Resolution limits - lens vs sensor « Nikon Rumors Forum

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.


Nikon Rumors Forum

where there’s smoke there’s forum fire

Register or log in - lost password?

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Resolution limits - lens vs sensor

(42 posts) (14 voices)
  • Started 1 year ago by dehidding
  • Latest reply from Correlli
  • Related Topics:
    1. Hint at the "3 remaining" bodies to be upgraded this year?
    2. How do I know which are good Nikon lenses?
    3. Why is the D800 no good for sports
    4. Should I Buy A D7000, D400 Or A D4, Or Wait For The D800?
    5. What Do You Want From Nikon In 2011 ?

Tags:

  • D3200
  • D400
  • D7000
  • d7100
  • D800
12Next »
  1. dehidding

    member
    Joined: Apr '12
    Posts: 14

    offline

    I've watching the blogs and reading a lot of questions concerning which lenses are sharp enough to deliver on the resolution capability of the D800. A number of blogs have gone so far as to start posting their test results on lens resolution. Additionally, Nikon has published a tech note on how to get the maximum resolution from the camera.

    What I find interesting is that all of this information is applicable to the D7000 and even more critical to the potential D3200, D7100, and D400. Here's my thinking...everyone is in a lather regarding the size of the sensor photosites approaching the resolution llimits of lens, yet the DX cameras I mentioned all have, or would have, smaller photosites. It would seem to me that technique (per the Nikon tech note) would be even more important to the DX cameras. Of course the positioning of DX cameras as "less than" FX goes against the need for better technique.

    Just my thoughts, but I would welcome other's comments. Am I incorrect in my thinking?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  2. Mike Gunter

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 946

    offline

    Hi,

    Could you post a link to the Nikon website?

    My best,

    Mike

    Posted 1 year ago #
  3. dehidding

    member
    Joined: Apr '12
    Posts: 14

    offline

    The tech note is: http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf

    To summarize ( to get max. Performance from a D800) use a tripod, don't stop down past the defraction limit of your lens, use remote cable release, use mirror lockup, use live view to verify focus.

    Lensrentals.com has a blog entry where they list tested lens resolutions to help one pick the best lens to rent for using on a D800: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection

    Posted 1 year ago #
  4. kanuck

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '09
    Posts: 1,405

    offline

    Interesting topic and apparently worth researching. What worked on the D3, D700 and D3s is not getting it done on the D800 apparently. Check this out:

    And the Nikon D800 autofocus saga continues (with some comments on specific lens performance)

    APRIL 5, 2012 BY MING THEIN 54 COMMENTS

    This post is a quick update to my D800 autofocus issues, as well as commentary on the specific performance on some of the more popular lenses people have been asking about. I don’t have time to post crops, but I think most of you would trust that I know what I’m doing.

    I spent the morning at Nikon. Ostensibly, to collect my replacement D800, and a PC-E 85/2.8 Micro. However, it turns out the replacement D800 exhibits the SAME autofocus issue – namely, with wide angle lenses, the center and right side AF points yield in focus images, the left side bank is way out. This is especially obvious with the 24/1.4 G. We also tried their NPS loaner demo units and their D800E sample. The results were mostly the same – all of the D800s showed identical results. The D800E was a bit better, but still noticeably soft on one side. It gets worse: I’ve had a number of emails from people with cameras in the same serial number block – below 1000 – and the 24/1.4, who are finding the same thing. Apparently it is a serious issue, because my NPS rep told me that HQ has asked for updates and is looking into it on the production line.

    Perhaps it was my 24/1.4 sample that was the issue – nope, because it works fine on a D3x, D4 and D700; we tried another 24/1.4 which showed consistent results – that rules out lens problems. I think we can also rule out sensor alignment problems as I don’t see any odd shifts in the focal plane when focusing using live view.

    The upshot is that it will take them two days to diagnose the problem, and possibly longer to fix. Since it’s only an issue with wide angles, and not an issue with anything above about 50mm, I elected to keep this body for the time being – I’m only using it in the studio with the 60/2.8 G Micro, and now the 85/2.8 PCE. It looks like I will be reviewing both E and non-E after all – I’ve elected to take a D800E for the replacement unit.

