Do you believe that some Canon lenses have the resolution ...

[qianp2k]

that could maximize 50 MP in FF,

The answer is NO. Digital sensor can get more and more pixels but hit bottle neck of physical glass. No lenses today can even maximize 36mp sensors in D800/E and A7R. The two best primes, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 and Sony FE 55/1.8 only have 29 mpix respectively out of 36mp sensor. The new Sigma 50/1.4 Art should have similar mpix. The other lenses have much less mpix on D800/E and A7R.

Keep in mind DxO does weird things with their PMPIX and so on.

Also that even if it might be a struggle for some lenses do much better near the edges, they might still do much better in the center.

If the amount of pixels are the same or even many times less, larger sensor resolves more details than smaller sensor (provided on the same QE) with the same lens or comparable lens when fit the subject into the same subject including center and edges. On the same sensor format, more pixels resolve more details that subject to the quality of lens, better lens can leverage more pixels.

Don't forget that a 7D is like 50MP FF equivalent and in it's aps-c crop area it pulls noticeably more detail in than a 5D3.

? How when fit the subject into the same AOV, 5D3 resolves much more details than 7D. I guess you mean shoot from the same position from the same distance, then you ended with two different photos that are not comparable and no labs tested in that way. I am sure 7D resolves more if you crop 5D3 photo to 7D's AOV but this is not in most people's usages from landscape, studio, to sports and most wildlife except in birding case that your lens is not long enough or you are able to move closer but serious birding guys use 800L (with 1.4x TC III if necessary) so they don't have to crop much. When I shoot landscape, I use 24-70L II on 5D3 which I mean 24-70mm FL while I used to use Sigma 17-55/2.8 OS on 60D for a normal zoom FL. I don't crop my 5D3 photos into 60D's AOV and then compare. I used 500L in my Africa safari on 5D3 than fit animals perfectly in VF most times. 500L on 60D will be too 'long' most times and I am sure 500L on 5D3 will beats 100-400L at 400mm on 60D therefore I carried former set while left latter set at home (still owned 60D then), and carried 70-200L II on 1D3 as 2nd set of camera in the trip.

And don't forget that overall sharpness is based upon a formula involving both sensor and lens and it's not a linear boom the sensor it outresolved thing.

If all others are the same or comparable, the factors affect sharpness are in such sequence - sensor size, lens, amount of pixels such as 50mp MF > 50mp FF > 50mp APS-C, better lens natively designed on whatever sensor format always resolves more, more pixels always contribute to more but subject to quality of lens very much.

And don't forget that DxO also uses weird criteria to decide what a lenses best point is. For instance they list their PMPIX values for zeiss and canon 50mm at f/1.4!!!! Do you think those lenses really deliver peak sharpness across the field at f/1.4 (or even in the center for that matter)??

I pay more attention to detail sharpness | fieldmap in DXO test. MPIX number is the peak sharpness at specific aperture at specific focus length on a lens+sensor which is important but not entire picture. When DPR published a lens' test with DXO data, obviously they got detail test data from DXO that chose not publish to the public that is a shame such as ones below.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/len...ameraId2=nikon_d800&version2=0&fl2=55&av2=2.8

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[bronxbombers4]

that could maximize 50 MP in FF,

The answer is NO. Digital sensor can get more and more pixels but hit bottle neck of physical glass. No lenses today can even maximize 36mp sensors in D800/E and A7R. The two best primes, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 and Sony FE 55/1.8 only have 29 mpix respectively out of 36mp sensor. The new Sigma 50/1.4 Art should have similar mpix. The other lenses have much less mpix on D800/E and A7R.

Keep in mind DxO does weird things with their PMPIX and so on.

Also that even if it might be a struggle for some lenses do much better near the edges, they might still do much better in the center.

If the amount of pixels are the same or even many times less, larger sensor resolves more details than smaller sensor (provided on the same QE) with the same lens or comparable lens when fit the subject into the same subject including center and edges. On the same sensor format, more pixels resolve more details that subject to the quality of lens, better lens can leverage more pixels.

Don't forget that a 7D is like 50MP FF equivalent and in it's aps-c crop area it pulls noticeably more detail in than a 5D3.

