bwcolor
Veteran
I placed this in this forum because the topic may be relevant to your purchasing decision with regards to the NEX-7.
Mike Davis @ Dpreview Forums posted data regarding diffraction and Bayer Sensor Pixel Density. This data was presented as a graph and as an Excel spreadsheet.
I downloaded the spreadsheet that he kindly linked and used the Nex 3 sensors pixel density and upscaled it to the NEX-7 density and came up with 339 Bayer Pixel Density/mm. The Contax TVS Digital comes in at 359, so using that row, 5lines/mm for an 8x10 print is diffraction limited at around f/4.2 So, in order to minimize diffraction and maximize image quality, we need optics that are optimized for f/4.2 and wider optics. Compare this to the same column for the Fujifilm X100, which is limited to f/13.7. Of course, we are talking a lower resolution sensor and we assume that both have equivalent AA filters. Also, the number calculated in the spreadsheet is not an absolute number beyond which image quality is poor. It is simply a standard set. It was suggested that this standard could have been set as low as 4 lines/mm to as much as 8 lines/mm.
You can find the spreadsheet here
The Graph Here
and the thread here
I thought that there might be a good bit of expertise on this board that might be able to address this concern. Of course, reviews and image samples will ultimately tell the story.
Mike Davis @ Dpreview Forums posted data regarding diffraction and Bayer Sensor Pixel Density. This data was presented as a graph and as an Excel spreadsheet.
I downloaded the spreadsheet that he kindly linked and used the Nex 3 sensors pixel density and upscaled it to the NEX-7 density and came up with 339 Bayer Pixel Density/mm. The Contax TVS Digital comes in at 359, so using that row, 5lines/mm for an 8x10 print is diffraction limited at around f/4.2 So, in order to minimize diffraction and maximize image quality, we need optics that are optimized for f/4.2 and wider optics. Compare this to the same column for the Fujifilm X100, which is limited to f/13.7. Of course, we are talking a lower resolution sensor and we assume that both have equivalent AA filters. Also, the number calculated in the spreadsheet is not an absolute number beyond which image quality is poor. It is simply a standard set. It was suggested that this standard could have been set as low as 4 lines/mm to as much as 8 lines/mm.
You can find the spreadsheet here
The Graph Here
and the thread here
I thought that there might be a good bit of expertise on this board that might be able to address this concern. Of course, reviews and image samples will ultimately tell the story.