Essentially, your reasoning is flawed. Diffraction at an absolute reference to pixel pitch is not a useful marker. Diffraction limit is actually based on format size, not resolving power, just like CoCs. Evaluating at a 100% monitor view is deceptive as it does not represent an actually viewing distance. And it is how the image is perceived is much more important than is individual pixels appear a little soft, especially in comparison to another image which the viewer will never see.
Your diffraction limit is the same as any 35mm format camera. Use f/16 and enjoy your camera.
You may want to do a search on D800 diffraction to find the many threads devoted to this very topic.
In short, there is no problem.
Cheers,
Bernard
One of the possibilities for increasing depth of field is tilt.
The 45 mm and 85mm PCE are very good lenses for this purpose, btw also for simply making a quick and easy 70 megapixel stitched image.
What is see is above d8 diffraction starts playing a role.
cheers PK
If I make a print from a file I shoot at f16 that has less resolved detail at 40"x 30" and look at it and compare it with a print made from a file at f5.6 that has more resolved detail, then at an equivalent viewing distance the f5.6 file will look more detailed.
This is what matters to me, not looking at a monitor. However, looking at the monitor tells me something about the relative appearance of my future prints.
Does the f/16 shot printed at 30x40 look sharp and detailed? That is it. The comparison is irrelevant. But I bet the area in front and behind the object will look sharper in the f/16 print.
BTW, did you actually make these prints? And what is your viewing distance to these 30x40 prints? I routinely print that size and larger. 30x40 is not big and you can easily get sharp prints, not that print size is really a factor here.
why not just wait till you have the camera, and make your own judgments from real pix.....
all this hand wringing seems a bit premature. Everyone I've talked with simply gushes about the camera and its resulting images.
Just sayin....
Not yet, but I will go bigger than that to satisfy my curiosity. I fixed on 50"x40" for the Aptus 75 as a size where I could enjoy the experience of getting closer to the print to reveal more detail, yet be large enough to look good in a gallery.
I base viewing distance on a rule of thumb that I should stand at least as far as the diagonal of the print. The bigger the print the further away. It is nice to approach a print and see more detail revealed, not all of us have as young eyes as we'd like.
I've just bought a D800E and it seems to be a very interesting and exciting camera. I'm still trying to figure out what lenses I'll get and how it fits in with my other cameras. Will it obsolete the Aptus 75 on Mamiya AFD? I have lots of questions and testing to do.
I bought a description to the lens reviews on Digilloyd as part of my research on lenses, there are quite a few tests with the D800 and a few with the D800E.
The conclusion other people I'm talking to, and that I'm coming to is that the fine pixel density of the sensor compromises the usefulness of this camera.
Diffraction limits seem to hit really early with many lenses, with apertures as low as f6.3 in many cases. Few lenses appear to perform best at an aperture as small as f8, and almost everything is soft at f11.
So the D800 looks like its going to be great where low DOF is needed. With very wide lenses, maybe these wide apertures mean the camera is going to be OK, but for normal and longer lenses, shooting subjects where depth of focus is needed looks like its going to be rather hamstrung. A lens like the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor maxes resolution at f4.5 or f5.6. (DPReview samples). These things are not great for a landscape image where one wants the foreground in focus while retaining distant detail.
I can see that a wide angle lens could help, but I prefer compositions that use more normal to short tele focal lengths.
I'll reserve judgement until I have a bit more experience, but it seems rather ironic that a camera that at first seems tailor made for use in landscape photography is irrevocably limited by diffraction softening. Nevertheless I'm sure I can fit this camera into my stable and find a number of good uses for it, it just doesn't seem to quite be the revolution I just thought it was initially.
How are landscape photographers who like shooting with anything other than a wide-angle going to deal with this?
In essence, you are saying two things ...
- Nikon lenses aren't good enough for landscape work
- The 35mm format isn't good for landscape work
Both of these notions are just plain silly.