    There were more surprises in store, though – specifically, with lenses.

    Summary of Nikkors tested so far on the D800:

    AFS 14-24/2.8 G: Not good at 14mm; obvious corner sharpness issues. Displayed AF issues at 24mm. Center is sharp. T stop is probably closer to f4 than f2.8. Average to good performer.

    AFS 24-70/2.8 G: Sharp everywhere in the range, at every aperture. No AF issues, even at 24mm. Excellent performer.

    AFS 70-200/2.8 G VR II: Sharp everywhere in the range, at every aperture. 85mm setting better than the 85/1.4 G at f2.8, and comparable to the 85/1.8 G at f2.8 (yes, you read that right. The 85/1.8 G is better than the 85/1.4 G.). No AF issues either. Excellent performer.

    AFS 24/1.4 G: Sharp everywhere except extreme corners at every aperture if you live view – remains an optically amazing lens, but now even more fiddly to use thanks to the AF issues. Three copies all displayed left-side softness on the D800, but not on other bodies. Cautiously, I’d say excellent performer, to be confirmed once I have a properly working body.

    AFS 28-300/3.5-5.6 G VR II: Sharp everywhere if you close down the aperture on stop. Microcontrast not great, but serviceable. Overall global contrast is good. Color a bit odd. Good to very good performer. No AF issues, probably covered by depth of field and small apertures.

    AFS 35/1.4 G: No good wide open. Center is okay, both sides are not good – even after AF fine tune. Not recommended. The 24-70 performs much better at 2.8 than the 35/1.4 does at the same aperture. Slight AF issue noticed, same as 24/1.4.

    AFS 85/1.4 G: Inconsistent. Wide open displays LCA and LoCA at edges. Nowhere near as good as it was on the D700/ D3/ D3s. Stopped down to f2.8, it improves, but only to about the same level as the 70-200/2.8 II wide open. Note T stop is pretty high for this lens though – probably 2/3 stop more than the 70-200/2.8 II, and half a stop more than the 85/1.8 G for the same aperture. Good to very good stopped down. Honestly, I’m not liking this lens very much anymore.

    AFS 85/1.8 G: Incredible. Sharp everywhere at every aperture, no LCA or LoCA. Bokeh is neutral, not quite as good as the 85/1.4 G. Surprising considering this lens has no ED glass, Nano coating or aspherical elements. It’s honestly an optical masterpiece, and very, very cheap. If you need an 85mm and don’t have the 85/1.4 G already, I’d suggest buying one of these. Performance at wide open at f1.8 is better than the 85/1.4 G at 2.8; it matches or slightly exceeds even the 60/2.8 G Micro at the same distances. You’re probably wonder what’s the catch: two things; T stop and build quality. T stop is half a stop down on the 85/1.4 G for the same aperture, and it’s light and plasticky. Still weather sealed, though. Excellent plus performance, no visible AF issues.

    PC-E 85/2.8 Micro: This is the only lens of the group tested that could best the new 85/1.8 G, and by the slightest of margins (or maybe both lenses out resolved even the D800E sensor and we’d need something even higher density to see the difference). Global contrast is a little lower than the 85/1.8 G, but micro contrast has more bite and structure to it – reminds me of the Zeiss macros. Excellent plus performance. (I took this one home, after relieving my credit card of some of its available balance. Look out for a full review in the future once I get a chance to shoot it in the studio.)

    PC-E 24/3.5: A truly excellent piece of glass. Matches the performance of the 85/2.8, but at 24mm. Shame about the small aperture, though. Handily focuses to about 20cm – which is about 3cm from the front element of the lens. I’d say sharpness performance of this and the 24/1.4 G at f4 are about the same, however the micro contrast structure of this lens is almost Zeiss-like in detail. Excellent plus performance again. And whoever said it won’t mount is wrong – it mounts and offers full movement just fine, but you must zero all of the movements before trying to mount it, and there are certain orientations that work better than others (big knobs vs small knobs near the prism etc.)

