11-22-2010, 09:49 PM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290414721' post='4324']
Taking the other perspective, looking through those shots too, I counted around 15 which I'd say were heavily biased towards a crop sensor body, and none where a FF were essential.
[/quote]
A good observation but would he be better off with one more crop body or a FF? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290414721' post='4324']
DoF will often be a bigger enemy than diffraction, and I regularly use f/8-11.
[/quote]
Yes, it often becomes a trade off between more DOF and overall softness until you get lens movements involved.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290414721' post='4324']
You're going to have to be a seriously obsessive pixel peeper to see the difference in diffraciton between that and f/5.6 say.
[/quote]
Well the OP is going from a 50D to a 7D for a 9% increase in linear resolution... and he has mentioned that he needs that extra resolution. So the chances are he's going to compare them side by side at high magnifications, at least at the start.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290414721' post='4324']
Also don't forget in the real world, the diffraction limit isn't fixed anyway, and varies with the frequency of light. Calculators assume a mid value around green, but red would already be limited at that point and blue can go on for a while longer yet.
[/quote]
An excellent point to note, but still... it just gets worse because of the higher pixel density.
For the record, I'm not against high pixel density sensors... in fact, I like them. It's just that higher pixel density sensors are a double-edged sword. There's a limit to how much of extra resolution you can get just from the sensor alone. Other things like the lenses and the sensor size play a massive role in obtaining detail and sometimes even more so than pixel density alone.
GTW
Taking the other perspective, looking through those shots too, I counted around 15 which I'd say were heavily biased towards a crop sensor body, and none where a FF were essential.
[/quote]
A good observation but would he be better off with one more crop body or a FF? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290414721' post='4324']
DoF will often be a bigger enemy than diffraction, and I regularly use f/8-11.
[/quote]
Yes, it often becomes a trade off between more DOF and overall softness until you get lens movements involved.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290414721' post='4324']
You're going to have to be a seriously obsessive pixel peeper to see the difference in diffraciton between that and f/5.6 say.
[/quote]
Well the OP is going from a 50D to a 7D for a 9% increase in linear resolution... and he has mentioned that he needs that extra resolution. So the chances are he's going to compare them side by side at high magnifications, at least at the start.
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1290414721' post='4324']
Also don't forget in the real world, the diffraction limit isn't fixed anyway, and varies with the frequency of light. Calculators assume a mid value around green, but red would already be limited at that point and blue can go on for a while longer yet.
[/quote]
An excellent point to note, but still... it just gets worse because of the higher pixel density.
For the record, I'm not against high pixel density sensors... in fact, I like them. It's just that higher pixel density sensors are a double-edged sword. There's a limit to how much of extra resolution you can get just from the sensor alone. Other things like the lenses and the sensor size play a massive role in obtaining detail and sometimes even more so than pixel density alone.
GTW