When I got my 645D I was hearing all kinds of stuff about diffraction (f/11 being the supposed limit) and lenses not being up to the task. I found most of it wrong. The first thing I did was shoot it under a whole bunch of conditions and pushing the limits and print large results. I found part of the process is the processing, but I have no problem stopping down on this camera to f/22 and then lenses have been fine. Sure, at 100% or in comparison I can see a difference between an f/8 image and f/22 image, but likewise, I don't hang comparative aperture versions in an exhibition and the images in-and-of-themselves are great.
I would go and shoot a whole bunch, play with processing, and make some large results. That is the best way to get a handle on whether the camera will be good for you. But I really cannot see f/5.6 as any sort of real limit.
Some or even most of the sharpness lost to diffraction can be restored using correct sharpening, so diffraction may not be the evil as it is often seen.
Now, there are advantages with larger formats. There is no substitute for square centimeters. A larger sensor will always have a better potential for microcontrast if lenses at similar quality are used at the same aperture. If there is a need to stop down for DoF a larger format will need be stopped down more. But even a larger format will be diffraction limited at f/8 (unless you have a lens that is ill designed or badly assembled), and if you need to stop down to f/11 on the D800 you would probably stop down to f/22 on the MFDB.
In general, whatever format you use, the more you have the more you can loose. The great feature of the Nikon is that it has a well working live view, so you can focus exactly, and a very hi resolving sensor at a very attractive price. You can buy more than half a dozen excellent Zeiss lenses for the price of the cheapest MF digital backs, and many of the lenses Nikon has are really excellent, too.
Thanks Erik, I think these are good points. I would say that on the Aptus 75 I've never really seen a problem with diffraction except when I used old LF lenses experimentally, so the shortcomings of those optics were multiplied.
There are many practical and ergonomic things I like about this camera in addition to the quality of the image (and I'm not referring to resolution but wider aspects). If I could live with the 24 PC, then the ability too shoot HDR in camera and save as TIFF would speed up my workflow for some of my less exacting commissions considerably. I'd still need to carry around the Canon for the 17 as its a lifesaver much of the time, but even if I could shoot 2/3 of my work in camera it would be a massive time saving in post.
One thing you haven't mentioned is that the smaller sensor 35mm format has more DOF to start with, so in a way this makes it more suitable for landscapes than medium format?I believe that by adjusting focal length, aperture and sensor size appropriately, "equivalent" images can be taken. I.e. images that have similar perspective, field-of-view, DOF and diffraction. (you can of course not do f/45 if your lense only does f/32, but that is a property of one particular lense, not the sensor-size in itself)
One thing you haven't mentioned is that the smaller sensor 35mm format has more DOF to start with, so in a way this makes it more suitable for landscapes than medium format?
I sold my Phase One 645AF/P45 back and now use D800E; it's near enough in image quality to the Phase One and a heck of a lot easier to use. I use the 70-200mm f2.8G VR which
is terrific, a Voigtlander 40mm f2 and Macro 105mm VR, also brilliant. I bought the 16-35mm G f4 VR though, and the edges aren't good.
Nikon have applied for a patent for a 17mm PC-E so we can look fwd to that!
Not yet, but I will go bigger than that to satisfy my curiosity. I fixed on 50"x40" for the Aptus 75 as a size where I could enjoy the experience of getting closer to the print to reveal more detail, yet be large enough to look good in a gallery.
I base viewing distance on a rule of thumb that I should stand at least as far as the diagonal of the print. The bigger the print the further away. It is nice to approach a print and see more detail revealed, not all of us have as young eyes as we'd like.
Funny, I print 44x56 quite often with my 645D. I wonder why the D800 files are so poor?
I'm not saying this ...
The conclusion ... that I'm coming to is that the fine pixel density of the sensor compromises the usefulness of this camera.
... If I could live with the 24 PC, then the ability too shoot HDR in camera and save as TIFF would speed up my workflow for some of my less exacting commissions considerably.
I believe the D800 does in-camera HDR with JPG only.
I believe the D800 does in-camera HDR with jpg only.
