There are many forms of lens aberration.
Diffraction is a different type of animal. They are not linked. In fact, some aberrations decrease as a lens is stopped down. Most lenses are at their best about 2 – 3 stops from wide open. Less, and aberrations of various sorts may dominate. more, and diffraction starts.
But, as with all things like this, "It depends".
Michael
Think of it like this:This is what I mean the sweet spot between aberrations and diffraction
Diffraction is the maximum potential resolution at any given aperture, no matter what lens, format, or brand. It's a physical limitation, a ceiling, if you will, on how much you can get out of the lens. So if at F/8 diffraction says with red light you can only resolve X, then X is the maximum you'll ever resolve, even if the lens was perfect. (I don't have the time to do the math to tell you what X is at the moment, but you get the idea). Diffraction limits vary with the color (wavelength) of the light.
Lens aberrations tend to vary dependent on the lens. Most lenses tend to correct most aberrations better when they are stopped down a bit. Stop down too far though, and of course you'll be "into" diffraction.
There are many forms of lens aberration.
Diffraction is a different type of animal. They are not linked. In fact, some aberrations decrease as a lens is stopped down. Most lenses are at their best about 2 – 3 stops from wide open. Less, and aberrations of various sorts may dominate. more, and diffraction starts.
But, as with all things like this, "It depends".
Michael
Would this imply that the greatest resolution from a lens would lie at the point where the blur from Diffraction and the blur from Aberrations are the same?
Yes.
Aberrations are the greatest at full open and diminish when stopped down. Diffraction is minimal at full open and start to get worse with smaller apertures. Where there two meet is the maximum resolution from this particular lens. Better lenses have this point at larger apertures, worse lenses at higher apertures.
What I am getting at is the sweet spot at which a lens has the highest resolution is at the Fstop at which you have the least blur due to aberrations and the least blur from diffraction. (the same amount of blur from both
Would look like this
Blur from aberrations ->sweet spot max resolution <- blur from diffraction
In addition to the aberrations and diffraction, add in focus blur.
The answer to your question can be yes, depending on the lens, sensor and technique. There is a reason the D8X0 cameras are the only 36MP cameras in 35mm sensor size. In film days Kodak was adamant there was no more than 2400ppi available on film.
From a technical standpoint, lenses perform best stopped down a couple stops from wide open. In general, f/5.6-f/11 tends to be the sweet spot of lenses. Diffraction blur tends to begin, depending on the sensor pixel size at about f/7.1 for something like the D7100, DX size, 24MP. Of course, practical consideration intrude and you make the best image you can by using this information to your best advantage. The good image you get is always better than the great image you didn't.
There is a misnomer that a lens on low resolution camera can be a good performer, but on a higher resolution camera a weak performer. This is UNTRUE. The lens performs identical on all cameras/sensors and at the same image size will look identical, neglecting the impacts imparted by the sensor, electronics and processing algorithms. Only if you pixel peep will the per pixel sharpness differences be visible and what you are seeing is that the sensor could resolve more than the lens could give. What this means is a lens that has a resolving power of x while the sensor could handle a resolving power of 2x, the resulting image will still have a resolution of x' and not 2x'. Basically splitting the resolution across more and more pixels will not increase the resolution. And the opposite is true. This is why Kodak thought people scanning film at 9,600ppi were nuts! What is true is if you want to get the most out of something like the Nikon D810, you need to use lenses that have better resolving abilities with good light and techniques.
The title of your post makes it seem that there is a point with decreasing pixel pitch where a sensor "outresolves" a lens, and so further improvement in resolution is possible as the pitch continues to decrease. In fact, over a broad range of pitches, lenses, and lens apertures, both making the lens sharper and making the pixel pitch finer will improve resolution.
Thank you for all the work you put into this
Would you have any issues if I used your graphs for future reference and do you have a site that I can direct these references to ?
I have to disagree, I think what you see is the limit of the lens, not what the underutilized sensor is not delivering.
In any event, Erik has convinced me at least, that it is better to have blurry fine pixels than jagged larger ones. Meaning you get more image data even when the pixels are mushy.