? How when fit the subject into the same AOV, 5D3 resolves much more details than 7D. I guess you mean shoot from the same position from the same distance, then you ended with two different photos that are not comparable and no labs tested in that way. I am sure 7D resolves more if you crop 5D3 photo to 7D's AOV but this is not in most people's usages from landscape, studio, to sports and most wildlife except in birding case that your lens is not long enough or you are able to move closer but serious birding guys use 800L (with 1.4x TC III if necessary) so they don't have to crop much.

I was just using it to point out that it's not at all true that 36MP is already past the FF limit to do you any good. If the 7D resolves way more in the aps-c portion of the frame than the 5D3 then a 5D4 with 50MP would certainly also resolve way more in the center of the frame than the 23MP 5D3.

And don't forget that overall sharpness is based upon a formula involving both sensor and lens and it's not a linear boom the sensor it outresolved thing.

If all others are the same or comparable, the factors affect sharpness are in such sequence - sensor size, lens, amount of pixels such as 50mp MF > 50mp FF > 50mp APS-C, better lens natively designed on whatever sensor format always resolves more, more pixels always contribute to more but subject to quality of lens very much.

Generally (although at some point it becomes very expensive to make decent lenses with very large coverage). The little lenses in P&S, although cheap, are way sharper than the ones on MF cameras (of course the sensors are so much smaller that yeah you end up worse).

But my point wasn't that 50MP FF will necessarily end up quite as sharp as 50MP on MF, but that 50MP FF would resolve a lot more than 23MP FF.

And don't forget that DxO also uses weird criteria to decide what a lenses best point is. For instance they list their PMPIX values for zeiss and canon 50mm at f/1.4!!!! Do you think those lenses really deliver peak sharpness across the field at f/1.4 (or even in the center for that matter)??

I pay more attention to detail sharpness | fieldmap in DXO test. MPIX number is the peak sharpness at specific aperture at specific focus length on a lens+sensor which is important but not entire picture. When DPR published a lens' test with DXO data, obviously they got detail test data from DXO that chose not publish to the public that is a shame such as ones below.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/len...ameraId2=nikon_d800&version2=0&fl2=55&av2=2.8

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[NewForce]

With the new curved Sony sensor, does anyone know if it will affect DOF?

No it shouldn't do. But a curved sensor will need lenses designed to give a curved field at the focal plane and of course most of today's lenses have been designed to give a flat field (or as close to it as the manufacturer can achieve).

So if this curved sensor idea is to take off for interchangeable lens cameras there will have to be an agreement on standardisation of the curvature.

Or sensors which can have their curvatures altered in camera.

Whoopee! Another endless series of threads for some of us to argue over:

• Which lenses best match the curvature of my xyz sensor?
• What is the best method of adjusting MCA (Micro Curvature Adjustment)?
• Will Canon / Nikon / Sigma adjust my 50/1.8 purchased in 1992 to match the new curved sensors?
• I think my sensor is curved the wrong way. All my edges are fuzzy at f1.2!
• How many sensor bending actuations can I get from my sensor before it gets sensor fatigue and snaps?
• etc.

Agree, Sony cannot survive another 'mount' or FC (full curved) mount...they would lose any shred of loyalty they have left. Most likely it is for a RX1 successor where they come up with faster, sharper, smaller full-frame compacts.

The other possibility is that some FE or E mount lenses are already geared for field curvature and are not well corrected for flat field to start with. Who knows as some of the Sony lenses are pretty horrid when it comes to borders/corners.

Since there are some FE lenses like the 55mm 1.8 which is just tack sharp everywhere, again its not likely.

Totally agreed. To me Sony R&D Optical Engineer's are really odd ba**s people. They simply put logical and rational optical design in to toilet.

If Sony oddly designed "Curve Sensor" or FE(FC?) lenses could do the tricks, all other camera makers like Hasselblad, Leica, Canon and Nikon should have done it long ago.

I know it's good that at least they tried hard (at the expense of their customers hard earn money?), but like what I always said, there's no miracle in optical system for the past 30 years.

 

[meland]

With the new curved Sony sensor, does anyone know if it will affect DOF?