No, it works in tiff also, and frankly, I find the in-camera results superior compared to those of the HDR soft I superficially tried.If Nikon really did something clever with HDR/tonemapping, then I am sure that they are able to offer the same in a PC/mac application?
No, it works in tiff also, and frankly, I find the in-camera results superior compared to those of the HDR soft I superficially tried.
Cheers,
Bernard
Its very natural output. The problem with the post-tonemapping is that its too easy to make choices that one should not. :-) Fiddling with even such a good program like Photomatix can waste huge amounts of time that could be better spent drinking wine etc.But then you would be just as happy with a PC/mac application that had no buttons and "one-size-fits-all" processing? I believe that such a program exists, but cannot remember the name of it.
I'd probably use this for a commercial production where I have 100 files to get out in a day. This saves me four hours in front of the computer that I can use to play with the RAW conversions for my personal files.
Fortunatelly I did not believe the same, but switched the camera to TIFF and shot HDR, lo and behold: HDR TIFF files were turned out.
No, it works in tiff also, and frankly, I find the in-camera results superior compared to those of the HDR soft I superficially tried.
Cheers,
Bernard
all this fuss over diffraction is so " princess and the pea"
if diffraction is such a big deal, then wouldnt the D800E be a better choice than the D800 because the D800E has no anti alliacing filter--thats one less surface to add to diffraction. put a better way, ...
if diffraction is such a big deal, then wouldnt the D800E be a better choice than the D800 because the D800E has no anti alliacing filter--thats one less surface to add to diffraction. put a better way,
what is worse, 1) the added diffraction of the D800 or 2) the added Moire of the D800E? No more equations please. real world results are needed here.
Just for argument sake you have 2 choices for landscape photography, 1. a gigapixel camera where every pixel is soft at all apertures but the overall scene is quite nicely represented or 2. a 4 pixel camera where all four pixels are very sharp at all apertures but the overall scene is poorly represented. A leaf looks just like a house, 4 squares but those squares are tack sharp! Which would you use?
Another way of looking at it is at f5.6 my D800E is a D800E at f8.0 it is a D800 at F16 it is a 5DIII at f22 it is a 5D. However my 5D is a 5D at f22, f16, f8 and f5.6 it will never be a D800E at any aperture
Leaves in my 5D files look like they were painted, leaves in my 5DII files look like they were photographed, leaves in my D800E files look real.
Marc
I think this puts it very well. The D800E is worth getting (rather than the D800) because at optimal use its better than anything else in its class. Its worth it because it makes that quality an option.
My expectations are high because of what has been written about this camera. Generalities aside, what I need is not something better than the best other DSLR though, but something from which 50x40" images can compare reasonably in a exhibition with images from my Aptus 75 on Mamiya with the 550-110 zoom. This is because I would like to use this camera to add to an existing project and I'd like things to look consistent. This is a big ask, but in an exhibition, people (not photographers) don't pixel peep and when prints are 50x40 they are standing well back.
My initial test against my Aptus shows that the D800E with 50 at f8 compares very well at f8 against the Aptus on a Mamiya with 80 f2.8. This is my reference point, I'm not really expecting the D800E to be at the level of the MF equipment, but it does very well. Well enough to provide me with something approaching that detail in the image in conditions that would defeat the Mamiya/Aptus combination, hand held, low light, long exposures etc. etc. My task now is to determine what lenses at my preferred focal lengths will get the best out of this camera. The DOF is greater of course with the D800E and this is useful.
Initial tests suggest to me that the A75 (at ISO 50) remains superior in DR and colour to the D800E. I need to do a bit more 'peeping' to confirm whether this is the case as the light was changing rapidly when I did that test.
So far I conclude the D800E is really a great camera. I'll shoot on the Aptus when practical but use the D800E when it isn't.
Just for argument sake you have 2 choices for landscape photography, 1. a gigapixel camera where every pixel is soft at all apertures but the overall scene is quite nicely represented or 2. a 4 pixel camera where all four pixels are very sharp at all apertures but the overall scene is poorly represented. A leaf looks just like a house, 4 squares but those squares are tack sharp! Which would you use?
