There is such a thing as aesthetics that transcend numbers and ratios â€¦ that something we canâ€™t put our fingers on intellectually, yet we recognize intuitively when we see it. I wouldnâ€™t say, however, that this is beyond rational understanding; just that you momentarily drop the analysis and the stats and just recognize that there is something special about the picture you are viewing. Needless to say, this is a combination of the photographerâ€™s talent, the technology of the sensor and the lens, and the subject (yes, the subject, it is difficult to make a seeping wound look nice regardless of talent or technology). I digressâ€¦
So what is it about those occasions when you recognize that there is something special about a picture, provided the human photographer, the viewer, the lenses, etc. are the same? More specifically, what would it be about the sensor as the *sole* variant that could make a picture, oh lets be less technical, â€œjuicyâ€. I would refer to the Leica pictures that appeared on Canon Rumors article a while backâ€¦ http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/leica-m9-a-second-opinion/
All things being equal, especially the lens, barring the sensor, I would argue, what your eyes are picking up, and what your brain is perceiving is the â€œphysicsâ€ of the sensor: the overall qualityâ€¦ the combination of dynamic range, color depth, the tonal rangeâ€¦ much of these take a dip in 5D II when we wander into the higher ISO range. There is scope to improve the physics of these pixels. As a Canon supporter, I see without subterfuge, guile, or pride, that Nikon has worked more on the quality of pixels and I want that for Canon.
I am not against more MP per se. My point was we could gain on that extra aesthetic, that â€œje ne sais quoiâ€, that non-technical â€œjuicinessâ€, by working on the quality of the pixels instead of just their quantity. Peace