Personal attacks only reinforce my reason for closing this thread! Any further personal attacks will result in a permanent forum ban.

I'm closing this thread to avoid a repeat of the heated discussion the other two resolution threads created. Which is a shame because these threads don't have to come to this but always do because some of you can't accept the fact that not everyone is going to have the same opinion.

There is nothing wrong with differing opinions but when the arguement turns into a long back and forth "you're wrong","no you're wrong","that's not what I said" or "I agree with what you are saying but what you said is wrong" etc, etc., it benefits no one.

This thread was suppose to be specific to the D7000 but instead it became the same resolution discussion you guys have been "fighting" about for a long time. Enough already...

Paperman said:
Aren't we talking about expensive glass outresolving/not outresolving sensors? The subject of poor lens performing better on FF than DX is irrelevant .

And I think you will all kill me if I start a subject saying larger pixels DO NOT ALWAYS end in increased sharpness ( mostly yes , but not always )

I think we are in saying the same thing lol !
"a poor lens on dx will seem sharper on FX because the physical pixels on FX are larger..." let me say the same thing another way... a sharp lens on fx could look not as sharp on dx as the dx sensor out resolves it.

heartyfisher said:
Hmmm I dont think that is the correct conclusion. In fact I think it is the opposite conclusion is correct. a poor lens on dx will seem sharper on FX because the physical pixels on FX are larger...

Aren't we talking about expensive glass outresolving/not outresolving sensors? The subject of poor lens performing better on FF than DX is irrelevant .

And I think you will all kill me if I start a subject saying larger pixels DO NOT ALWAYS end in increased sharpness ( mostly yes , but not always )

When you get into the very specific tech terms and reasons behind camera/lens quality I will be the first to say I dont know that much. All I do know is what looks good printed and what does not. I think alot of people are able to understand the technical and are not able to explain it to others.

These posts always make me smile because it seems like alot of you are chasing around the others tail trying to tell them they are wrong and your right. Where they are doing the same thing.

Sometimes it takes someone who understands the tech and can explain it in a simple way to answer a question like this. Not that anyone is right or wrong or less intelligent but some just dont get the tech behind the product and want to know more about it, nothing wrong with that.
~Cheers

^^ This is basically what I'm talking about.

Paperman said:
It simply means the lens has the ability to provide better resolution on a FF body - it outresolves the APS-C sensor .

Hmmm I dont think that is the correct conclusion. In fact I think it is the opposite conclusion is correct. a poor lens on dx will seem sharper on FX because the physical pixels on FX are larger...

Truly excellent response. Thank you.

shigzeo said:
And because of this, the pixels are allowed to bathe better, getting more light and, consequently, look sharper.

Yes and no, mostly no.

MF is now, and always will be, sharper than smaller formats (35mm) because an object of any given size (the whiskers on your cat) will be projected larger on the MF sensor/film. Every visualized physical object takes up more room (on the sensor/film, "in" the lens, etc) and therefore is less susceptible to lens flaws, sensor/film flaws, and diffraction effects.

This is physics. It can not be beat. It can be fought, and a valiant fight is underway, but the larger latent image will always win. The small might get better (diffraction is a hard wall they all will hit, eventually) but the large will get better too.

shigzeo said:
That is great, but it doesn't answer my quandary: the current FF sensors are only up to D200 levels, maybe a bit more in terms of sheer vertical/horizontal pixel resolution for a given physical constrain. The D7000 is 1,6x that resolution and the shards of light that hit its (smaller) sensor, do have to fight with the fact that the sensor does not collect as much light.

As I said, the primary problem (in this case) isn't that the sensor doesn't collect as much light (though that does lead to worse signal to noise ratios, which is a secondary cause of softness) but that lenses are not, and will never be, perfect and thus the "fuzzy edge" of every line is now capable of being imaged on its own photosite.