I have to disagree, I think what you see is the limit of the lens, not what the underutilized sensor is not delivering.
In any event, Erik has convinced me at least, that it is better to have blurry fine pixels than jagged larger ones. Meaning you get more image data even when the pixels are mushy.
Fine_Art,If you find a lens that gives 12 mpix on a 12 mpix sensor you can be certain it will deliver more resolution given a higher mpix sensor.
Not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with, but my point is a point of fact. A lens performance is independent of the camera sensor onto which it's image circle shines. If a lens has the resolving power equal to 12 MPs of data (FF Size Sensor), then no matter what sensor reads that FF image circle, you get the same data. Cutting a pie into 36 slices instead of 12 slices doesn't give you anymore pie!
What a higher resolution capable sensor will do is show you the limited resolving power of the lens, but the lens has not changed it's performance. and done properly and all else constant, then the print or displayed image will be the same from a 12MP or 36MP sensor. You could 'upsample' in the camera or post processing, but you still started with the same amount of actual data. The other benefit of a higher resolution sensor is that it can capture all the data from all lenses less than or equal to it's data saturation point. Put a better resolving lens on both those sensors and the 12MP starts throwing away data while the 36MP keeps it.
The 1st question I ask my friends when they want to upgrade their camera is why? Usually it is more MPs. So if they have a 12MP camera, I ask them "Assuming the format of the picture (2x3) stays the same, what is double the resolution of a 12MP camera?" They are usually dumbfounded to know it is 48MP!!!
Fine_Art,
Not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with, but my point is a point of fact. A lens performance is independent of the camera sensor onto which it's image circle shines. If a lens has the resolving power equal to 12 MPs of data (FF Size Sensor), then no matter what sensor reads that FF image circle, you get the same data. Cutting a pie into 36 slices instead of 12 slices doesn't give you anymore pie!
What a higher resolution capable sensor will do is show you the limited resolving power of the lens, but the lens has not changed it's performance. and done properly and all else constant, then the print or displayed image will be the same from a 12MP or 36MP sensor. You could 'upsample' in the camera or post processing, but you still started with the same amount of actual data. The other benefit of a higher resolution sensor is that it can capture all the data from all lenses less than or equal to it's data saturation point. Put a better resolving lens on both those sensors and the 12MP starts throwing away data while the 36MP keeps it.
The 1st question I ask my friends when they want to upgrade their camera is why? Usually it is more MPs. So if they have a 12MP camera, I ask them "Assuming the format of the picture (2x3) stays the same, what is double the resolution of a 12MP camera?" They are usually dumbfounded to know it is 48MP!!!
What a higher resolution capable sensor will do is show you the limited resolving power of the lens, but the lens has not changed it's performance.
This is where that theory falls apart. Have another look at the chart that Jim posted earlier. A higher sampling density (smaller sampling pitch) will continue to extract more resolution from a lens. While there will be more to be gained from a good lens, it also works that way with a lesser lens. The simple reason is that one needs to combine the MTF functions of both lens and sampling system, and the result will grow closer to the worst of the two contributors if the better one improves, but if the worst of the two is improved then the combination will raise the combined quality even more.
It's rather basic arithmetic, 50%x50% is 25%, but 50%x90% is 45% (closer to the worst of the two). Raising the worst of the two to e.g. 75% would give 75%x90% is 67.5% (again closer to the worst of the two and a much better combination). You can consider the sampling density as the worst of the two, holding back the combined result most, until they get closer to each other's performance when improvement will (not stop, but) slow down.
Lens resolution and sensor sampling density are not independent limitations, they work in combination to produce a system MTF.
While lenses don't outdate as rapidly as digital cameras,
... the question arises for those of us with limited resources and 36 mp cameras and very good rather than excellent lenses, would the best value be obtained by keeping the current camera and upgrading to the Otus lens or keeping our current optics and upgrading to a higher MP camera?
From a resolution(only)/best value perspective - upgrade the camera first.
Hi,
This is where that theory falls apart. Have another look at the chart that Jim posted earlier. A higher sampling density (smaller sampling pitch) will continue to extract more resolution from a lens. While there will be more to be gained from a good lens, it also works that way with a lesser lens. The simple reason is that one needs to combine the MTF functions of both lens and sampling system, and the result will grow closer to the worst of the two contributors if the better one improves, but if the worst of the two is improved then the combination will raise the combined quality even more.
