Originally posted by BrianR Hang on, are you saying that if you reduce both images to the same viewing size that the effect of diffraction (and let's throw motion blur in here as well) will be the same on images from two sensors with different pixel sizes (assuming everything else equal, including sensor size)? And that if you look at 100% crops, the effect of diffraction (or motion blur) is more noticeable with the smaller pixel sensor?
No... sorry if I'm too lazy to go back and figure out what caused this confusion. With both diffraction and CA (and purple fringing) the more pixels the aberration affect, the less macro-contrast the image will have. if one pixel if 5 units wide and one is 10, and the CA is measured at 7 units, the 5 unit pixel will show have a 1 pixel wide ca band around it, the 10 unit wild pixel will show not direct CA bands, macro-contrast will still be affected by the .4 unit overflow but there will not be a clear CA outline. One of the things that the CA propagandists did get right was, if you are shooting say a K-3 and D750, you can shoot with a less expensive lens on the D750, the K-3 will need a better lens. But then, most modern lenses are so good, it's unlikely you'd run into a scenario where the lens you put on your K-3 wasn't good enough.
And the other point is, on a well corrected prime with CA control under .4 pixels, and there are quite a few of those, the K-3 image is going to be so good, the D750 won't improve on it, because the CA doesn't become an issue until it's over 1 pixel wide.
Originally posted by Kerrowdown Better bragging rights.
I'm already tired of people looking at my gear and drooling. I suspect they'll drool even more if I answer "yes" to the inevitable question, "Is that a full frame." Why does everyone think if you have a big mother ass lens it must be on a full frame? So is more drool a good thing or a bad thing? Personally I'd go with no drooling, just leave me alone, I'm working here.