These "fuzzy edges" have always existed, it is just in lower-density mediums (medium format film/sensors, older digital sensors) the fuzzy edges fell on the same photosite as the "hard edges" and thus their secondary signal contribution was overwhelmed by the primary signal and one never saw them.

As I said in my last post you are not incorrect that some lenses are now possibly being out-resolved (though you didn't prove this point and I'm not ready to concede it). Where you got off on the wrong foot (and the part I'm challenging you to think about) is in saying this is somehow bad.

You got off on the wrong foot (and appear to still be standing on it) by presuming that pixel-level softness somehow equates to image softness in this example.

I also strongly challenge your conclusions based upon looking at those press images. Every test shows the D90 and D7000 sensors reaching the same resolution extinction point regardless of lens (within reason), strongly suggesting the limiting factor is the AA filter over the sensor, not the extinction point of the lens. If you are seeing images which contradict this the safest conclusion is that other factors than raw native resolving power are at play. Yes, bench tests are the only true way to determine the extinction point.

Thank you everyone for the responses. It is obvious we are talking about the same thing from two very different perspectives. I know that light isn't made up of pixels. I also know that the larger the sensor, the more light collected. And because of this, the pixels are allowed to bathe better, getting more light and, consequently, look sharper.

That is great, but it doesn't answer my quandary: the current FF sensors are only up to D200 levels, maybe a bit more in terms of sheer vertical/horizontal pixel resolution for a given physical constrain. The D7000 is 1,6x that resolution and the shards of light that hit its (smaller) sensor, do have to fight with the fact that the sensor does not collect as much light.

But, we have no cameras on the market with the D7000's vertical/horizontal resolution per square mm from Nikon. The only competitor is the 7D from Canon. Those sensors put into FF format would yield a minimum of 36 megapixels from the same ~35mm sensor. What I am saying is not that FF does NOT collect more light. That is a given.

It doesn't matter if you go to a shop and take photos or look at DXO, any simpleton can tell that. My question won't be answered here, and possibly not till we have FF sensors in the range of 36 megapixels. If I am wrong (and I'd love to be), those sensors will be razor sharp when shot with the very same 24-70G that looks razor sharp with the D3x and D200, but not the D7000.

Regarding jaggies - it was my way of trying to differentiate the blurry renditions I saw from the 35 1,8DX/D7000 combo versus the 24-70G/D7000 combo, which zoomed 100%, is obviously softer. Now, the 35 is a very sharp lens without much effort. But the 24-70G can be very sharp, too. I have both lenses. But even shot at apertures of over F8, the 24-70G was never as sharp as the 35 1,8DX was, even in the hands or on the tripod of a professional.

When FF sensors reach 36 megapixels, my question may be answered, but until then, I don't see it happening, as I've only realised now.

Thank you for all of your replies. I don't see this going anywhere if we keep hammering very similar arguments from off kilter perspectives.

shigzeo said:
Thanks Tao. I understand what you are saying about light, about gathering, and about compactness. But, the same size sensor, the D7000 for instance, certainly looks to make the same lens that is 100% jaggedly sharp with the 24-70 2,8 on my D200 'smooth' and free of jaggies in the Nikon press images. The sensor is jagged again with the 35 1,8 prime. In other words, the 24-70 2,8G, in the hands of a professional, is either being shot wrong, which I don't believe, or the lens itself is too soft for the sensor. I am not wrong in my understanding of light or anything. Perhaps it is just the way I am trying to explain it.

I brought in small sensor cameras as an example and that was probably my mistake. The D7000, from every image I've seen, has more pixels than the 24-70G can handle to perfectly jagged sharpness at 100%. That is all I'm saying. The primes on the same sensor, however, are sharp and jagged.

shigzeo you are absolutely killing me on this. A bit of reading sensor, lens, camera design would help you so much. This is my last post - either you understand it or not.

1) You should never, ever, ever, have jagged pixels if using a good camera. Jagged pixels = low bit, low quality image. Think of the original 8 bit Nintendo. The best is to be a bit blurry which is actually the camera recording color variations not just contrast. What you are seeing is either in-camera or software sharpening which has nothing to do with sensors or lenses.