It's rather basic arithmetic, 50%x50% is 25%, but 50%x90% is 45% (closer to the worst of the two). Raising the worst of the two to e.g. 75% would give 75%x90% is 67.5% (again closer to the worst of the two and a much better combination). You can consider the sampling density as the worst of the two, holding back the combined result most, until they get closer to each other's performance when improvement will (not stop, but) slow down.
Lens resolution and sensor sampling density are not independent limitations, they work in combination to produce a system MTF.
Cheers,
Bart
Most seemed to have missed my initial condition on the discussion which was that 12MP was all the lens had to give.
And yes, each link in the chain impacts the overall output. But it is a process of subtraction from image quality which starts at 100%.
My point is not that more MPs is a bad thing, only that it is not necessarily helping, depending on the rest of the chain.
I love theoretical discussions as much as almost anyone.
The title of this thread is "Do sensors 'outresolve' lenses ?"
Before we end up going down a warren of rabbit holes, let me answer with a simple truism -
Today the majority of sensors out-resolve most of the lenses currently in production. The incremental gains to be had from upgrading favour the sensor, both from an economic POV and the consequential IQ benefits.
Even as far back as the analog days, that truism held - even in the debate of 35mm v MF. The larger negative had the IQ advantage, no matter that, back then, MF lenses were generally inferior to their 35mm counterparts.
I would say it is the other way around ...
Not sure what exactly you are disagreeing with, but my point is a point of fact.
A lens performance is independent of the camera sensor onto which [its] image circle shines.
If a lens has the resolving power equal to 12 MPs of data (FF Size Sensor), then no matter what sensor reads that FF image circle, you get the same data.
Modern lenses will last many generations of camera bodies to come, so there is less of a need to upgrade, unless for replacing a dud. Of course lens manufacturers will think of other features to incorporate in lenses, like autofocus improvements, which will only work together with the newest generation of bodies, but 'built-in obsolescence' or forced upgrading/replacement is a way of survival for those companies.
That is true for lenses with brass helicoid manual focusing mechanisms like Leica and Zeiss, but not necessarily true for autofocusing or vibration reduction (image stabilization) lenses. A friend and I have both experienced US$500 repair bills for our Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 lenses. Neither were subjected to any impact damage or extraordinary use.
Bill
That is true for lenses with brass helicoid manual focusing mechanisms like Leica and Zeiss, but not necessarily true for autofocusing or vibration reduction (image stabilization) lenses. A friend and I have both experienced US$500 repair bills for our Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 lenses. Neither were subjected to any impact damage or extraordinary use.
Take a lens, and make resolution tests with finer and finer pixel pitches until, say, the MTF10 in cy/ph stops changing. Then say that the number of pixels on the sensor just before the MTF10 stopped changing is the pixel resolving power of the lens.
Good point, Bill. Then there's obsolescence. A good lens stays good judged by the standards of the day it was designed, but standards change over time. I got rid of almost all my Hasselblad V-series lenses when the H=series came out. (I kept the 500, even though it's not very sharp, and the 250 APO, which is pretty sharp.) In fact, aside from view camera lenses and the 50mm f/2 that's on my Nikon S2, those are the oldest lenses I own.
Another thing to consider. When you buy a sharp lens, you've got a sharp lens that will be useful for many years. When you buy a hi-res body, all the lenses you own (except for some zooms) get better.
Jim
Use them as you wish. If you post them, please credit me and link to my blog.Thank you Jim & will surely link to your Blog
The two links above are a good place to start people for this topic, although, if you poke around a little, you'll see that's starting at the middle.
Here's the beginning: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5720
Jim
The title of your post makes it seem that there is a point with decreasing pixel pitch where a sensor "outresolves" a lens, and so further improvement in resolution is possible as the pitch continues to decrease. In fact, over a broad range of pitches, lenses, and lens apertures, both making the lens sharper and making the pixel pitch finer will improve resolution.
