Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/09/24[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Jonathan: I never said that higher pixel count and/or bigger sensors didn't matter. What I said was that a better lens does show up as better on a 6 mp sensor. That's all my "Ergo" meant, and I said it because I've seen it myself. Of course, the differences will be more marked on hi-resolution film. Of course, the pixel counts and anti-aliasing filters will diminish the differences, and *some* of the quality of the best lenses is wasted on current sensors. No argument there. But you are looking only at lens resolution and pixel density and implying that therefore no worthwhile differences between an OK lens and a superb lens will show up on a 6 MP sensor. I say that at full aperture, I can see marked differences in apparent sharpness, overall contrast and microcontrast between two such lenses on 72 dpi Web JPEGs. Since a 6 MP sensor can show much more than a Web JPEG can deliver, the chances are extremely high that even more differences will show up at 6 MP. Nathan, who has a 10D and uses both a superb Leica 100/2.8 APO lens and more ordinary Sigma lenses, has confirmed this. --Peter Jonathan Borden wrote: > The "Ergo..." above just isn't true for technical reasons. To consider > *any* image you need to look at the whole chain, from fog in the air, > to the lens, to the sensor, to the output. All I am saying is that the > lens is an important part of the system and so is the sensor. A low > pixel sensor just isn't capable of capturing the same higher order > harmonics as an otherwise equivalent higher pixel count sensor. That is > a fact.