11-22-2011, 10:39 AM
[quote name='Dick England' timestamp='1321938111' post='13146']
Neither I nor my clients in the minerals industry have any use for prints or paper. We look at my macro pictures of mostly flat-ground surfaces of rocks and minerals on a monitor. The last thing we want is something that would look great from 20 cm on a 1-metre sheet of paper but fuzzy at 100% on a monitor. We need a good compromise between resolution and per-pixel sharpness. 12-15 Mpx on APS-C seem to give the best compromise, so 30-35 would be fine on FF (but only with the best lenses, such as the Sigma 70, not the Canon 100f2.8L with its inferior border resolution).[/quote]
None of what you say make sense.
You sound like a Nikon fanboy trying desperately to justify Nikon's use of 36 MP on FF and 16 MP on APS-C. Not too long ago, 12 MP on APS-C was the magic number for image perfection; this equates to ~ 28 MP on FF.
Neither I nor my clients in the minerals industry have any use for prints or paper. We look at my macro pictures of mostly flat-ground surfaces of rocks and minerals on a monitor. The last thing we want is something that would look great from 20 cm on a 1-metre sheet of paper but fuzzy at 100% on a monitor. We need a good compromise between resolution and per-pixel sharpness. 12-15 Mpx on APS-C seem to give the best compromise, so 30-35 would be fine on FF (but only with the best lenses, such as the Sigma 70, not the Canon 100f2.8L with its inferior border resolution).[/quote]
None of what you say make sense.
You sound like a Nikon fanboy trying desperately to justify Nikon's use of 36 MP on FF and 16 MP on APS-C. Not too long ago, 12 MP on APS-C was the magic number for image perfection; this equates to ~ 28 MP on FF.