    AFS 60/2.8 G Micro: Although this was my reference standard on the 12MP FX bodies, it’s performance clearly isn’t up to the D800′s demands: I’m seeing plenty of longitudinal CA (especially in the bokeh) that wasn’t there, or almost negligible, on the D700. It’s sharp already at f2, but not critically bitingly sharp til f4-5.6; your working aperture range is somewhat limited because diffraction kicks in noticeably by f16, and it’s unusably soft by f25. I’d say f22 is probably best reserved for emergencies. This is the main reason I got the 85/2.8 PCE: lack of depth of field control. I’d put it in the good-to-excellent range.

    A word on the D800E: I didn’t have a lot of time with it, but from what I can see, there is a slight but noticeable difference in fine micro contrast, as well as sharpness and resolving power. It seems to offset diffraction to some extent. However, file sizes will be even bigger, and lens demands even higher. Recommendation: use with caution, requires controlled circumstances to get the most out of it (tripod or studio lights, low ISO).

    Conclusion: If you plan on getting the most out of your D800/D800E, you’re going to have to rethink your lens lineup. What worked brilliantly for me on the D700 – as in I felt I couldn’t get any more image quality out – isn’t working on the D800. And there are a lot of surprises here; not all of them good – the 85/1.4 G and 24/1.4 G are good examples of this. It seems that one has to now choose for a lens set optimized for studio work (or slightly brighter light conditions) – 24-70, 70-200, 85/1.8G, 85/2.8 PCE – with the compromises that brings for available light work, especially now that you’re going to require more shutter speed to handhold and the sensor loses out a stop to the D700 at the pixel level – or run two sets of lenses. This obviously isn’t ideal, or cheap. I feel the latter route is likely the way I’ll have to go – probably with the 85/2.8 PCE for the majority of my studio work, and a Zeiss 21/2.8 or 24/3.5 PCE for architecture and interiors.

    Am I happy with feeling like a bit of an expensive guinea pig? Not one single bit. I think this latest push in resolution has brought up manufacturing tolerance and QC issues that were never previously noticeable. But at least a) it works under a known range of conditions, and more importantly NPS here deserves credit for doing their best to rectify the situation, and at least provide me with a working solution in the intermediate period (D3x on extended loan for high-res WA work).

    It’s not ideal, but when you get everything right, the D800 is capable of delivering pretty darn amazing image quality. The trouble is, once you’ve seen it, you really don’t want to give it up – even if it is a colossal pain to achieve. Of course, none of this will be news to seasoned medium or large format shooters – but for anybody expecting to go from a DX consumer body, or even 12MP FX, to D800 and get pixel-level crispness across the frame, there’s going to be something of a steep learning curve to climb. MT

    Check back for more updates once my D800E replacement body (finally) arrives at the end of the month.

    |

    Posted 1 year ago #
  5. Gabbb

    preferred member
    Joined: Dec '11
    Posts: 251

    offline

    I think this latest push in resolution has brought up manufacturing tolerance and QC issues that were never previously noticeable.

    I can not help, but think that you (and many others)are over worrying this. The d800 has the same pixel density as the d7000 (a bit less even). So with the same lens to get the perfect sharpness you need exactly the same hand-holding technique. I have the d7000 and I don't have any problems getting tack sharp images with my set of primes on a sunny day. The d7000 retains 97%+ of it's resolution up to iso 320, assuming the d800 behaves the same - or better - it shouldn't be too hard to get sharp images. The only problem I can see is the FX corners and the laziness of the (ex) d700 shooters, since the d700 has the pixel density of a d40 getting sharp images is very easy even with a sloppy technique on a cloudy day.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  6. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    dehidding said:
    The tech note is: http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf

    To summarize ( to get max. Performance from a D800) use a tripod, don't stop down past the defraction limit of your lens, use remote cable release, use mirror lockup, use live view to verify focus.

