Originally posted by paperbag846 You can't see the differences in resolution that have been measured here. I simply don't believe you can see the difference without zooming in to 100% +... where every image I've ever seen (including medium format) suck.
I don't know if this this is necessarily true. As a fan of landscape photography, I can see where 1:1 output would be every bit as integral as that of reduced printing. And though I wouldn't say everyone's on the same playing field in this regard, I do think the same sort of requirements come-in on various studio and media grade photography as well. And so, the issue seems just as much one of intent than that of generalized needs in many cases.
Quote: The only reason you are even aware of this difference is because of some computer testing. I have my doubts that people would prefer the 50D in an ABX double-blind test, even if it was specifically about sharpness.
I would agree with this .
And though there are hard feelings attached. I don't think there's anything wrong with this as a whole, when we consider the market and the way things run their course. If anything... Pentax has had a foot in the prosumer market for sometime now, and I think this inevitably places them in the competitive arena insofar as product performances go. And, consequentially, any attempts to deny or shun any/and all competitive comparissons seems highly unlikely option.
Quote: Furthermore the resolution of the in-camera JPEGs are a factor of sharpening, and we have no idea if bumping the sharpness would help his figures.
I've been running tests between several systems over the past few weeks and its looking as though the differences in detail due to AA filtration may not be recoverable by post processing. Having said that... it would take a considerable amount of effort to setup a reliable testing method from which to draw sound conclusions from. And despite this, I'm just not convinced that the standing results(based on available data) are very conclusive at this stage.
However(all this aside), I will admit, that the D7K does seem to hold a unique position amidst the competition with regard to IQ and detail. Which can be seen or observed at 1:1(or 100%) where both the advantages and consequences are visible.
Quote: I submit, good sir, that we have reached a point of severely diminished returns, and that at this stage in the game, sharpness is GROSSLY over-rated. You can get very fine sharpness from a K10d, yes, because we have had high quality sensors for a while now. I'm not sure if you noticed, but SLR design is much more than resolution. I'm pretty sure we established that many years ago (before everyone started worrying about "ISO"
).
I think the observation ends-up being a mixed bag tbh.
On the one hand, we get to claim that sensors have had the potential and capacity to provide us with "good photo's" for some time now. However, as needs and requirements continue to move forward, I think everyone is in there right to expect a likely progression along the way also. Otherwise... no one would bother to upgrade their equipment
Personally, I'd like to see Pentax build a prosumer grade body.
IOW. A crop sensor system that would command the outmost in IQ and performance for the working professional that 'would not' cost 10 thousand dollars. This way, we could look forward to keeping our APS-C lenses and putting our chips on performance in a serious way. A perfect blend of cost and performance for the working photographer.
And they could call it the K-3