Initial tests suggest to me that the A75 (at ISO 50) remains superior in DR and colour to the D800E.
Another way of looking at it is at f5.6 my D800E is a D800E at f8.0 it is a D800 at F16 it is a 5DIII at f22 it is a 5D. However my 5D is a 5D at f22, f16, f8 and f5.6 it will never be a D800E at any aperture
Leaves in my 5D files look like they were painted, leaves in my 5DII files look like they were photographed, leaves in my D800E files look real.
A technique I sometimes use with my gear (Rollei 6008i and older 22MP digital back) is take two shots from the same tripod position, one say f8 @ 1/60th and one f22 @ 1/8th. Post production is the same; I then put the f8 tiff as a layer on top of the f22. I then erase the top f8 layer on those areas I'd like more DoF (for example heather in the foreground of a moor vista).
It works far easier than focus stacking with the same f stop, as the field of view stays exactly the same.
Another option would of course be to do the opposite and just have the f8 layer visible on the parts where sharpness is paramount.
Your diffraction limit is the same as any 35mm format camera. Use f/16 and enjoy your camera.
So using f/16 will allow you to enjoy the D800 like any other FF camera, but will not allow you to enjoy D800's 36Mpx.
I would predict that the D800 used at F16 will give approximately the same level of detail as the D3X at F11, in the plane of focus.
Someone please do the test to prove me wrong. I'm so rarely proved wrong nowadays. ;D
Myself and others, we basically cannot detect any difference, with naked eye, from prints on shots taken by D 700 and D 800, basically the same picture, on A3, observed them from half meter distance, whilst if you go and check with a magnifier or check carefully at short distance, around 20 cm and you have good eyes, some more very tiny details can be seen on D 800, but the entire picture, in a real view, look pretty the same.
But……there a “but”, and, in my very personal opinion, it is a very important “but”.
The Nikon zoom lenses that I have tested on D 800, 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRII, all of them, unless you close well the diaphragm at around f 6.3 – f 8, they are not very exciting on that camera ,not at all, the borders are weak with 14 -24 and 24 -70, better with 70 -200, and with that camera, you can detect a minimum misalignment of a zoom, which is almost normal in a zoom and which cannot basically detected on D 700.
Moreover, if you stop very down the lenses at f 16 – f 20, which is normal for picture with wide angles for a very deep DOF, a with the subject in the very closed distance and the landscape in the back, and this pictures are very normal in landscape shooting, the pictures taken with D 800 is not so sharp like the pictures taken by D 700, and already in 30X 40 cm printing you can see this, no gain at all in respect of D 700, if not a loss.
....I am working mostly with zoom, after almost 40 years with primes on film, I went on zoom on digital: I will not change back to primes for a camera to shot at large apertures, whilst if you close the diaphragm around f 16 or more, the picture will be not better than the picture taken with D 700 on that relatively small A3 print size....
....D 800 could certainly be better in large formats printing, it looks even better on monitor, but monitor is monitor and printing is printing: on A3 it looks pretty like the D 700, and at high number of F stop even not at the same level of D 700....
Alessandro
Hi Ray,
Not sure where the D3x came from, but attached is the comparison between the D3x and the D800 (once expressed in cy/mm and once in cy/pixel resolution), from an optical point of view. Obviously the D800 has more resolution, but the optical response at the same aperture is of course identical. Only if one were to crop the D800 to the size of the D3x (no idea why one would do that, other than for argument's sake), then the per pixel response would change, but in favor of the larger sensel pitch camera (less diffraction per pixel due to lower resolution).
These are OTFs (diffraction+defocus, CoC blur assumed to be 1.5x sensel pitch), so a perfect camera is assumed. The actual MTF curves could never exceed these, but will be somewhat lower, depending on things like AA-filter and sensel aperture.
This hopefully also demonstrates where the confusion comes from that some people experience, because they fail to translate to output quality related cy/mm resolution.
Cheers,
Bart
This is what I was expecting at that kind of print size.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Not necessarily, Guillermo.