    Lensrentals.com has a blog entry where they list tested lens resolutions to help one pick the best lens to rent for using on a D800: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection

    I have been watching the blog at Lensrentals as well. It is rather interesting, but if you follow some of the lens tests, not too surprising. One thing that is becoming evident is that if something is off, it will become for evident.

    I think it is always good to not forget the "end use" of the image when speaking to resolution. Something that will never be printed larger than 8x10 or even 11x14 I wouldn't see much of a change from what or how people shoot now. Those who want the extra resolution to print large will have to take much more care in shooting for sure.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  7. Rx4Photo

    preferred member
    Joined: Oct '10
    Posts: 951

    offline

    Kanuck,
    Thanks for posting the above text. Even though I am on a waiting list to "view" a D800 I have no real plans to buy it at the moment. What is really thought provoking is what's said about the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I ordered it a couple of days ago and it's supposed to be delivered today. I'm sure it will be fine on my D7000 but I'm concerned about a future higher MP camera purchase. It's an awful lot of money to spend if the lens might not be so great on a future camera. Something to think about during my evaluation period.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  8. Gabbb

    preferred member
    Joined: Dec '11
    Posts: 251

    offline

    Rx4Photo said:
    Kanuck,
    Thanks for posting the above text. Even though I am on a waiting list to "view" a D800 I have no real plans to buy it at the moment. What is really thought provoking is what's said about the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I ordered it a couple of days ago and it's supposed to be delivered today. I'm sure it will be fine on my D7000 but I'm concerned about a future higher MP camera purchase. It's an awful lot of money to spend if the lens might not be so great on a future camera. Something to think about during my evaluation period.

    I couple of things to note, the resolving power of the best lenses is not something that can be pushed much further, at least not in the "affordable to non millionaires" category. Wide angle lenses for DSLRs are especially hard to design because of the big sensor to lens distance. The 14-24 is one of the best, of not best wide angle in this category right now, but It will not out resolve the d800 or the d7000 sensor in the frame center (tho it gets close), at least not the copy I had the luck to try. In order to get large print ready corner performance you need to stop it down, but overall it's amazing. And thinking that in the future Nikon will be able to keep releasing new (full frame) cameras and match the lenses to their increased resolution forever is just not realistic. I'm not saying that the 36mpx on the d800 or the 16mpx on the d7000 is at the limits of current lens technology, but I think it's close. The possible 24Mpx on the new wave of DX cameras will require to use the even better lenses than the d800, at least if you want improved results, when compared to the previous generation. Pixel peep some of the 24mpx nex7 samples around. They all look unsharp with brand lenses. The only way to get the best resolution out of that sensor is to use some of the 3000$+ Leica glass with adapters. (probably it would work with some of the Nikon lenses as well, but I've seen no examples of folks trying their nikon adapter out with real expensive Nikon glass)

    It's possible that as sensor technology improves, they will increase megapixel count to even out noise at high isos, or in order to lessen the effects of the beyer pattern. (try photographing bright red flowers with a 10mpx dslr :D)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  9. Mike Gunter

    preferred member
    Joined: Sep '10
    Posts: 946

    offline

    dehidding said:

    To summarize ( to get max. Performance from a D800) use a tripod, don't stop down past the defraction limit of your lens, use remote cable release, use mirror lockup, use live view to verify focus.

    Hi, and thanks for the link.

    Use of a tripod, a cable release, minimizing vibration, and reducing diffraction all seem like reasonable shooting techniques to use anytime possible - some of these go back to tintypes - they are almost as old as I am, and you might note that in recent postings I've posited these very things. :-)

    'Checking' focus in 'Live View' isn't that at all. That isn't what it always does. It does 'switch' from one focus to another. By going to 'Live View' you'd always be going to a 'Phase-detection' method, which is more accurate than area, or single zones or any of a number of non 'Phase-detection' modes you might be in.

    IOW, unless I'm not getting 'it', Nikon seems to be asking you to use the Live View to critically focus, which is kind of a bummer.