No it shouldn't do. But a curved sensor will need lenses designed to give a curved field at the focal plane and of course most of today's lenses have been designed to give a flat field (or as close to it as the manufacturer can achieve).

So if this curved sensor idea is to take off for interchangeable lens cameras there will have to be an agreement on standardisation of the curvature.

Or sensors which can have their curvatures altered in camera.

Whoopee! Another endless series of threads for some of us to argue over:

• Which lenses best match the curvature of my xyz sensor?
• What is the best method of adjusting MCA (Micro Curvature Adjustment)?
• Will Canon / Nikon / Sigma adjust my 50/1.8 purchased in 1992 to match the new curved sensors?
• I think my sensor is curved the wrong way. All my edges are fuzzy at f1.2!
• How many sensor bending actuations can I get from my sensor before it gets sensor fatigue and snaps?
• etc.

Agree, Sony cannot survive another 'mount' or FC (full curved) mount...they would lose any shred of loyalty they have left. Most likely it is for a RX1 successor where they come up with faster, sharper, smaller full-frame compacts.

The other possibility is that some FE or E mount lenses are already geared for field curvature and are not well corrected for flat field to start with. Who knows as some of the Sony lenses are pretty horrid when it comes to borders/corners.

Since there are some FE lenses like the 55mm 1.8 which is just tack sharp everywhere, again its not likely.

Totally agreed. To me Sony R&D Optical Engineer's are really odd ba**s people. They simply put logical and rational optical design in to toilet.

If Sony oddly designed "Curve Sensor" or FE(FC?) lenses could do the tricks, all other camera makers like Hasselblad, Leica, Canon and Nikon should have done it long ago.

Not necessarily. Someone with sensor production experience would have to produce curved sensors first and most camera manufacturers, excluding Canon and Sony, don't have that expertise.

But that also has to be coupled with lens design capability to enable the curved sensor to work.

I know it's good that at least they tried hard (at the expense of their customers hard earn money?), but like what I always said, there's no miracle in optical system for the past 30 years.

--
Kenny

 

[Bob Sal]

With the new curved Sony sensor, does anyone know if it will affect DOF?

No it shouldn't do. But a curved sensor will need lenses designed to give a curved field at the focal plane and of course most of today's lenses have been designed to give a flat field (or as close to it as the manufacturer can achieve).

So if this curved sensor idea is to take off for interchangeable lens cameras there will have to be an agreement on standardisation of the curvature.

Or sensors which can have their curvatures altered in camera.

Whoopee! Another endless series of threads for some of us to argue over:

• Which lenses best match the curvature of my xyz sensor?
• What is the best method of adjusting MCA (Micro Curvature Adjustment)?
• Will Canon / Nikon / Sigma adjust my 50/1.8 purchased in 1992 to match the new curved sensors?
• I think my sensor is curved the wrong way. All my edges are fuzzy at f1.2!
• How many sensor bending actuations can I get from my sensor before it gets sensor fatigue and snaps?
• etc.

Agree, Sony cannot survive another 'mount' or FC (full curved) mount...they would lose any shred of loyalty they have left. Most likely it is for a RX1 successor where they come up with faster, sharper, smaller full-frame compacts.

The other possibility is that some FE or E mount lenses are already geared for field curvature and are not well corrected for flat field to start with. Who knows as some of the Sony lenses are pretty horrid when it comes to borders/corners.

Since there are some FE lenses like the 55mm 1.8 which is just tack sharp everywhere, again its not likely.

Totally agreed. To me Sony R&D Optical Engineer's are really odd ba**s people. They simply put logical and rational optical design in to toilet.

If Sony oddly designed "Curve Sensor" or FE(FC?) lenses could do the tricks, all other camera makers like Hasselblad, Leica, Canon and Nikon should have done it long ago.

I know it's good that at least they tried hard (at the expense of their customers hard earn money?), but like what I always said, there's no miracle in optical system for the past 30 years.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Totally agreed. To me Sony R&D Optical Engineer's are really odd ba**s people. They simply put logical and rational optical design in to toilet.