Here's an example, from a simulation of a RGGB Bayer-CFA sensor of variable pitch with a beam-splitting AA filter and a model of the Otus 55mm f/1.4.
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/otuswAA3d.PNG)
MTF50 in cycles per picture height for a FF sensor is the vertical axis, pitch in um is coming towards you, and f-stop is from left to right.
If we look down from the top at a "quiver plot", with the arrows pointing in the direction of greatest improvement, and the length of the arrpws proportional to the slope, we can seen that, over much of the aperture range of the lens, the fastest path towards improvement is finer pixel pitch.
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/quiverotus.PNG)
Details here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5905)and here (http://blog.kasson.com/?p=5920).
Note that some would call a 2 um sensor used with this lens underutilized, since, on a per-pixel level it is not as sharp as the same lens on a 4 um sensor. Nowever, in cycles per picture height, the finer sensor is sharper.
Jim
I am I correct to assume that the maximum resolution( I really should be calling it contrast) that a lens and sensor can resolve is at the point a lens projects an Airy Disk size at which the sensor’s pixels pitch can accurately measure the size, brightness and location of that disk in an image?
For example with the D800 it is able to accurately locate a smaller Airy disk ( wider F-stop), thus for the highest resolution (contrast) it peaks sooner than let’s say a D700 that would show its greatest resolution(contrast) at a narrower F-stop(and to be specific both cameras using the same lens).
With the D700 it is only able to accurately detect a larger Airy Disk and because of this the D700 peaks at a narrower F-stop than the D800. Is this correct?
To simplify this it would look something like this
Blur from resolution-limited sensor-> highest resolution (highest Airy Disk edge contrast that the sensor can detect) <- blur from diffraction,
I am I correct to assume that the maximum resolution( I really should be calling it contrast) that a lens and sensor can resolve is at the point a lens projects an Airy Disk size at which the sensor’s pixels pitch can accurately measure the size, brightness and location of that disk in an image?
Hi,
Maybe because 12MP means nothing without further context, like i.e. sampling density or surface area, and even that is only part of the image chain...
But that 100% is not the lens, it's the scene we want to image. Each component of the imaging chain offers 100% of it's own performance, yet it may be the weaker or the stronger link in the cascade of interactions that follow. It is the weakest contributor that sets the ceiling (not the floor).
Yet MPs, if defined as sampling density (for limiting resolution, Nyquist frequency) and number of sensels (for field of view, or required image magnification factor to cover a certain field of view), usually are the weakest link, not the lens (unless that is diffraction or severely aberration limited). The proof is that image resolution improves proportionally faster from denser sampling of the projected image of an existing lens than from better lenses (when we assume normal lens designs) on a sensor that is limiting resolution.
Cheers,
Bart
The only thing we do know for certain, is that the absolute diffraction limit to resolution will not be exceeded (if even reached). Instead, the overall image will already deteriorate before that limit is reached by stopping down. It is only high contrast detail that will even theoretically reach that limit, lower contrast features will have lost significant modulation long before that. That's why limiting resolution is often set at lower spatial frequencies, e.g. MTF10 or Nyquist whichever is reached first. It also explains why even lower spatial frequencies, MTF50 are often used to give an overall impression of average performance for comparisons between different systems.
Before I get started in the issue in quotes above, let me thank you, Bart, not only for saving me the trouble of saying what you've said, but for saying it better than I would have.
Now, to the issue. There are reasons to think that MTF90 is a more important metric than MTF10 or MTF50 in the final image. However, what's most important in the output isn't necessarily what's most important in the input, ie, the raw file. It's usually easy to sharpen 80% contrast to 90%; there's enough signal that you don't often run into problems even with not-so-good lenses. It's harder to successfully sharpen when the contrast variation is closer to the noise in the image. That's why, although it's a beautiful experience to look through a lens with stellar high-contrast MTF (the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO lens springs to mind), MTF 50 or 30, or even 10 (although I've found that, as Bart hints at above, the MTF10 often occurs past Nyquist, where it's meaningless) more important for photographers who aren't just going to use the OOC JPEGs or the OOL (out of Lightroom with no knob twisting) raws.