    My best,

    Mike

    Posted 1 year ago #
  10. Correlli

    preferred member
    Joined: Jan '11
    Posts: 264

    offline

    Mike Gunter said:
    'Checking' focus in 'Live View' isn't that at all. That isn't what it always does. It does 'switch' from one focus to another. By going to 'Live View' you'd always be going to a 'Phase-detection' method, which is more accurate than area, or single zones or any of a number of non 'Phase-detection' modes you might be in.

    IOW, unless I'm not getting 'it', Nikon seems to be asking you to use the Live View to critically focus, which is kind of a bummer.

    I think what they mean is that you can go into live view and zoom into the live view image to take a closer look at critical details for (manual) focus adjustment rather than using the AF. I never did this but it does sound interesting...

    Posted 1 year ago #
  11. dehidding

    member
    Joined: Apr '12
    Posts: 14

    offline

    What I find interesting about all of this, is that all the care required to "wring" the maximum resolution/quality from the D800 applies equally to the D7000 (actually - more so) and will be even more critical to the rumored 24 megapixel D3200, D7100, etc.

    Technically, it appears to me that if a photographer wants to maximize resolution on a 16MP (or higher) DX camera, the DX cameras actually require better lenses than the FX cameras because the DX cameras over 16MP have smaller photosites than even the 36MP D800. This is ignoring the fact that smaller photosites capture less photons, the effect of advanced electronics, and all the other things that play into final image quality.

    Of course, typical owners of DX cameras hit a double whammy in this area, the DX cameras are less costly than the FX cameras. As such, they may be purchased by more budget conscious individuals who are not inclined to purchase "pro" glass. So these purchasers buy a camera that requires better lenses but they actually purchase a lower quality lens. This is assuming that a DX lens resolves less than a FX lens - something I am not convinced is always true.

    In another thread, it was suggested that a poster replace his 18-200 DX lens with a 24-120 FX lens ("pro glass"). If I understand the MTF charts for both lenses correctly, it looks like the 18-200 is actually sharper for the DX coverage area of image circle. If so, this is one case where a DX lens is better than a "pro" FX lens.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  12. Gabbb

    preferred member
    Joined: Dec '11
    Posts: 251

    offline

    The 18-200 is a pretty crappy lens for pixel peepers and I honestly doubt that the MTF charts on the nikon site are accurate regarding this lens. Whilst the 24-120 is not a pro lens by any means, it's (much) sharper than the 18-200 on dx for sure.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  13. Paperman

    preferred member
    Joined: Jul '10
    Posts: 297

    offline

    dehidding said:
    Technically, it appears to me that if a photographer wants to maximize resolution on a 16MP (or higher) DX camera, the DX cameras actually require better lenses than the FX cameras because the DX cameras over 16MP have smaller photosites than even the 36MP D800.

    Let's not forget the DX cameras are using center of the glass and this might help to even out the smaller pixel size disadvantage ( the lens being FX, of course ).

    I have seen some kit zooms match/beat pro glass zooms in resolution/sharpness only ( and I will say "only" for the sake of not starting an argument ) when tested on an APS-C size sensor so I can agree with you in that point.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  14. scoobysmak

    preferred member
    Joined: May '10
    Posts: 226

    offline

    I wish they would have tested the 16-35 VR and the 17-35 f2.8. It would be interesting to see how the 14-24 would have come out compaired to both these options.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  15. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    dehidding said:
    If I understand the MTF charts for both lenses correctly, it looks like the 18-200 is actually sharper for the DX coverage area of image circle. If so, this is one case where a DX lens is better than a "pro" FX lens.

    In theory, Lenses that are used for smaller sensors need to be much sharper due to the additional resolution as you are asking about. Are they? Maybe in some regards, but everything is a trade-off when it comes to lens design - especially Zooms.

    Much of this gets into a realm of pixel peeping that is very counter productive - IMO. If you look at images that are striking and continue to strike admiration for, rarely if ever pixel peeping satisfactory.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  16. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    scoobysmak said:
    I wish they would have tested the 16-35 VR and the 17-35 f2.8. It would be interesting to see how the 14-24 would have come out compaired to both these options.