If Sony oddly designed "Curve Sensor" or FE(FC?) lenses could do the tricks, all other camera makers like Hasselblad, Leica, Canon and Nikon should have done it long ago.

The part of Sony that created the curved sensor did it to create a physical stress across the semiconductor material. This alters electron mobility and improves low light sensitivity.

Fixing the edges of the sensor and pulling or pushing the center allows the stress to be adjusted. If they ever made a production version, they'd find a way to stress a sensor while it's flat (chemically or thermally) because designing lenses to match an arbitrary curve is a pain for the optical engineers.

I know it's good that at least they tried hard (at the expense of their customers hard earn money?), but like what I always said, there's no miracle in optical system for the past 30 years.

I'd say modern computers, optical software, and lens coatings constitute a miracle (in the Kiernan sense, at least). For centuries, lens design was limited by what a small team could do tracing rays by hand. And the reflective surfaces of lens elements further limited how complex you could make a lens before flare killed it. The computations restricted you to one focusing helicoid and maybe a second for zooming. Today, the optical engineer is free to pursue any crazy idea they may have. We can CAD up mechanisms that move 3-4 groups of elements in different directions when you zoom or focus. Problems that simple weren't solvable 30-50 years ago can be dealt with easily today.

 

[steelhead3]

That patent of the curve sensor uses one simple lens and the sensor does all the work; no longer great masses of different lenses to resolve the subject.

 

[qianp2k]

that could maximize 50 MP in FF,

The answer is NO. Digital sensor can get more and more pixels but hit bottle neck of physical glass. No lenses today can even maximize 36mp sensors in D800/E and A7R. The two best primes, Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 and Sony FE 55/1.8 only have 29 mpix respectively out of 36mp sensor. The new Sigma 50/1.4 Art should have similar mpix. The other lenses have much less mpix on D800/E and A7R.

Keep in mind DxO does weird things with their PMPIX and so on.

Also that even if it might be a struggle for some lenses do much better near the edges, they might still do much better in the center.

If the amount of pixels are the same or even many times less, larger sensor resolves more details than smaller sensor (provided on the same QE) with the same lens or comparable lens when fit the subject into the same subject including center and edges. On the same sensor format, more pixels resolve more details that subject to the quality of lens, better lens can leverage more pixels.

Don't forget that a 7D is like 50MP FF equivalent and in it's aps-c crop area it pulls noticeably more detail in than a 5D3.

? How when fit the subject into the same AOV, 5D3 resolves much more details than 7D. I guess you mean shoot from the same position from the same distance, then you ended with two different photos that are not comparable and no labs tested in that way. I am sure 7D resolves more if you crop 5D3 photo to 7D's AOV but this is not in most people's usages from landscape, studio, to sports and most wildlife except in birding case that your lens is not long enough or you are able to move closer but serious birding guys use 800L (with 1.4x TC III if necessary) so they don't have to crop much.

I was just using it to point out that it's not at all true that 36MP is already past the FF limit to do you any good. If the 7D resolves way more in the aps-c portion of the frame than the 5D3 then a 5D4 with 50MP would certainly also resolve way more in the center of the frame than the 23MP 5D3.

Of course. 36mp in D800 and A7R already outresolves 22mp 5D3 or 24mp D610. However diminishing return is also pretty obvious and pushing demand on lens higher and higher that becomes an obvious bottleneck.

And don't forget that overall sharpness is based upon a formula involving both sensor and lens and it's not a linear boom the sensor it outresolved thing.

If all others are the same or comparable, the factors affect sharpness are in such sequence - sensor size, lens, amount of pixels such as 50mp MF > 50mp FF > 50mp APS-C, better lens natively designed on whatever sensor format always resolves more, more pixels always contribute to more but subject to quality of lens very much.

Generally (although at some point it becomes very expensive to make decent lenses with very large coverage). The little lenses in P&S, although cheap, are way sharper than the ones on MF cameras (of course the sensors are so much smaller that yeah you end up worse).

Not familiar in this topic, maybe another format of diminishing return.

But my point wasn't that 50MP FF will necessarily end up quite as sharp as 50MP on MF, but that 50MP FF would resolve a lot more than 23MP FF.