Jim
Bart,
While I certainly concede that MTF is dependent on both the lens and sensor (never said it wasn't and not sure what made you think I would believe that overall image quality is not dependent on the lens), but the lens performance is still independent of the sensor performance which was my point in responding to a statement that a high resolution sensor would make a lens look bad.
Hi,
Lens and sensor are both parts of an imaging chain.
When you put an image trough a lens some of the image quality is lost. We call that MTF. When the image sampled by the sensor we also loose image quality, while we also add false detail. The sensor has also an MTF.
A lens that resolves 12 MP would have zero MTF at that sensor pitch. The image would be extremely mushy. To get a decent image quality at the pixel level, a significant MTF is needed. But if a lens has a decent MTF at 12 MP it will certainly resolve much more detail than a 12 MP sensor can.
A 24 MP sensor can detect that detail, and do it without creating fake detail. Than you can downsize that to 12 MP and you will end up with a much better image than what would be possible at 12 MP.
Yeah, I'm an engineer having worked IIR sensors. Got all this. But, the performance of the lens is STILL INDEPENDENT of any surface upon which it's image circle shines. I can mount that lens on any camera I want and it's performance remains the same, though the resulting image can change dramatically.
But I did give a density: 12MP at 135 full frame (2x3) and comparing same size senors and image circles.
I said that each link subtracts from the image which means ceiling on image quality. But once the lens produces the image circle, that is all there is and becomes the new ceiling. The sensor does not have direct access to the image it only has access to the image circle produced by the lens. So we are in agreement.
Again we agree that in general sensors have been a limiting factor. That lenses have been able to provide more data than the sensors could properly resolve. But that wasn't the issue. The issues were:
1. Can sensors outperform lenses? The answer to that is yes...depending on the lens and sensor;
2. What are the implications...is it better to have 12MPs worth of data fully resolved in 12 MPs or have 12MP data resolved into 36 'mushy' MPs? My point being that subdividing the data into smaller and smaller units does not give more data and any resulting print at equal size from both sensors will look similar all else being equal. Only when the lens over performs a lower resolution sensor or the enlargement necessary requires more data than a lower resolution sensor can provide, does it matter at all!
3. Does a higher performing sensor make a lens look worse from a resolution stand point? Again, the answer is no. It will look identical. If you pixel peep, then the per pixel sharpness of the higher pixel sensor will not necessarily look as sharp as the per pixel sharpness of the low resolution sensor, but the overall image will look the same.
The holy grail would be a sensor with continuously scale-able pixels and a camera able to calculate based on the image circle given by the lens just how much data is available that scales the sensor pixel pitch to match the data provided up to the limit of the sensor. No wasted pixels or file space.
The real world 'What do I do with this theoretical information' realities are:
1. Until we reach a break even point with lens resolution, buy the best, highest resolution camera you can afford...within the other boundary constraints like High ISO performance, file size, frame rate, required output size, cost, etc.
2. Understand that when the 'sensor' was independent of the camera (film), it usually was a wiser investment to buy better lenses than better cameras. Cameras were generally purchased based on functionality and durability, not image quality. Now that the sensor is integral to the camera the calculation changes. But remember, film wasn't all that great either as a sensor. I accurately predicted to my 'film snob' friends that when digital got to 6MPs, film would become an alternative process. I think I was playing with a 1.2MP Coolpix 900 at the time. Hell, the Nikon D1 was 2.74MP and pretty much was the seminal moment in the transition to digital.
3. Don't believe that lenses will outperform even a 24MP sensor like the D750 in all situations. Pixel density is just one in a number of many factors affecting the overall sharpness and quality of a final image. The gazillions of posts by D8x0 owners whining that their shots aren't sharp stand in testament.
But, the performance of the lens is STILL INDEPENDENT of any surface upon which [its] image circle shines. I can mount that lens on any camera I want and [its] performance remains the same, though the resulting image can change dramatically.
This may be putting too fine a point on it, but that's true only if you consider the sensor stack glass part of the lens. If you move a physical lens to a camera with a different stack thickness, you'll get different performance even if the underlying silicon is the same.