    They have been tested - you have scroll down further.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  17. The Man From Mandrem

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '10
    Posts: 151

    offline

    Am I missing something? The D7000 lens tests on Photozone.de show better lenses achieving >2000 LW/PH (maybe peaking at 2400 stopped down a couple stops) with an estimated max sensor resolution about the same and an estimated practical sensor limit of >2000 at DX and about 1.5x that at FX.

    So doesn't that say there's a reasonable match of resolution between a good lens and a modern sensor? So Nikon's best lenses are not perfect. Who's surprised by that?

    Posted 1 year ago #
  18. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    There are different ways to test lenses and how they calculate the "end" number. My guess it is just a difference reference point/ technique. I have seen other testers using end results in the 1,000s and others with results in the 2,000s so there must be a couple of standard programs out there - probably many more. Note that Photozone.de uses a D200 10mp which is 3x smaller in # of pixels. Usually the more pixels, the more resolution and a slight increase in results as smaller pixels can resolve more lines.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  19. The Man From Mandrem

    preferred member
    Joined: Aug '10
    Posts: 151

    offline

    Tao Te,

    Photozone.de has numbers for both the D200 and D7000. I think D200 numbers max out around 2000 and the D7000 numbers max out several hundred above that.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  20. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    They also have numbers for the D3x that where the Zeiss 25mm goes almost to 4,000 lpmm!

    Here is an example of the difference between the two sites for the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 D.
    (Not easy to find the same lens tested at both.)

    Lensrental: 1053 / 942@ f/8
    Photozone.de APC D200: 2188 @5.6
    Photozone.de APC D7000: 2716 @5.6
    Photozone.de FX D3x: 3779 @5.6

    I am in no way by pointing this out that I believe that one is right and one is wrong or to bring into question either of their testing methods. They obviously use two different standards to represent resolution. Photozone's software tools cost around $3,000. I'm not sure what Lensrental uses but it looks like DxO which is only a few hundred bucks.

    This where focusing on only a number is very wrong to do. That may baffle some how numbers can be different, but that is the wrong focus since at the end of the day what that exact number means is actually nothing.

    The key is for a tester to pick the testing solution and to stick to one for all their lens tests. Once we know that, all we need to take notes on are the lenses that fall outside the boundaries (one being really low) and to note the F-stops where the lens is performing at it's optimum. As you can see between the two sites, the optimum F-stop was basically the same (lensrental gives only one but Photozone, F8 was almost the same as 5.6) even if the numbers are vastly different.

    The LensRentals tests: You can also see (from both sites,) Zeiss out resolves Nikon glass but not by much. From the "best" to the "worst" lenses tested is damn near nothing. I think it just shows that all of Nikon's glass is good to go on the D800.

    What I never like about these tests is that they never give the reader the Perspective they need to approach the tests with. As in, What is considered a large noticeable difference in everyday shooting. 30, 50, 200, 500 lines? They don't say. Test the old kit 28-85 lens or even the old 24-120vr (always known as soft) and put that up to see the difference. If they test close to the group, then smaller difference in numbers matter. If they are 100-200+ lpms lower, then you know that the difference between 100 lines is nothing.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  21. Ade Barkah

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '11
    Posts: 108

    offline

    TaoTeJared said:
    Photozone's software tools cost around $3,000. I'm not sure what Lensrental uses but it looks like DxO which is only a few hundred bucks.

    Both Photozone and Lensrental use Imatest. Lens testing numbers are not comparable unless all (other) parts of the test system are the same (camera model, test chart type, shooting distance, lighting setup, etc.)

    Posted 1 year ago #
  22. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    Ade Barkah said:
    Both Photozone and Lensrental use Imatest.

    I saw that in the comments section but couldn't find anything on their site about it. I may just be missing something.

    Ade Barkah said:
    Lens testing numbers are not comparable unless all (other) parts of the test system are the same (camera model, test chart type, shooting distance, lighting setup, etc.)

    Isn't that what I said? Test chart type, shooting distance & lighting setup (for this instance) doesn't matter much if any for resolution tests. Lpmm are the same on every chart and how the light falls on it doesn't change it. Other tests it certainly does though.