Of course but will less than on the difference of numbers due to diminishing return. In another words, the gain is not linear as 50/23 even with the best lens, Otus 55/1.4.

And don't forget that DxO also uses weird criteria to decide what a lenses best point is. For instance they list their PMPIX values for zeiss and canon 50mm at f/1.4!!!! Do you think those lenses really deliver peak sharpness across the field at f/1.4 (or even in the center for that matter)??

I pay more attention to detail sharpness | fieldmap in DXO test. MPIX number is the peak sharpness at specific aperture at specific focus length on a lens+sensor which is important but not entire picture. When DPR published a lens' test with DXO data, obviously they got detail test data from DXO that chose not publish to the public that is a shame such as ones below.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/len...ameraId2=nikon_d800&version2=0&fl2=55&av2=2.8

 

[OvinceZ]

I have 2 5DII and a 60D that I don't use any more. Why? Well, the Sony A7R pretty much retired my 5DIIs, and my NEX7 retired my 60D completely. Resolution was one reason but I can also focus both Sony cameras via the viewfinder using focus peaking and magnified view. I can also check results via the viewfinder. I have less OOF photos these days.

I found that some of the lenses I didn't use such as 17-40 and 400mm were sharper than I thought when used with the A7R. I can also use the 2XIII tele-extender with the Sony cameras. Very pleased with the results. I didn't go beyond 1.4 with my Canon cameras.

My anecdotal experience suggests that most Canon L lenses have plenty of room re resolution.

Vince

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

That patent of the curve sensor uses one simple lens and the sensor does all the work; no longer great masses of different lenses to resolve the subject.

The patent is a smokescreen. Read the research papers. They'll tell you exactly what's going on. A curved sensor hasn't made sense, optically, for decades, except for some extreme applications related to astronomy.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

that could maximize 50 MP in FF, so it will have the same resolution as the 50 MP MF with its lens ?

Odd that you bring medium format into this. Many of those lenses are fairly obsolete and can easily be outresolved by the best FF lenses.

Or is it just too difficult (impossible) to make a such lens that sharp ?

So the only way at the moment is just to make the sensor larger, thus less stretch for the lens ?

I could understand if smaller format (such APSC or mFT) will have another problem, DOF control problem, even if someone could make a lens sooo sharp for them.

DOF is purely a function of the physical size of the aperture, the field of view, and the size of the print. A 50mm at f2 on FF has the same FOV and DOF as a 100mm f4 on 6x7 medium format. Same light gathering capability and diffraction, too.

You described several problems that do not exist.

But there is no DOF control problem in 35mm FF, is there ?

No.

Maybe just resolution problem in wider aperture ? in f/2 perhaps ? But not resolution in f/2.8 ?

No.

Some one who know these, please chime in ...

Many existing FF lenses far exceed the resolution of 24mp APS cameras, especially macro lenses, normals, and telephoto primes. That same pixel size on FF is over 60mp.

But that's not the whole story. As lenses start to approach the resolution of the sensor under "casual" shooting conditions (popular lenses like the 70-200mm f2.8 used handheld with IS or VR) we see camera makers starting to chuck the AA filters, because the zooms, used handheld at large apertures have enough optical and motion blur to provide all the antialiasing we need. But this means we now get aliasing under meticulous conditions, like macro locked down on a sturdy tripod. The camera line isn't "done" until the camera resolution is high enough to eliminate aliasing for all lenses in the line. Don't want to scare you, but that's around 800mp.

Don't think we'll get there? 15 years ago, we were at 3mp, now FF is at 36mp. Another 10 years, and we'll be at 400mp.

 

[meland]

The camera line isn't "done" until the camera resolution is high enough to eliminate aliasing for all lenses in the line. Don't want to scare you, but that's around 800mp.

Don't think we'll get there? 15 years ago, we were at 3mp, now FF is at 36mp. Another 10 years, and we'll be at 400mp.

--

Perhaps that partially explains why Canon isn't busting a gut at the moment to compete with 'only' 36mp?

 

[Great Bustard]

The camera line isn't "done" until the camera resolution is high enough to eliminate aliasing for all lenses in the line. Don't want to scare you, but that's around 800mp.

