The truth is, people still want more mega pixels

RTPVid wrote in post #13875160
There is it. The smug European needs to "teach" Americans! LOL!

Get out your old undergrad economics text book... maybe you'll find in there an explanation of the high petrol prices in Europe, not to mention high prices for just about everything else, compared with the USA.

oh, the answer is simple, tax. but the more taxation, the happier the people are in general. but just before someone shouts "politics", it is only statistics:
http://www.ted.com/tal​ks/richard_wilkinson.h​tml

(provided he tax is used for the benefit of the population)

DetlevCM wrote in post #13875194
oh, the answer is simple, tax. but the more taxation, the happier the people are in general. but just before someone shouts "politics", it is only statistics:
http://www.ted.com/tal​ks/richard_wilkinson.h​tml

(provided he tax is used for the benefit of the population)

Sure, if you don't mind living in a collectivist society. That's what I'm striving for... to be happy on average.

RTPVid wrote in post #13875229
Sure, if you don't mind living in a collectivist society. That's what I'm striving for... to be happy on average.

I do not think you have watched the presentation. You should before you judge.

John Sheehy wrote in post #13875009
That doesn't make any sense. Your thinking is backwards and inside-out.

Diffraction always exists, and has nothing to do with pixel size. The lower the pixel density, the more total loss of resolution you have.

Cambridge's numbers are way off, from a practical perspective. The rings around the airy disk have no significant blurring affect.

I'm not following your statement.

While I agree with you that an increase in pixel density will increase image resolution, are you saying you disagree that diffraction limited aperture can occur earlier as the pixel count climbs?

5dm2's image quality with better AF and card slots + firewire = good enough

Shadowblade wrote in post #13874995
More MP will never diminish IQ - not from a resolution, (total) noise or DR perspective.

On a 36MP full-frame sensor, the diameter of the Airy disc only approaches the size of a single photosite at f/8, or the size of a single Bayer cell at f/16. On top of that, if you want to avoid moire and wish to remove the AA filter to improve sharpness, the sensor must outresolve the lens by at least a factor of 2, in linear resolution (i.e. 4x the megapixels).

There is plenty of room for improvement in the megapixel count. And I'm speaking as a landscape photographer.

Let me try to understand your explanation. Are you saying that the effect of diffraction is outweighed by other factors and techniques that mitigate any reduction in sharpness from the effects of diffraction, at least at the current range of pixel counts? All things being equal, isn't it still true that as pixel counts climb, that diffraction will occur sooner (i.e., at lower apertures)?

DetlevCM wrote in post #13875297
I do not think you have watched the presentation. You should before you judge.

You mean because I don't agree I must not understand?

DetlevCM wrote in post #13874734
...Although I think this is something difficult to teach to an American... when European cars were using 10-15l of fuel per 100km, primitive US vehicles were using 40l / 100km, just because the Americans think they can afford it. (at zero other benefit)...

Irrespective of my views on taxes or the problems of consumer societies, which may actually be somewhat aligned with yours, I would ask that you refrain from making such chauvinistically blanket statements about 300 million people simply based of their nationality. While I realize that many folks around the world feel they have, with full impunity, the right to arrogantly (and usually hypocritically) disparage all Americans, this is a photography site, and I have no use for senseless US-bashing here. Thank you.

EORI wrote in post #13875971
I'm not following your statement.

While I agree with you that an increase in pixel density will increase image resolution, are you saying you disagree that diffraction limited aperture can occur earlier as the pixel count climbs?

From the Cambridge link comes the critical disclaimer for the diffraction limitation

If you use the increased density of pixels to make bigger prints because you keep ppi the same as you have always used, you will be getting a different print size by enlarging the FF image to a greater extent: it is this enlargement specifically, and not the pixel size that results in the limitation of aperture due to a smaller CoC . If you move back from the bigger print so it has the same angle of view, this goes away again, because the CoC goes back to "normal".
The discussion of diffraction effects and pixel size can only make progress if the print size and viewing distance are clear. John, I suspect, is making the standard assumption of keeping those constant (like the standard conditions for DoF) so the diffraction effect is unchanged by increasing pixel count

EORI wrote in post #13876045
Let me try to understand your explanation. Are you saying that the effect of diffraction is outweighed by other factors and techniques that mitigate any reduction in sharpness from the effects of diffraction, at least at the current range of pixel counts?

It's not outweighed by anything. It's just that, at most commonly-used apertures, the pixel density is not sufficient for diffraction effects to be apparent.

For instance, with a 36MP full-frame sensor, the diameter of the Airy disc doesn't exceed the size of a single Bayer array until the aperture is f/16 or smaller.

And, even if you have a hypothetical sensor that is diffraction-limited at f/4, there is still good reason to increase the megapixel count further - by quadrupling (or more) the megapixel count beyond this point, you can then remove the AA filter without fear of moire, giving improved sharpness.

Yes. Except that current full-frame DSLR sensors are nowhere near dense enough for this to be significant, unless you routinely shoot at f/18-f/22.

RTPVid wrote in post #13876516
You mean because I don't agree I must not understand?

you commented on my post after 7 minutes, not long enough to listem/watch the whole presentation. which hence means you just work on your own assumption.
but hey, if you enjoy high child mortality and dying young.... (in a relative comparison to countries with higher taxation and less income inequality) be my guest.

DetlevCM wrote in post #13877124
you commented on my post after 7 minutes, not long enough to listem/watch the whole presentation. which hence means you just work on your own assumption.
but hey, if you enjoy high child mortality and dying young.... (in a relative comparison to countries with higher taxation and less income inequality) be my guest.

What exactly has this got to do with a thread about camera megapixels? Cut it out.

DetlevCM wrote in post #13877124
you commented on my post after 7 minutes, not long enough to listem/watch the whole presentation. which hence means you just work on your own assumption.
but hey, if you enjoy high child mortality and dying young.... (in a relative comparison to countries with higher taxation and less income inequality) be my guest.

It apparently is a surprise to you that us American bumpkins can be well read. I've seen it before. Imagine that!

DetlevCM wrote in post #13873640
-> Just to point out one thing:
Storage is NOT cheap.
HDD prices have increased rather dramatically in the last 4 months. And yes, 10GB more in a year isn't a lot... neither is 20GB... but when it goes into the hundreds with backup, it quickly becomes expensive.

That doesn't mean more resolution is bad - but the phrase "storage is cheap" isn't quite accurate.

It's increased, I'm not sure I'd say "dramatically". The reason for the bump in pricing are the floods in Thailand have shut down production. Expectations are prices will return to their normal trend (down) soon.

On topic please:

why would I need more than 18 MP if I can't see a single pixel and see all the detail I need at 1,5 meters wide and 1 meter high print output?