An interesting read.

woof woof · An interesting read.

http://www.northlight-images.co.u..._pages/guest/physical_limits.html

This convinces me more than ever that the pixel race has one too far. I'm convinced that I'd be far happier with a relatively lower pixel count and relatively larger pixels even though that would mean having a relatively lower resolution than have higher resolution but smaller pixels and a relatively wide diffraction limit. I think that F8 is just too wide to be worrying about diffraction and the associated drop in resolution.

I've yet to try a 50D but the numbers look ever more unattractive to me and I think that 10mp or less for APS-C and a similar density for FF would probably suit me better.

It doesn't look like I'll be buying a new DSLR anytime soon.

DarthBalls

I read the first few pages. I'll need to make time to read all of that - thanks for posting.

The points being made are starting to be acknowledged by some of the compact camera makers: Panasonic have said that they won't go over 10MP for a compact and Fujifilm's 200EXR has an advanced sensor that combines photosites for improved low light performance, halving the pixel count to do it. The Fuji camera is getting great reviews.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/...meras/f/finepix_f200exr/features/

woof woof

There's also an interesting (and short) eos 50D review by Harold Merklinger on Luminous Landscape -

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml

Once he got to grips with the effects he seemed happy with the high resolution but the tortuous downsizing and processing he goes through to match the results of the lower resolution 40D just don't seem worthwhile to me. Still, he knows more than me and he's better at it, but frankly I couldn't be bothered doing what he does...