Hi Bart,
Now all you need to do is take some real-world shots to see how the results correspond with your theoretical charts. ;D
There's no doubt in my mind that a lens used at F16 on a 38.4mp full-frame camera with the same filters and same quality pixels as a 50D will produce marginally, but noticeably better detail (when examined in pixel-peeping mode), than the same lens at F16 used on a 25.6mp full-frame camera of the quality of a 40D.
However, such differences are of little practical significance and would only be noticeable on really huge prints, and even then would probably be noticeable only by the experienced eye.
This brings up an interesting question: at what print size do the advantages of a D800 (or 800E) take hold?[...]
So the big question is: where is the line of demarcation in terms of print size, where it's not advantageous to use the D800E? When I get back off the road and have some time, I may need to do a lot more testing to see, as I've not printed anything smaller than 13x19 yet - I'd rather be shooting than testing, even if one has to do the latter to gain knowledge of their gear.
In a studio session with the D800E, after printing, it was obviously and immediately noticeable to both myself and my model that 13x19" prints from the D800E, printed on Moab Slickrock Metallic on an Epson 3800, were better, at normal viewing distances, than those from the D700. Noticeably so, but not vastly so. However, I'd be shocked if anyone couldn't clearly see the differences at that print size. Fabric textures were quite a bit better defined and more "realistic", while skin and other aspects of the image that didn't contain so much fine detail, the differences weren't as noticeable as one might expect. But there was no doubt which print was better, none at all.
Yes, because at f/16 the D800 is diffraction limited, and this means a loss in resolution with respect to shooting at wider apertures.
It's the output magnification that ultimately determines how much resolution we will end up with, and on the input side that is determined by the sensel density and sensor array dimensions together. Aperture just sets the overall physical resolution limits on the input side, and the subsequent output magnification, well, magnifies that.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
To illustrate some of these points I shot your resolution chart (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13217) with my 800e and performed measurements using your method with the sinusoidal star chart and Imatest. Rendering was done with ACR 7.1 usisng PV2012 and no sharpening. The 60mm f/2.8 AFS was used with a weighted tripod, live view focusing, and mirror lockup.The optimum aperture for this lens and camera system is about 5.6. The red circle is at a radius of 92 pixels, which is the Nyquist for the sensor (103 cy/mm).
Alaising is prominent at the optimum aperture, but is reduced along with resolution to the smaller apertures.
Here are the results of the resolution by your method. As per a recent discussion, this method appears to measure resolution near the Rayleigh limit. The graph shows the Rayleigh limit for each aperture, and the resolution at 50% MTF for a perfect lens.
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/800e-Resolution/i-wG7Wkxx/0/O/ResGraphB.png)
Sharpening of the f/5.6 image with ACR using a detail of 100% for deconvolution and a radius of 0.8 and amount of 50% regains considerable MTF and resolves at the Nyquist limit, but the MTF at Nyquist is quite high, indicating considerable aliasing. The image is likely oversharpened, but no overshoot that would indicate halos is noted in the edge plot.(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/800e-Resolution/i-vtzqwXf/0/O/0355pt8100YA901cpp.png)
I also think that paper choice, and RIP will have quite a big effect on the appearance. Some papers show much more detail. I don't know your paper choice but it sounds like it might be fairly detailed. The same prints on a watercolour paper might be less different. I don't use RIPs myself as I've not really preferred the results in the past, but I know a lot of people use them.
The answer may be easier to find than you think. The D700 has a limiting on sensor resolution (at the Nyquist frequency) of 59.1 cycles/mm. That is determined by it's fat sensels with a 8.46 micron pitch. If we follow the common assumption that 5 cy/mm (254 PPI) represents good, and 8 cy/mm (406 PPI) excellent, output print quality then we can divide the on sensor resolution by the magnification factor that results in such output resolution, i.e. 11.82x or 7.39x.
Multiplying the physical sensor array dimensions (36x23.9mm) by those magnification factors would give 426mm x 282mm (approx. 16.8 x 11.1 inch) output size at good quality, and 266mm x 177mm (approx. 10.5 x 7.0 inch) output size at excellent quality.