2) "The D7000, from every image I've seen, has more pixels than the 24-70G can handle to perfectly jagged sharpness at 100%." --- 100% WRONG!

I'll try to make this simple. Sensors are made up of little squares, lenses are not. Light is not made up of little squares. If the Light is not made up of little squares, and the lens is not made up of little squares, and the sensor IS made up of little squares, RESOLUTION IS OF THE SENSOR not the lens. You could put in a 800mp sensor in the camera and the lens would still be phonemically sharp it is that the sensor is recording it. Your perception of what sharp is and looks like, is not shared by camera, lens, and sensor designers.

@shigzeo

Please go to DxoLabs web page . Choose a f2.8 lens to compare and an APS-C camera and check the resolution figure .

Then keeping lens the same , change the camera to a D3x . See the difference in resolution figures .

It simply means the lens has the ability to provide better resolution on a FF body - it outresolves the APS-C sensor .

@Paper: What you say is of course true. My 50 1,2 for instance, isn't as sharp as my wife's 35 1,8 DX. However, the 1,8 35mm DX in Nikon's own marketing images from the D7000 shows down to the pixel jagged sharpness, where the 24-70 and the 70-200 does not.

Please explain the 20% increase in resolution from APS-C vs FF for me. I still think we are talking about the same exact thing, but under different circumstances.

shigzeo said:
The D7000, from every image I've seen, has more pixels than the 24-70G can handle to perfectly jagged sharpness at 100%. That is all I'm saying. The primes on the same sensor, however, are sharp and jagged.

There are primes and then there are primes ...Some primes are definitely not sharper than pro zooms . There are primes even not sharper than kit zooms .

People don't like it when I point to lens & sensor resolution tests as examples but if you go to any of them Shigzeo , you will see that almost any tested lens outresolves an APS-C sensor . ( Proven by the fact that resolution increases +20% if same lens is tested on a FF sensor ) . I am with Tao in that ...

Thanks Tao. I understand what you are saying about light, about gathering, and about compactness. But, the same size sensor, the D7000 for instance, certainly looks to make the same lens that is 100% jaggedly sharp with the 24-70 2,8 on my D200 'smooth' and free of jaggies in the Nikon press images. The sensor is jagged again with the 35 1,8 prime. In other words, the 24-70 2,8G, in the hands of a professional, is either being shot wrong, which I don't believe, or the lens itself is too soft for the sensor. I am not wrong in my understanding of light or anything. Perhaps it is just the way I am trying to explain it.

I brought in small sensor cameras as an example and that was probably my mistake. The D7000, from every image I've seen, has more pixels than the 24-70G can handle to perfectly jagged sharpness at 100%. That is all I'm saying. The primes on the same sensor, however, are sharp and jagged.

Had a quick look around the web and it looks like there are several threads out there regarding the D7000 mirror vibration causing image softening for the pixel peepers.
One thread revolved around a test that was done was with live view and without live view shot with a 50mm F1.8. The live view shots were sharper. Suggested explanations were 1) due to the vibration(or lack of) and 2) due to contrast auto focus being more accurate though slower than phase auto focus.
There were other threads as well coming at it from different angles. eg flash is sharper than no flash.
My own observation of samples in the past did lead me to conclude that the softening I observed could possibly be explained by camera shake or overly high AA filter but JA's picture discounted the AA explanation. The lens being used bing a heavy 70-200 adds further weight(lol) to that argument. ie the heavy lens reduced camera shake.

If it was camera shake then It wont impact me much if I were to get a D7000 as I almost always shoot with a tripod attached anyway.

Testing123 - I am feeling your pain with this discussion.

shigzeo - I'm sorry but you are incorrect in 99% of all of the posts and assumptions you have made. You just about have everything backwards. Sensors are limiting the resolving power of lenses. Think of it this way, why does a 50 year old nikon lens look extremely sharp on a new camera? It is because the lenses have always out resolved film and sensors. Sensors capture the image, not the lens.

