Originally posted by audiobomber 6mp is not enough resolution for lens comparisons.
Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. You once did an experiment to that effect but admitted yourself that it didn't meet scientific standards.
If you do the math, i.e., demonstrate that the resolution of a 6MP sensor is not sufficient to distinguish between the kit lens and a high quality prime, then I'll buy your argument. I won't buy it on the basis of your own quick test.
I see distinct differences between different lenses with my 6MP camera. Please show me that I'm wrong with proper arguments, but please don't bash 6MP sensors based on an experiment that you've performed, the outcome of which was questioned by several people.
Check
Do Sensors “Outresolve” Lenses? again. Depending on the wavelength under consideration, you'll need a lens that has its optimal sharpness at apertures below f/11 or f/8 in order to outresolve a 7 MP sensor. Good on you if you have one. And, as you have said yourself, you can still judge other important IQ aspect, such as contrast, even when the lens has higher resolution than the sensor.
Originally posted by FHPhotographer I thought the general guide was: [U]higher pixel density = lower image quality.
Originally posted by audiobomber The general rule is; higher pixel density = higher noise at high ISO.
This is not true. High pixel density means you'll have higher noise
per pixel. But with respect to the
whole image higher density is even better since it leads to finer grained noise. With respect to noise, sensor size matters, but not pixel density.