesn't preclude me from viewing the image at its native resolution, which is about 4 screens wide by 3 screens high, or thereabouts. So having resampled a 10 MP and 16 MP image to your PCs native screen resolution (what's that - 2 MP?), can you see any difference in resolution? Surely you only need to resample if you want to retain the original image size? Otherwise it's pixel to pixel and damn the image size. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
Surely you only need to resample if you want to retain the original
image size? Otherwise it's pixel to pixel and damn the image size. Regards, Eric Stevens If you want to pixel peep, then don't resample. If you want to compare the 10 MP and 16 MP images Rich was talking about when displayed as an image - on a monitor or when printed out - then for use on the monitor for fair comparison (with the whole image occupying the screen), you need to resample to the monitor's native resolution. I was trying to get an answer from Rich as to how the two cameras compared on real-world images - those displayed on a computer monitor, HD TV, or or a print viewed at normal viewing distance, without a magnifying loupe. Cheers, David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why the 800E is more important than ever
"David J Taylor" wrote in message ... If you want to pixel peep, then don't resample. If you want to compare the 10 MP and 16 MP images Rich was talking about when displayed as an image - on a monitor or when printed out - then for use on the monitor for fair comparison (with the whole image occupying the screen), you need to resample to the monitor's native resolution. Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full screen size is NO comparison at all. Might as well compare 6"x4" prints. I'm amazed at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real comparison as "pixel peeping", the same idiots who call checking a camera image or histogram "chimping" I suppose. I guess it makes them feel superior when obviously they don't have a clue. Trevor. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
very important for your life | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 28th 07 04:28 PM |
Which is more important? | TheDave© | 35mm Photo Equipment | 152 | October 5th 06 07:35 PM |
[SI] Two Important Updates | Al Denelsbeck | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | September 1st 04 09:33 PM |
Which do you consider more important...... | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 22 | June 30th 04 07:30 PM |