The D700 is sharper than my D300 mainly because the less compact pixels gather and resolve more light. More MP does not always equate to sharper images. If what you were saying was true, Every compact digi cam would outperform DSLRs since their pixels are more compact. You are comparing bodies with very different technologies, sensors and production dates that is making all of the stated comparisons way off base.

heartyfisher said:
Thanks JA ! Lovely pictures!

You're welcome, hearty.

Testing, excellent points here. Shigzeo, if you're happy with a given lens on the D200 you would be thrilled with it on the D7000. Resolution is only one small part of the equation that goes into making an image and you're not going to notice if the sensor out-resolves the lens unless you're printing at sizes that the D200 couldn't print to, anyway.

CaryTheLabelGuy, I have to respectfully disagree about the vibrations. The D7000's shutter mechanism is one of my favorite features it has. Mirror blackout is very short and it feels so much less clunky than any other SLR I've used—I'm even convinced it has less mirror slap than my (mirrorless!) NEX-5. Have you tried the quiet mode? It would require a slight change in technique but it feels and sounds as if nothing is moving in the camera and only requires one press of the shutter release (with exposure on release of the button).

The D700 has les cramped pixels than the D200 and my zooms are all razor sharp on my D200. I'd imagine that not getting sharp with the 2,8 zooms on the D700 is down to some shake or something. The 24-70G is razor sharp on the D3X, too, but that is only about as packed per square mm as the D200 is.

I like primes for a lot of reasons, but I'd probably not consider any outside the 24mm 1,4. I have the 50 1,2 and love it.

I while ago, I had complained here about the fact that I found my F2.8 zooms quite soft on my D700 and I was told to purchase primes. Apparently no one were shocked nor surprised of my statements. That being said, these zooms are quite fantastic... compared to the alternatives....

I kind of agree that the zooms are still worth for their convenience even at the expense of some sharpness. I often find it a pain to switch between my two zooms to the point that I am considering the purchase of a second body to avoid swapping.

Now if I trade my zooms for a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, that would just replace the 24-70mm and I would still need longer lenses and end up be switching every 3 minutes + lugging a lot more weight.

I was also told to bite the bullet and just live with the 35mm and 85mm primes which, according to some is plenty enough to shoot the whole world 'like so many have done before'.

One of the incentives for my investment in 2.8 zooms was the promises that they would be good enough for the D700 upgrade. To make me happy, the upgrade has to be a lot more than just an 'at least as sharp' option, otherwise it may not be as tempting.

I think we are talking about the same thing as I mentioned that MF is not currently as high res as the D7000 for a similar area. In other words, cheaper glass works better on MF. Of course sensor size matters, but that is precisely the point. I see a lot of people here moving to the m/3 with adapters and their tiny sensors, while not getting the same light, not doing good noise, etc., still give trouble to the glass that worked perfectly on their DSLR's including 35mm FX cameras. The smaller sensors with higher pixel counts, damn them if you want, need better glass to look sharp, and since these geezers have like 12 megapixels or slightly more now on that tiny sensor, they want sharp.

The D7000 isn't as highly packed as they are but it is the highest packed sensor in Nikon's DSLR line up. So following the same logic (as I've tried to mention), MF is less intense than the D7000 - now. I am not ready to buy a new camera, thank God. But, by the time I do, I reckon that my camera will have similar resolution per square mm as the D7000, which surely isn't receiving the best the current pro level Nikon 2,8 zooms.

As you said, 35 mil is less forgiving, and obviously, the best primes are able to resolve it to 100% pixel clarity, while the zooms are not. So, when other sensors, especially almighty DxX sensors get highly packed, how will that impact people who may not need, but want 100% sharpness from their zooms? I don't think they will look good in light of sensors as packed as the D7000, or, when strapped to even higher packed sensors: m4/3 for instance, they look rather soft in comparison.

