x-ray said:
Because it does. The files from the 1DIIN are a very close match to the 1DsII but smaller in size. The only real difference is the size of the file.
Many others, myself included, think otherwise.
x-ray said:
There is no substitute for pixels if you are upsampling. If the information doesn't exist in the file then no software will add that information.
Agreed, but upsampling a better per-pixel quality image always leads to a better image, sometimes nullifying the higher Mp advantage.
x-ray said:
A prime example is when upsampling a shot with leaves in the scene. When upsampling the images start to look like sea sponges soaked in green paint. The leaf shape is gone and it now looks like clumps of green. I don't care if there is an AA filter or not if the information doesn't exist you can not upsample and add it.
Agreed here, distant leaves are IMO the hardest test for any sensor...
But if the leaves are somewhat blurred at the original size, due to the presence of a strong AA filter or less quality pixel, then we could get equal or better quality with an upsampled higer quality less Mp image.
To make an extreme analogy, I'm sure we'll get better quality from an upsampled Eos-1D 4.1 Mp image than from an 8 Mp P&S.
Clearly the 1DsII is all but a P&S... but you get the idea.
Moreover you agree that there's more than absolute resolution in an image.
Tonal rendition and dynamic range come to mind.
Indeed I'd be crazy to say that a full frame 18 Mp Leica M9 would give the same quality of today M8, but this is because I assume that at worst they'll use the same sensor's technology.
Comparing different brands is somewhat less straightforward.
Even comparing between different sensors of the same brand (like Eos-20D vs Eos-1DII) would give different results than pure numbers would suggest.
Cheers
🙂
Marco