Don't think we'll get there? 15 years ago, we were at 3mp, now FF is at 36mp. Another 10 years, and we'll be at 400mp.

Perhaps that partially explains why Canon isn't busting a gut at the moment to compete with 'only' 36mp?

...if future advances in ADC performance does not partially explain why Canon isn't busting a gut at the moment to compete with 'only' 14 stops of DR at base ISO.

 

[Edymagno]

...if future advances in ADC performance does not partially explain why Canon isn't busting a gut at the moment to compete with 'only' 14 stops of DR at base ISO.

I don't know if an exodus out of Canon is coming but if they doesn't come with a breakthough sensor after Photokina, I will start my migration to Sony or Pentax Z.

I regretely bought a Nex 6 and now I love it. Planning on converting it to IR and buying a RX100 Mk3 for my leisure photography. Sony is on a roll and I find this the best that happenned to photography since Canon was on a roll of their own 6 years ago.

Eduardo

 

[meland]

...if future advances in ADC performance does not partially explain why Canon isn't busting a gut at the moment to compete with 'only' 14 stops of DR at base ISO.

True - but perhaps the fact that outside of this forum very few actually care too much about that does?

 

[qianp2k]

I have 2 5DII and a 60D that I don't use any more. Why? Well, the Sony A7R pretty much retired my 5DIIs, and my NEX7 retired my 60D completely.

Did you sell all your Canon gear since you never have a chance to use them anymore?

Resolution was one reason but I can also focus both Sony cameras via the viewfinder using focus peaking and magnified view.

You compared Apple to Orange. Basically you compared MF thru Sony EVF in 14x magnification to Canon DSLR thru PDAF in your usages.

I can also check results via the viewfinder. I have less OOF photos these days.

I own 5DII and used to own 60D and both of them never have AF issues, and their AF are pretty accurate. But I am sure MF usually is always better on specific spot you wan to focus.

I found that some of the lenses I didn't use such as 17-40 and 400mm were sharper than I thought when used with the A7R.

A7R has 36mp and AA-filter-free, so naturally an EF lens is sharper on A7R over 5D2 at least in most center areas. However some EF lenses might suffer a bit in edges thru adapter as Roger of LensRentals reported.

I can also use the 2XIII tele-extender with the Sony cameras. Very pleased with the results. I didn't go beyond 1.4 with my Canon cameras.

That actually is matter of lens not camera. Inferior lenses thru 2X TC are mushy and soft regardless on what sensor. Sure A7R generates larger photos but will not turn to very sharp photos with inferior lenses especially thru 2x TC. It's well known only very few EF lenses work with 2.0x TC well especially 300L/2.8 IS II and 70-200L/2.8 IS II. 500L is OK but shows obvious softness penalty thru 2.0x TC but still very sharp with 1.4x TC III. We all saw your 500L with 2.0x TC on A7R samples. They look good but not outstanding when view at full size to be honest. You seem like use your camera as a way of binoculars to generate very large photo on remote subject, sure 36mp A7R does help in this way thru 2.0x TC. But IQ of photo is something different.

My anecdotal experience suggests that most Canon L lenses have plenty of room re resolution.

Sure more MP always generate more resolution on good or bad lenses but with very different diminishing return. To leverage 36mp or future 54mp best, you do need to use some best lenses with best techniques.

Vince

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/

 

[meland]

...if future advances in ADC performance does not partially explain why Canon isn't busting a gut at the moment to compete with 'only' 14 stops of DR at base ISO.

I don't know if an exodus out of Canon is coming but if they doesn't come with a breakthough sensor after Photokina, I will start my migration to Sony or Pentax Z.

Hmm. I guess threatening to leave might make you feel better for a while, but whether eventually you do or not but that'll be the total impact it'll have. Sorry.

 

[NewForce]

I have 2 5DII and a 60D that I don't use any more. Why? Well, the Sony A7R pretty much retired my 5DIIs, and my NEX7 retired my 60D completely. Resolution was one reason but I can also focus both Sony cameras via the viewfinder using focus peaking and magnified view. I can also check results via the viewfinder. I have less OOF photos these days.