Again, my D200 is 100% sharp with all of my lenses when shot well. The same isn't true for the D7000 as its pixels are really really dense. I know we are saying the same things, but the way I say it and the way you say it are probably not meeting what you expect.

I just don't see how professional zooms being fuzzy on any system made the same manufacturer is tolerable, or how people who worry about such things are crazy.

The objective should be for sensors to catch up to lens; otherwise you're you're not using the maximum capability of the glass that you have. If you pass that point, it's great to postulate that you can just improve the lens, but the reality is that manufacturers are constantly striving to increase lens performance anyway.

Moving the two in (somewhat) unison is a fine ideal, but impractical from the standpoint of a manufacturer that has to invest tens of thousands of man hours in any new optical design for a new lens, not including the cost of exotic manufacturing materials/methods (and that's assuming that they're only designing for whatever their minimum pixel pitch sensor is). Once we're at the point of out-resolving sensors, at each step there's going to be some give and take.

The smaller the sensor for any given MP count, the smaller the light-sensitive regions, the sooner diffraction becomes the physical limit of further resolving power. 4/3rs will only best 35mm (or DX) when 35mm (or DX) sensor makers give up. Larger is better! (in this context)

Lenses could be theoretically perfect, but the format itself will limit sharpness, regardless of MP count.

A false premise is that lenses can get better than foreseeable sensors.
A false premise is that a sensor which outresolves any available lens is a bad thing.

I still don't quite follow your mentioning of MF. I'm not convinced you get the thrust of the point - that MF is MUCH more forgiving of lenses. I keep seeing MF lenses mentioned in this thread as if they are some holy ideal of lens design. They are (for the most part) not. Do you understand that low-grade 35mm lenses work harder and are held to higher tolerances than all but the best MF lenses?

Well, the same D7000 press images at nikon http://www.nikon-image.com/products/camera/slr/digital/d7000/sample.htm are taken by field professionals. The ones taken with primes are a LOT sharper, down to the pixel, and those taken with the zooms are NOT sharp down to the pixel.

These are people who shoot all day everyday for work and have incredible post processing skills. I don't think technique is the issue. I am quite sure just that the sensor is outresolving the zoom lenses, even when stopped down to like f/7,1. It's not obsessive, it's simply a realisation (based on a lot of observation): the zooms aren't able to resolve the details of such a high sensor.

But tech marches on and in 2001 a Space Odessey, MF format cameras were used in futuristic format, but MF cameras are actually currently lower pixel pitch than the D7000 is anyway. They use primes, too, so what they resolve is based on the tightest of requirements.

But tech marches on right? The 35 millimetre standard has been about convenience. We know that. But what if technology gets to a point where micro 4/3 or mirrorless become viable replacements for 35mm? Then, where will 35mm go? I know this is a long time (probably) in the future, but gees, no reason to stifle its growth.

I would appreciate someone explaining how my premises were false, though, as I still don't read that from all the kind explanations.

Drdobs said:
I just can't help but think people are being obsessive compulsive about their photography gear rather than it truly being a problem that current bodies & lenses can't do what they need them to do. Yes, I'm sure there are a handful of photographers that can and actually do require a medium format system, but for the vast majority of people, working on technique in shooting along with improving composition will take your photography MUCH further than some extra megapixels or the glass that's better/faster than what we have available now.

Jon

Oh, I didn't even MENTION post processing skills! With what can be done in post now, I'd handily trade in my high end gear for mid-range gear and be a photoshop wizzard in a heartbeat. A good body (either DX or FX), perhaps the trinity of 2.8 glass, along with a couple of good 1.8 primes (35 & 85 come to mind), and throw in a macro for fun and I just have to believe all the rest of time and effort should be spent on all things related other than gear... It's enough to accomplish 99.5% of what anyone could/should ever want... Just my two cents..

Jon