And are the microlenses, if any, part of the sensor or part of the lens? Eliding things like that, you could also say that the performance of the sensor is independent of any lens focusing light on it, especially if the performance of the sensor includes ray-angle effects.
Even if both statements are true, I'm not sure either statement provides much guidance to choosing to improve performance through lens improvements or sensor improvements.
Jim
Bart, Jim and Eric have explained this in great detail.
I will only adress point #3. As the others have explained it will not look identical. It will resolve more detail if you have a finer pixel pitch sensor.
| (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a.png) | (http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na_small.png) |
I have to disagree, I think what you see is the limit of the lens, not what the underutilized sensor is not delivering.
In any event, Erik has convinced me at least, that it is better to have blurry fine pixels than jagged larger ones. Meaning you get more image data even when the pixels are mushy.
Ugh! Yes, you will get different performance out the back end behind the stack/sensor, or if you change the size of the image circle, but the lens performance will not have changed one iota. What you are arguing is that by changing the surfaces through which the image circle shines, the image circle emerging from the back side of the lens before the stack/sensor will be somehow different. Good luck with that!
With respect to your last statement, it is tangentially related in that if you have been happy with a lens on a 16MP camera, for example, you should be just as happy with that lens on a 36MP camera. Most likely it already outperforms the 16MP sensor so you will reap more data with the 36MP sensor. If we assume a lens under perform, matches or over performs a 16MP sensor, then some unique situations can be identified. If it under performs the 16MP it will under perform the 36MP sensor. If it matches the 16MP sensor it under performs the 36MP. However, in both these cases, you have not lost anything you already had! If, however, it over performs the 16MP it can still under perform, match or over perform the 36MP sensor, but in all 3 of these cases you are getting more out the chain than you were previously, though 1) you might still not be fully exploiting all the imaging chain has to offer and 2) the lens performance has not changed.
This was all aimed at the people unhappy that their D8x0 camera pixel peeps showed less than stellar sharpness and want to blame 1) the lens that hadn't changed, or 2) The camera. When in reality, it is almost always their technique that is to blame.
Someone should take pictures of a straw man with the same lens on a A7s, A7 and A7r.
Not to be obvious but that depends on the lens and the sensor. Using camera identical sensor area, the same individual lens at a given aperture may yield fine results on a12mp sensor, good results on 24mp camera, and only so-so results on a 36mp sensor.
I have a lens that is speced as diffraction limited. If you put any sensor behind it you think you get all you are going to get. I also have a corrective element for it, a coma corrector, that improves the quality of the pixels on APSC at the expense of the edges on FF. The rim tends to distort a bit. When I use this lens on large pixel FF I tend to not use the corrector. When I use it on finer APS-C I use the corrector.
So it is not necessarily true that the lens always gives you the most with other devices subtracting.
No one wish to refute claims of lenses in isolation. That is the straw man you created.
I didn't set it up, everyone else got off on tangents stemming from my simple statement of fact that shouldn't have even got anyone's attention. Same is true with the fact that more pixels is not necessarily better than less; what really matters is the total amount of data being carried by the pixels. When engagement times (detect, track, target, fire, kill) can sometimes be less than 3 seconds, you learn to get all you can and you don't waste extra time and bandwidth with the irrelevant. If 12MP can carry all the data, then 36MPs means 24MPs of waste!
But if I have a lens that just can deliver 12 MP worth of data I would rather use a phone cam.
Folks shooting MS on MFD say that MS (up to 200 MP) is more tolerant of diffraction than 50MP single shot. I don't understand that, but more pixels have more leeway for sharpening and that may help a lot.
As always, I don't care too much for numbers and graphs and feather pictures.
I do know this. I had a 70-200 f2.8 VR i which did ok on the 12MP nikon sensors. It wasn't amazing or the sharpest lens out there, but it did ok. There was some corner softness, but not a great deal. But when I mounted it on the D800, the sensor extracted every last bit of performance out of it. There was a lot to extract from the center and the corners gave up a long time before the center did. The result was images that had a much more obvious sharpness transition between the center and the edges than the 12mp cameras ever put out.
So yeah, I am a believer that sensors do out resolve lenses and a low performance lens on a high performance sensor would amplify the lenses issues.
