Sensor Resolution Verses Lens Resolution

[Foggy]

I am making this thread to keep the topic from derailing another thread , I will try and pick out the letter posts pertaining to this subject (sorry if this ends up not working!)>

[Foggy]

Re: Sensor Resolution Verses Lens Resolution

I'd say the 7D is a good choice, I also have the 300/2.8 and both converters, on a 5DmkII it is tough getting close to a lot of wildlife. (I do like the way the pictures "look" though, the 5D does have something intangible there.)

I think the trick is to look at the pics that didn't work out the way you wanted and see what would improve them. For example, if you can get close or the light is low a 5DmkIII will help a lot. Also how big do you want to print/show the pics?

I have been pondering this John , and would be grateful if you could clarify .
I was trying to work out the resolution of a lens compared to pixel size .
A 7d has 4.3 micron pixel size (photosite may be smaller , but micros lens increase to this number?)
Does it only take three sites to produce the data (one per channel) , making 12.9 microns ?

How far can say an L series lens resolve down to in terms of what is cast upon the sensor surface ?

Just wondering if this pixel race is really done as far as resolution is compared (I imagine that data accuracy can be improved by more photosites , but question resolution .
)

For an identically framed image you will need a lens with a focal length 1.6 times that of the one on the 7D and 1.3 times that on the 1D4.

However Robert is correct in that magnification is related to focal length.

.....

[Foggy]

Re: Sensor Resolution Verses Lens Resolution

But we're discussing wildlife photography, where that's often impossible (either due to distance, or budget for big white lenses). I have added the riders about that.

Sorry I thought this thread was about the 1D4 being discontinued and the crop issue.

Another issue is the loss of f/8 AF which affects wildlife shooters too.

Using f/8 the longest Canon combination is 1200mm (600 + 2x), without f/8 the longest is down to 840mm (600 + 1.4).

With the 1.3 crop 1D4 the max is the equivalent to 1560mm on a ff, whereas on a 1DX or 5D3 the max is down to 840mm - this is obviously very significant to wildlife shooters.

It isn't even that simple as cropping down to get the equivalent size as the 1Ds3 suddenly pops up as a valid option as this still has the 21mp and the series 1 AF (just loses out on the fps) so still can get 1200mm.

I suspect the second hand value of a good 1D4 will remain strong until this issue is resolved.

This is the thing.
Technical minutiae apart, I have been told a few times that photos from the MkIV , and the 5D Mk II for that matter, "look" better. Colour, contrast as well as sharpness for a given lens. Maybe everything is in the eye of the beholder.
All may be academic judging from the negative vibe Mrs Hughbie gave last night on the issue of camera upgrades.

......

Thanks Jon .
So it uses a group of the three channels to construct a net luminance , but uses comparisons of adjacent to calculate colour too ?
It's not an easy thing to pin down indeed .
Thanks again , sorry for off topic in thread .

Perhaps one of us could start a thread about his topic ?
I was trying to understand the point at which the sensor has more resolution than the lens is capable of .

I hope that lot of quotes makes some sense .
If peeps are happy to converse in either thread then that's good , I only made this to keep this subject from derailing the 1DMkIV Discontinued thread .