Originally posted by Digitalis Out of curiosity, how do you intend to accomplish this?
I noticed LV exposure is better than exposure done when using internal light meter, the difference being that during LV the lens aperture is stopped, but when using the optical viewfinder the ligtht is metered wide open. For instance, there is a difference of 0.4ev between my Tamron 17-50 and the DFA24-70. Calibration would be done to correct lens aperture error by a sequence of stop down metering with LV and with the AE light meter, once the exposure effect of lens aperture error is measured it is stored in memory and calibration isn't needed anymore (same idea as what Nikon are doing to calibrate AF using both LV and PDAF).
Originally posted by Digitalis There are still some issues regarding image quality and the appearance of image artifacts due to the use of electronic shutters.
Yes, I fully agree, so in my post I wrote that Ricoh could still implement an electronic shutter version for static scenes (when there is no motion, rolling shutter does not create artifacts, that's how it is used in pixel shift mode).
Originally posted by jbinpg Saying that you can achieve equality to a pixel-shifted image by just sharpening a non-PS one is simply not true.
Well, it's not fully true that sharpening and PS is the same. I did the experiment and I found the difference between sharpening and pixel shift is very very slim versus the practical "cost" of pixel shift. For pixel shift I need a tripod and I have to process a 100Mbyte file, for a single shot I need nothing. So, my experience with pixel shift is that the benefit is very very slim.
---------- Post added 01-06-16 at 10:40 ----------
Originally posted by clackers Well, since it requires no new hardware, it's possible by firmware upgrade, I suppose, which is interesting.
Yes, that also what I thought.