Sure you see the limitation of the lens better and you get less out of the sensor relative to its theoretical limit but there is more detail in the image. Even in the corners.
I think it is the other way around. This is an example of a lens that has more to give on a higher res sensor.
Sure you see the limitation of the lens better and you get less out of the sensor relative to its theoretical limit but there is more detail in the image. Even in the corners.
I could see the argument that we have reached a point of diminishing returns with a lens like that. But more and more I start to like the idea that we are reaching the limits of what sensors can produce. Then we are back to analog days, it's all about the lens. And format size. And skill. Not so much about upgrading.
You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?
You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?
You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?
You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?
Besides, there are more than just 'resolution' advantages to the gained from the camera upgrade.
But if I have a lens that just can deliver 12 MP worth of data I would rather use a phone cam.
Best regards
Erik
You have a Nikon D3(12mp) with a 50/1.8 lens.I would go with the D810 if that was my only goal and choice. Realistically I would get a D800E and a Sigma 50 Art.
You print A2 or larger - what do you 'upgrade' to (one or the other) : A Zeiss Otus or a Nikon D810(36mp) ?
This begs the question, "Does one believe they could make just as good an image (quality of the output file) with their phone as say a Nikon D3 or even D300s?"
Both these cameras have older, 12MP sensors (FX and DX) which data limits the output so no matter how much more data they might be getting all they can give is 12MP worth? Most 35mm format film (24mmx36mm) had less resolution data than that!
I would go with the D810 if that was my only goal and choice. Realistically I would get a D800E and a Sigma 50 Art.
Hi,
Nokia had a mobile phone with 41 MP resolution, and it was enthusiastically reported to be quite close to Canon 5DII in image quality under good light.
What I say is that a lens that would deliver just 12 MP would deliver it with very bad contrast (MTF) at fine pixels, as it otherwise would deliver far better resolution than 12 MP. It is sort of not realistic to make a lens that has decent MTF at 12 MP but suddenly drops to nil at an arbitrary limit like 12MP. A lens delivering zero MTF at 12 MP may deliver say 3-6 MP at 50% MTF. And that bad resolution would push it in the phone camera territory.
Any good lens would deliver probably deliver something like 50-200 MP at 0% MTF on full frame, I guess.
Best regards
Erik
Given the unmentioned assumption of the loss of 6-9MPs of data that was the baseline of the discussion, I guess I would still rather have a D3 receiving, digitizing and processing it than my phone electronics. You can still do a lot with 3-6MP!
I don't want to read anything into your posting, but is seems like you are saying 3-6MP isn't worth the effort. I know guys doing more with 12MPs than most people with D8x0 cameras might ever do with 36MP. Like you wrote yesterday (paraphrase) Most equipment outperforms it's user!
About 12 years ago I took 2 photos of my 2 daughters holding monarch butterflies in the palm of their hands. My mother inlaw loved them and asked for prints. Of course, I had taken these with the 2MP Coolpix 950 I was playing with. But I have to say, after some significant post processing effort, I printed them at 11"x14". About 6 months later she recreated the photo with my Niece, the 3rd female grandchild. I shot that with a N90s and 85mm f1.8D trying to recreate the framing and perspective. The film was scanned with my Nikon LS-1000 Super Coolscan. There was much more data in this film scan and I was required to keep the image a little softer than I would like to match the other 2. All 3 prints still hang side by side in my inlaws home and I can tell you the 2MP images hold up respectably next to the 3rd. You really need to step up close and almost pixel peep to see the additional detail in the 3rd print. At normal viewing distance, it isn't really noticeable.
Hi,
I don't really see your point, but I feel that very good prints can be made from small MP files. Early on, 135 on good film was considered to be around 6MP, but it was found that 3 MP digital was actually good match for 135 film.
Now, my normal print size is A2, and I don't feel that 6 MP is good enough for that. But I don't see a lot of difference between 12 MP and 24 MP at that size. So, I would say that I (personally) need something like between 12 MP and 24 MP for a very good print. That difference from 6 MP to 24 MP is worth a journey to Iceland for me.
