You can make a print as big as you like with a 4 pixel image, it depends upon your threshold of acceptability :-)
done that -- you know, "Black Square" by Malevitch? -- that's an oversharpened 1 pixel BW image, and costs more money that i will ever see in my life :)
Noise,
quite reasonable at ISO 50. same as istD at 200 (dpreview.com tests) besides, noise can be reduced at loss of resolution. and 100 (5x5x4) MP image can take a substantial resolution loss before it would become 11 MP :)
sensitivity
?
and exposure latitude of a G2
10 bits vs. 12 bits. lots of people here swear they save jpegs from their dslrs, which is 8 bits, and completely negates any theoretical advantage.
is no where near as good as achieved with lower density sensors.
of course not. so what? LF backs are even better. what's your point? i never said it'd be perfect. i said it'd be very useful and far from being pointless
Higher density sensors such as found in the G5 limit lenses usability above medium apertures.
? so far i though that it's its focal length that limits usability (7mm..20mm) -- it would become a pinhole camera at f/16 :)
Focus accuracy and lens registration and SLR finder system accuracy> becomes much more of an issue if the full resolution potential is to be realized.
it does. so what?
from my personal experience with that thingy, it's not noise or resolution (as long as one keeps ISO <= 100, which is good enough for
me, i am used to iso 50 and 100 films) -- it does resolve 190 lpmm,
*on the sensor*, but serious distortion and flare that make this camera
a toy.
best, mishka