    I'm just laughing at how people think they need to sell their 85mm D for the 85mm G because of difference of "89" of whatever that number means. Stupidity resides in ignorant impulses.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  23. Ade Barkah

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '11
    Posts: 108

    offline

    TaoTeJared said:
    Test chart type, shooting distance & lighting setup (for this instance) doesn't matter much if any for resolution tests. Lpmm are the same on every chart and how the light falls on it doesn't change it.

    Sorry but the above is incorrect.

    First, "lpmm" is not the same on every chart. Some have different scales, while newer charts tend not have any line count markings at all, only geometric shapes (such as slanted edges useful for algorithmic analysis).

    Second, even assuming the same type of chart (e.g., an ISO 12233 test chart), if printed on different type of papers they may produce different numerical results.

    Third, most tools (including Imatest) work by measuring sharpness, expressed as MTF. Sharpness directly relates to contrast, so anything which affects contrast -- including lighting setup and shooting distance -- will affect the results. Heck even the choice of RAW processing software used during the test may affect the results.

    "What is considered a large noticeable difference in everyday shooting. 30, 50, 200, 500 lines?"

    Now we can see that partly this question is impossible to answer since -- as we've been discussing -- the numerical values from different tests are not strictly comparable.

    Another factor to consider is the final print size. A lens may seem sharp when its images are printed at 5x7, but might look a little soft when enlarged to 13x19 assuming normal viewing distances. So two lenses differing by a certain lpmm may appear at the same subjective sharpness at a certain print size but not at much larger sizes.

    [Photozone and Lensrental] obviously use two different standards to represent resolution.

    Looking at the numbers, my guess is one is using lines (LW) while the other uses line pairs (LP).

    Posted 1 year ago #
  24. spraynpray

    preferred member
    Joined: Feb '10
    Posts: 1,514

    offline

    Well, my take on this is that Nikons worst lens designer forgot more about lens designs TODAY than I'll ever know in my lifetime. I believe that Nikon would not make such a fundamental mistake as to put in sensors that out-perform their current range of lenses. We are not talking about a 'bloke in a shed' making this stuff, as the sensors come from Sony and are sold to several manufacturers, we are saying they are all stoopid enough to have not thought of that before spending millions on R&D etc? Unlikely.

    Old lenses that may have been knocked about etc. are excluded from the above.

    I think we are all getting a little to cleverer than we have the knowledge to be.

    Sorry guys - just my common sense speaking, no offense meant.

    Posted 1 year ago #
  25. TaoTeJared

    preferred member
    Joined: Apr '10
    Posts: 2,422

    offline

    Ade I'm just shaking my head. Once you start with saying "lpmm" is not the same...
    Add to that both teams were using ISO certified charts. The topic is the difference between the two disused sites, not to argue just to argue.

    spraynpray said:
    Well, my take on this is that Nikons worst lens designer forgot more about lens designs TODAY than I'll ever know in my lifetime. I believe that Nikon would not make such a fundamental mistake as to put in sensors that out-perform their current range of lenses. We are not talking about a 'bloke in a shed' making this stuff, as the sensors come from Sony and are sold to several manufacturers, we are saying they are all stoopid enough to have not thought of that before spending millions on R&D etc? Unlikely.

    Sorry guys - just my common sense speaking, no offense meant.

    I agree. Nikon's current MF 50mm 1.2 design is how old? 25years? And it still outperforms most lenses let alone what else has been designed since then.

    What people keep forgetting is that each "pixel" on a sensor is only records Red, Green, or Blue. Software then takes those readings compares them to adjacent and regional cells to create a color out of the full gamut of colors for each pixel that is then exported. All a sensor really does is record a value of one color, not the actual image as film did.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

NikonRumors Forum (http://nikonrumors.com/forum) is proudly powered by bbPress
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon USA or any other subsidiary of Nikon. Please visit the official Nikon website at nikon.com
Copyright © 2008-2011 NikonRumors.com