Personally, I would never buy a D3. I don't shoot high ISO or 10 FPS. I shoot on tripod, with MLU and at 50 ISO. So with my shooting habits a low MP high FPS camera simply make no sense.
Some folks are shooting high ISOs on free hand, that is another game, not about resolution but about getting that image.
Best regards
Erik
thank you for the response
I have run MTF tests in pixel sizes from 9 my to 3.8 my, and lens performance essentially always peaks at the same aprtures, but with smaller pixels we get more resolution at a given MTF (which often is choosen at 50%).
So what I would say, the advantage of smaller pixels is better definition of whatever the lens renders, and that applies to any somewhat well corrected lens.
Best regards
Erik
This peaking I also noticed had a greater effect with targets further away and with longer FLs when setting up focus for the common distance I shoot at. For example with a 50mm 1.4 when using a target 4-7m away there was very little difference, once I started setting the focus targets 8-10m away I started to see this peak.
Moving the target further away has the effect of making the slanted edge sharper, and therefore the SFR software capable of finer discrimination. Try the test with a target that is cut from thin mylar rather than printed and see if the effect still occurs.
It could also be that the lens is better corrected for farther subject distance.
Jim
Can you explain how that works a bit more? I have the Sigma 35 Art, that I think has the opposite. It can be incredible within 30ft, it seems average at infinity.
Moving the target further away has the effect of making the slanted edge sharper, and therefore the SFR software capable of finer discrimination. Try the test with a target that is cut from thin mylar rather than printed and see if the effect still occurs.
It could also be that the lens is better corrected for farther subject distance.
Are you talking about slanted-edge testing, or in general? If it's the latter, your Sigma might not be well-corrected at infinity, although, in my experience, that's rarer than not being corrected for close distances.
Jim
Moving the target further away has the effect of making the slanted edge sharper, and therefore the SFR software capable of finer discrimination. Try the test with a target that is cut from thin mylar rather than printed and see if the effect still occurs.What I am using is a thin mylar like material with adhesive that is mounted to flat white plastic board. I was using a printed chart from the web and found that up close that it was the resolution causing me problems.
It could also be that the lens is better corrected for farther subject distance.
Jim
Moving the target further away has the effect of making the slanted edge sharper, and therefore the SFR software capable of finer discrimination. Try the test with a target that is cut from thin mylar rather than printed and see if the effect still occurs.
It could also be that the lens is better corrected for farther subject distance.
Jim
Can it focus correctly at infinity?
Best regards
Erik
That is an interesting suggestion. Where can one obtain this mylar?
The thinner the black material, the less chance of its casting a shadow, but the greater chance you'll bend and crinkle it trying to attach it. Try not to cut your own edge; the cutting equipment used by the material supplier will probably be smoother than anything you can do yourself.
If you have a white backing and a black edge maker, you're going to have a high-contrast target. Keep the exposure down far enough that the demosaicing and other processing doesn't cause clipping, or your sfr program will get confused.
And would you recommend the site for beginners ?
I had a renewed interest in this when I first seen this Lensrentals charts
(https://i0.wp.com/www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2012/03/zeiss-100-test.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2013/03/D700N50-2-686x1024.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2013/03/800N50-690x1024.jpg)
When we take a look at the 50 1.8 G with 5.92 µm µm pixel D3x
(http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_afs_50_18_d3x/mtf.png)
to a 50mm 1.8 G 3.39 µm pixel V1
(http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_afs_50_18_v1/mtf.png)
I have been told countless times that the work presented by Lensrental and photozone are bogus on another sight and would welcome your insight as to why a higher resolution sensor would show a different Fstop at which the system (sensor and lens) peaks
I have been told countless times that the work presented by Lensrental and photozone are bogus on another sight and would welcome your insight as to why a higher resolution sensor would show a different Fstop at which the system (sensor and lens) peaksI believe what is happening is that we can more precisely detect the point where we see the meeting points of blur from Aberrations and diffraction. With the D700 the blur from being resolution limited is hiding the point that blur from aberrations start to limit the contrast in the image. Kind of like using a meter stick with cm accuracy and then measuring a second time with a stick to the 1mm accuracy and finding that you have 2 different final measurements.