05-10-2011, 12:14 PM
[quote name='froeschle' timestamp='1304941714' post='8175']
Seen from a slightly different perspective:
The DA 70 ensures the maximal possible resolution of the K-5 in the center of the image at 4 and 5.6 (about 2700 LW/PH). On the K10D, however, the maximal resolution of the sensor (ca. 2350 LW/PH, compare e.g. 31@4, 43@4) is not fully exploited (4: "only" 2200 LW/PH).
The obvious question: Why?
Maybe the AA-Filter of the K-5 is not so bad after all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ...
[/quote]
Hi,
IMO all these comparisons are quite useless. First of all, there are measurements errors, both for lenses and cameras. There are limits of tolerance for both. In FAQ Klaus writes about 5% measure's error, so in fact we should talk about confidence intervals, but not about exact numbers. Second (assuming sample variations), usually for 95% confidence interval you need about/more 30 samples (lenses)(well that depends on dispersion, but let it be) and assuming camera's variation - 30 cameras <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> (lets say to evaluate sensor's decentering). This kind of testing might take a while and we can get one review in a couple of years <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. The numbers you see represent lens performance, but only represent. Good lens is good, mediocre is mediocre, and that's all.
A.
Seen from a slightly different perspective:
The DA 70 ensures the maximal possible resolution of the K-5 in the center of the image at 4 and 5.6 (about 2700 LW/PH). On the K10D, however, the maximal resolution of the sensor (ca. 2350 LW/PH, compare e.g. 31@4, 43@4) is not fully exploited (4: "only" 2200 LW/PH).
The obvious question: Why?
Maybe the AA-Filter of the K-5 is not so bad after all <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ...[/quote]
Hi,
IMO all these comparisons are quite useless. First of all, there are measurements errors, both for lenses and cameras. There are limits of tolerance for both. In FAQ Klaus writes about 5% measure's error, so in fact we should talk about confidence intervals, but not about exact numbers. Second (assuming sample variations), usually for 95% confidence interval you need about/more 30 samples (lenses)(well that depends on dispersion, but let it be) and assuming camera's variation - 30 cameras <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> (lets say to evaluate sensor's decentering). This kind of testing might take a while and we can get one review in a couple of years <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. The numbers you see represent lens performance, but only represent. Good lens is good, mediocre is mediocre, and that's all.A.