Why are you assuming a fixed viewing distance?
So the big question is: where is the line of demarcation in terms of print size, where it's not advantageous to use the D800E?
Basing this on a fixed frame to describe image quality does not work; photography is subjective. That is like saying an APS-C sensor has more detail than a 35mm one because it is working at higher resolving power.
I thought it was only lenses that can be diffraction limited, Guillermo. Camera bodies could be pixel limited though.Not interested in your semantic discussions Ray. The point is that at f/16 the D800 cannot reach its maximum effective resolution, and that means you cannot enjoy its full 36Mpx because of diffraction (among other possible factors).
Another somewhat related note: A few years ago I saw, at an Epson booth, a 16x20" print from Douglas Dubler reportedly shot on a Leaf MFDB. A fashion shot. It was quite possibly the finest print of a fashion subject I've ever seen, with natural skintones and tone transitions, realistic yet unforced detail; simply put, I was jealous. With the D800E I'm getting a whole hell of a lot closer to that level of quality than I ever had with DSLR, and that to me is a breakthrough as the MFDB aren't financially feasible for me at this time and my shooting style is more attuned towards the smaller format cameras.
I've attached a zoomed-in screen capture of your f/5.6 image, and added (in yellow) where I would place the limiting resolution boundary, at 99 pixels (91 is too opimistic) or 95 cy/mm (assuming a 4.88 micron sensel pitch). The exact boundary diameter is slightly arbitrary because it also depends on the exact alignment of the pattern with the sensel grid, especially without Optical Low-Pass filtering (OLPF). Inside that 99 pixel diameter I already see a widening of the pattern which indicates aliasing. The aliasing does mimic the underlying pattern somewhat, but it already misrepresenting the input signal, hence 'alias'.
What is also shown in the f/5.6 example, is the reddish cast that Photoshop ACR and Lightroom produce on high resolution/contrast edges, specifically on the D800E version Raws. ACR and LR do that more than other Raw converters (it can be corrected, but still).
Yes, with the proviso of the slightly larger diameter of the blur circle I would have used, it illustrates nicely what has been stipulated earlier. From f/16 and narrower we will see actual loss of resolution to significantly below Nyquist, and diffraction serving as a pseudo AA-filter. It also reduces overall contrast, but that can be somewhat restored by deconvolution sharpening. The resolution that was lost cannot be restored.
Yes, but even with a somewhat lower 'Detail' setting (to avoid jaggies) and lower amount, an f/5.6 image should be able to be sharpened close to perfection.
A quick analysis of the f/5.6 example with my optimal Capture sharpening analysis tool (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/psf/SlantedEdge.html) suggests a slightly larger sharpening radius (which might indicate that focus could be improved), but I would prefer a somewhat lower brightness unsharpened rendering (preferably after some defringing) to base such an analysis on.
Thanks for your pointers on choosing the proper radius to determine the resolution from your chart. I did notice the reddish case at f/5.6. What causes that and how would it be corrected?
I did use your tool to determine optimal sharpening radii, but did not post the results since the values for f/2.8 and f/4.0 seem too high and I intend to repeat the analysis when I get time. The tool is quite helpful and many thanks for publishing it.
Adjusting the radius according to the Gaussian radius is a departure from the conventional sharpening advice according to the Jeff Schewe/Bruce Fraser model where they suggest a small radius for high frequency images such as landscapes and a larger radius for low frequency images such as portraits.
There are better deconvolution tools than ACR/LR, but I prefer parametric editing since 16 bit TIFFs need for a stand alone produce get rather large when one is using the D800. The extra effort of using a standalone tool would be worth the trouble for one's most important images that need to be printed large.
(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/800e-Resolution/i-XDWKg5W/0/O/GraphResults.png)
Not interested in your semantic discussions Ray. The point is that at f/16 the D800 cannot reach its maximum effective resolution, and that means you cannot enjoy its full 36Mpx because of diffraction (among other possible factors).
