Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ScottinPollock" data-source="post: 478702" data-attributes="member: 40111">I was unable to post these thoughts in the 'crop factor' thread before it degraded so here goes:I have been investigating what would be the best prime for DX and came to the following conclusion: no glass is sufficient to resolve the sensor's (24Mp) detail.Think about it; 4000 pixels over 15.6mm. That's 256 lines/mm, or 6500 lines/inch! Back in my old film days we were talking about perceptive limits of 100 lines/mm and now we are over double that!! What glass is capable of resolving to that?Now on FX sensors, it is closer to 4000 lines/inch, so all things being equal, you will perceive more pixels... but still, it seems the glass just can't keep up.So is there any point to more pixels on DX (or even a FX) sensor plane? I imagine there is still many areas in which sensors can be improved upon, but is more pixels one of them?Do you think we have hit the wall?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ScottinPollock, post: 478702, member: 40111"] I was unable to post these thoughts in the 'crop factor' thread before it degraded so here goes: I have been investigating what would be the best prime for DX and came to the following conclusion: no glass is sufficient to resolve the sensor's (24Mp) detail. Think about it; 4000 pixels over 15.6mm. That's 256 lines/mm, or 6500 lines/inch! Back in my old film days we were talking about perceptive limits of 100 lines/mm and now we are over double that!! What glass is capable of resolving to that? Now on FX sensors, it is closer to 4000 lines/inch, so all things being equal, you will perceive more pixels... but still, it seems the glass just can't keep up. So is there any point to more pixels on DX (or even a FX) sensor plane? I imagine there is still many areas in which sensors can be improved upon, but is more pixels one of them? Do you think we have hit the wall? [/QUOTE]

Verification