Originally posted by Christine Tham That tells us very little. At best it gives an upper bound of the size of each pixel, the effective size of the light collection area for each pixel may be a lot smaller. The assumptions behind the Zeiss formula may be less and less relevant as the sensor size gets smaller.
To quote wikipedia:
Basically the Zeiss formula comes from an ASSUMPTION that the CoC for a 35mm full frame camera is EXACTLY 0.025, which itself was based on analysing the DOF markings on a Zeiss lens.
This would assume essentially no interpixel gap, which is progressively less true as sensor size diminishes and the gap between pixels becomes significant in relation to pixel size.
But any small difference in the CoC there would amount to maybe a fraction of a stop in DOF, not a full stop or (good grief) multiple stops, as you were saying... If it did, it would be the most revolutionary sensor ever designed to date. I doubt that the 'Q' is getting this future tech before CaNikon
Here, this sort of addresses these CoC rounding errors:
"...
Using the “Zeiss formula”, the circle of confusion is sometimes calculated as d/1730 where d is the diagonal measure of the original image (the camera format). For full-frame 35 mm format (24 mm × 36 mm, 43 mm diagonal) this comes out to be 0.024 mm. A more widely used CoC is d/1500, or 0.029 mm for full-frame 35 mm format, which corresponds to resolving 5 lines per millimeter on a print of 30 cm diagonal. Values of 0.030 mm and 0.033 mm are also common for full-frame 35 mm format. For practical purposes, d/1730, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, and d/1500 give very similar results."
At this point I should probably say this - if you (or anyone) are fully aware of the probable limitations of the Q, but still find it compelling enough to try, more power to you, I'm sure it can make some good images for you. My main problem isn't that it's useless, it's that it's not an investment in K-mount, and it's (IMO) not robust enough to survive in it's own silo, where there's a lot of competition, priced better for the same performance. In this regard it represents a drain on Pentax's resources without a likely payoff.
I hope to be wrong.
.
.
Last edited by jsherman999; 07-12-2011 at 02:48 PM.