The point is that at f/16 the D800 cannot reach its maximum effective resolution, and that means you cannot enjoy its full 36Mpx because of diffraction (among other possible factors)simply reinforces the confusion. The facts are, the D800 cannot reach its maximum resolution at any aperture, whether F16, F8 or F5.6, unless you think we have reached the stage of producing the perfect lens. People sometimes spend thousands of additional dollars to get a lens which is noticeably sharper, at its sharpest aperture, than another cheaper lens of the same focal length. Such additional sharpness from the more expensive lens can be seen when the image is recorded on sensors with a much lower pixel-count than the D800 has.
Then you will likely be more confused than you otherwise would be, Guillermo. Semantic issues are to help clarify concepts and help us say exactly what we mean. This thread seems to be full of confusion about the significance of driffaction on cameras which have a high pixel-count such as the D800. I see this confusion resulting, in part, from the sloppy concept that a camera's sensor can be diffraction limited. It can't.
The sensor is there to record whatever the lens throws at it.
Your statement: simply reinforces the confusion. The facts are, the D800 cannot reach its maximum resolution at any aperture, whether F16, F8 or F5.6, unless you think we have reached the stage of producing the perfect lens. People sometimes spend thousands of additional dollars to get a lens which is noticeably sharper, at its sharpest aperture, than another cheaper lens of the same focal length. Such additional sharpness from the more expensive lens can be seen when the image is recorded on sensors with a much lower pixel-count than the D800 has.
I doubt guillermo said the sensor can be diffraction limited. The system can be diffraction limited.
You must have made a mistake in your tests. I've tested my camera with a similar pixel pitch (APS-C) at near nyquist. So have others with different cameras.
When I look at 100% pixels on the D800 images provided at several sites, I see good detail. In other words these systems are not lens limited.
If all you are saying is that kit zooms cant handle the D800 I dont see what the point is. Everyone else knows that too. I am sure you have good pictures with fine detail off your D7000. What is the full frame equivalent MP? What lenses are you using?
Total nonsense. All camera systems are both lens limited and sensor limited, whatever the quality of the lens or sensor.
An excellent example of confusion. The lens doesn't handle the sensor. The sensor handles the lens. The higher the pixel-count of the sensor, the better it handles the lens, period.
Limited in terms of recording reality, yes. Limited in terms of the system no. The camera system has a weakest link. IMO it is still the sensors.
False. Do you know how small the pixels are on P&S cameras? On any crop sensor you extrapolate the resolution of the camera up to FF. Why because the sensor is cropping out the middle of the lens image.
On any crop sensor you extrapolate the resolution of the camera up to FF. Why because the sensor is cropping out the middle of the lens image.
Do you think I am a complete nincompoop? One of the highest resolving sensors at the moment is the Nokia PureView 808 with 41mp on a sensor which is only 11mm diagonally. Full frame 35mm is about 44mm diagonally, so we might expect some time in the future a 164mp full-frame 35mm sensor (41x4).
Or maybe a 41x16 MPix = 656 MPix FF sensor?
::)
There is a point which is, in my personal opinion, very important, it is a fundamental one, and is not, still in my personal opinion, properly addressed in these discussions: in photography, what cannot be seen, it does not matter, and it does not matter at all.
At the end of the day the only real judgment for the quality of the picture is the eye and the brain of the viewer of the picture.
And this fact plays a fundamental role in the selection of the sharpening parameters, a role which overwhelming in respect of just the theoretical radius calculation based on diffraction airy disk at a certai F number and pixel pitch
Two different pictures, shot with the same equipment, lens and camera, settled at the same parameters, like same F number of the lens, may needs different, completely different sharpening, according to the different subject, different paper, even different location of the print, even different light on the print.
In other worlds, in my personal opinion, for a quality picture, you cannot define the sharpening radius based on a simple count of diffraction airy disk at a certain F number and pixel pitch, it does not work in the real world, provide you just an indication, but it does not work in the real world, and it does not work at all, at least for my print (360 PPI, in general Glossy Paper, A3 size)