Originally posted by GrinMode Could it be the matter of the 14mp sensor outresolving the lens?
I'm making the assumption that yeatzee took the images from the same position. That means the K-7 uses more pixels to show the same crop of the leaf. This implies that
- in order to show the crop of the leaf at the same output size, yeatzee had to scale the K-7 crop differently than the K200D crop.
- the K-7's individual pixels demand more resolution from the lens (so to speak) but in combination the higher number of pixels actually can only improve resolution.
So in a fair comparison, the K-7's higher resolution can only benefit sharpness; there is no way that outresolving a lens can lead to a disadvantage.
Also, when comparing images with a different number of pixels at the same output size, the scaling method becomes critical. Say the K200D crop needs no scaling (100% view). If a bad scaling approach is used to reduce the ~1.2 higher resolution of the K-7 to the same size then the practical resolution advantage of the K-7 can be made look as if it its images were softer. Crude example: Run an LCD screen at any other than its native resolution and watch the image go soft. Basically, any image that has been resized needs
output sharpening.
Originally posted by GrinMode Or the recently published SR induced blur of the K-7
Indeed, it would be good to avoid the respective shutter speed range unless a super sturdy tripod is used.
BTW, IIRC, the K10D/K200D sensor had a pretty weak AA filter. This increases apparent sharpness but can lead to moiré patterns. It is better to use more capture sharpening to bring back contrast that was lost due to an adequately dimensioned AA filter then to try and salvage moiré patterns in images that were taken with an AA filter that is too weak. What I'm saying is that the stronger AA filter gives you a benefit and it is more realistic to compare resolution after appropriate amounts of capture sharpening have been applied.
Originally posted by betterphotos Concerned about buying the K7 due to sharpness issue here noted. If the camera doesn't competently utilize the image, then what's the point of the more expensive and sharper lenses?
Not sure I get your question. The K-7 has no sharpness issues. It makes the most out of expensive and sharp lenses. Also there is much more than the sensor to a camera (handling, AF speed, AF accuracy, AWB, etc.).
Originally posted by betterphotos This is some interesting information from Canon on differences in sharpness with regard to the higher pixel cameras.
Interested in your comments, please.
It's all true what they say.
More pixels -> more resolution.
If you look at 100% crops (one sensor pixel maps to one screen pixel) then the higher pixel sensor will look less sharp since it shows a smaller part of the image with higher magnification. That means, if you want to achieve the same pixel-level sharpness in non-still scenarious with a higher-pixel sensor this means that you have to use higher shutter speeds.
What aspect of the article in particular are you interested in?