I found that some of the lenses I didn't use such as 17-40 and 400mm were sharper than I thought when used with the A7R. I can also use the 2XIII tele-extender with the Sony cameras. Very pleased with the results. I didn't go beyond 1.4 with my Canon cameras.

My anecdotal experience suggests that most Canon L lenses have plenty of room re resolution.

Vince

Sony camera only to be used with Canon and other make lenses? (ha)

Retired Canon with Sorry A7R and NEX? (haha)

Didn't go beyond 1.4x extender with Canon? (hahaha)

I don't know your keyboard typing mindset, buy I do know your photography skill didn't go beyond beginner.

 

[OvinceZ]

Lots of people making comments. I go by what I have seen in the photos I have taken. I got the 2XIII tele-extender and tried it on my 60D. The 1.4 was fine but I didn't use the 2XIII after seeing the results. Now with the Sony cameras with more Mp I find the 2XIII works well with the 500L.

Here is a Moon photo taken this month in the Southern Hemisphere. The Moon was almost directly overhead in Sydney at the time I took the photo. I used the Sony A7R with 500L and 2XIII tele-extender giving 1000mm. I am pleased with the detail. I choose the photo taken at 1/800 second because the lighter photos tend to wash out some of the detail. The dark photos respond to processing much better.

The photo was put through Camera Raw Filter in Photoshop. Then Dynamic Contrast in Perfect Effects to bring out more contrast. No sharpening was applied and no noise reduction. There was a green halo surrounding the Moon and some of that colour is near the bottom of the photo.

Posted here at full size and resolution but of course cropped from the original to remove the black surroundings.

Those with Canon cameras are welcome to post what you have taken with the same lens and tele-extender.

Vince




Sony A7R with 500L plus 2XIII extender. f/8 1/800 ISO 100

 

[Silverback1988]

that could maximize 50 MP in FF, so it will have the same resolution as the 50 MP MF with its lens ?

Odd that you bring medium format into this. Many of those lenses are fairly obsolete and can easily be outresolved by the best FF lenses.

Hi, Joseph, thanks for join in.

So, the MF lenses are worse than FF lenses,

but in theory, FF lenses have to be 1.26 x sharper than the MF (in this case, Pentax 50 MP)

to get the identical resolution. How worse is the MF lens ?

Do you think Canon 50 MP FF could compete with Pentax 50 MP MF in the resolution department ? Or even compete with larger MF with 50 MP resolution ?

Or is it just too difficult (impossible) to make a such lens that sharp ?

So the only way at the moment is just to make the sensor larger, thus less stretch for the lens ?

I could understand if smaller format (such APSC or mFT) will have another problem, DOF control problem, even if someone could make a lens sooo sharp for them.

DOF is purely a function of the physical size of the aperture, the field of view, and the size of the print. A 50mm at f2 on FF has the same FOV and DOF as a 100mm f4 on 6x7 medium format. Same light gathering capability and diffraction, too.

You described several problems that do not exist.

But there is no DOF control problem in 35mm FF, is there ?

No.

Maybe just resolution problem in wider aperture ? in f/2 perhaps ? But not resolution in f/2.8 ?

No.

Some one who know these, please chime in ...

Many existing FF lenses far exceed the resolution of 24mp APS cameras, especially macro lenses, normals, and telephoto primes. That same pixel size on FF is over 60mp.

But that's not the whole story. As lenses start to approach the resolution of the sensor under "casual" shooting conditions (popular lenses like the 70-200mm f2.8 used handheld with IS or VR) we see camera makers starting to chuck the AA filters, because the zooms, used handheld at large apertures have enough optical and motion blur to provide all the antialiasing we need. But this means we now get aliasing under meticulous conditions, like macro locked down on a sturdy tripod. The camera line isn't "done" until the camera resolution is high enough to eliminate aliasing for all lenses in the line. Don't want to scare you, but that's around 800mp.

What a big number there, Joseph !

Don't think we'll get there? 15 years ago, we were at 3mp, now FF is at 36mp. Another 10 years, and we'll be at 400mp.

Wow.

Then the question will be on the lenses. Are they worth that density ? In the its corner ?

-

Brian