dsiegel5151, quite a difference between their 50D and 7D reviews, huh? [] More reason to distrust what you read on DPR. Let me pick apart of a few of their summary points:
Originally Posted by DPR
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
This is doubly incorrect. First, their "RAW" comparisons are badly flawed and not even raw at all. Second, even from their flawed comparisons it's possible to see that for similar levels of detail the 50D has the same noise level as the 40D -- not worse.
Several years later, we now have Nikon's D7000, which is so far ahead of anything Canon has ever made that it's not even funny, especiallywhen it comes to base amplification read noise. And there are 2-micron digicam pixels that even better than that (but haven't been made into APC-S yet).
At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²the lens becomes the limiting factor.
DPR's silly made-up terms and measurements annoy me a lot I prefer to use industry standard terms likes "pixel pitch" and measurements such as microns for pixel diameter. It's not very smart that they think it is a bad thing for the lens to be the limiting factor. Are lenses some sort of cheap throw-away accessory that is easy to improve, and that's why we never want our sensor to be limited by them? I take the opposite view: our lenses are the most expensive and important part of the system, and they are more expensive to improve than the sensor, so we never want our lenses to be limited by our sensor. So if your sensor has such poor resolution that it can't see the lens flaws, that is suboptimal.
Nonsense. The cheapest zoom at the worst aperture in the very corner of the frame still has more than 10% MTF necessary to achieve line separation on a 15.1 MP sensor. That means it's still necessary to have a contrast-reducing optical filter to limit aliasing artifacts.
What a load of BS (Bad Science). [
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
Reply With Quote