With the release of E-M5, I think that most new u43 cameras will have at least 16mp since now. However, how many lenses can resolve such high resolutions? The samples from G3 show that even new 25/f1.4 cannot when wide open. I think Oly 17/f2.8 cannot. Look at Canon 18mp DSLR with 24/f2.8 and 24/f1.4 LII. The first one is not sharp even at f5.6, and the second one is fine (but not wide open). So, with E-M5, Pana 25/f1.5 and 20/1.7 may fine.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Which u43 lenses can resolve 16MP sensors of E-M5?
- Thread starter ship2007
- Start date
So you start by telling us that the 25/1.4 definitely can't, then conclude that in fact it may ?
And if the topic keeps you awake at night, have a thought for those poor Nikon users who have a shiny new 36MP body with absolutely no glass worthy of it to put on.
And if the topic keeps you awake at night, have a thought for those poor Nikon users who have a shiny new 36MP body with absolutely no glass worthy of it to put on.
I mean 25/1.4 can't at wide open. It is fine from 2.8. Nikon D800 is full frame, equivelent to u43 18mp in density. Look at Canon APSC 18mp, only some L lenses are fine (not at wide open like f1.4 (24/1.4 L II)). pana 25/1.4 at f1.4 definitely not ok, which can be seen at the samples of G3 at DPreview.
liquidsquid
Senior Member
The only one's in my collection which cannot at any aperture is the 45-200 which does an admirable job anyways considering the cost, and the 14-42 kit lens which can almost pull it off at some apertures, but the edges/corners are bleh.
My older 14-45, the Pana/Leica 45 2.8, and 20mm pancake and my old Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm all are pixel-sharp at certain apertures in the primary portion of the frame. The 45mm is incredible, it has room to go even further.
This is with the GH2 body.
Needless to say I have been very impressed with these lenses, but this resolution is far beyond what I print or view at. So with my 30" monitors at 2560x1440 I still have to downsize, and 8.5x11 prints look fantastic no matter the lens.
I would love to get the 100-300mm some day, but the new Oly is going to tap my camera budget for the year.
--
My pictures...
http://picasaweb.google.com/wymanfamily3
http://www.markwyman.com/photos/default.asp
My older 14-45, the Pana/Leica 45 2.8, and 20mm pancake and my old Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm all are pixel-sharp at certain apertures in the primary portion of the frame. The 45mm is incredible, it has room to go even further.
This is with the GH2 body.
Needless to say I have been very impressed with these lenses, but this resolution is far beyond what I print or view at. So with my 30" monitors at 2560x1440 I still have to downsize, and 8.5x11 prints look fantastic no matter the lens.
I would love to get the 100-300mm some day, but the new Oly is going to tap my camera budget for the year.
--
My pictures...
http://picasaweb.google.com/wymanfamily3
http://www.markwyman.com/photos/default.asp
AV Janus
Senior Member
Isn't FX 4x surface area of m43?
That would make D800 sensor 9MP in m43 not 18.
The fact remains true... This camera will need the highest quality optics to get that 16MP from it.
Rick Halle wrote:
" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."
That would make D800 sensor 9MP in m43 not 18.
The fact remains true... This camera will need the highest quality optics to get that 16MP from it.
--
Rick Halle wrote:
" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."
safaridon
Senior Member
--Well if this is the case and it appears to be then we have all been fed a lot of propoganda from the review sites just to get us to buy buy the latest and best cameras, after all they get their money from the sales generated by these camera companies or companies selling them? I have long complained that sites such as DPR should use the standard kit lenses when showing their comparisons as many are fooled into thinking they will get the same higher IQ which was based on the best lens in its class rather than the lens most have that comes with the camera they bought.
Still another reason to believe that m4/3 sensor size is good enough and no need for more megapixels. I actually wanted the higher 16mp version of sensor so that when using ETC or intelligent zoom which effectively crops picture I would still be getting a picture with 8mp with the effective reach of any lens increased by up 1.6X?
1) Most lenses can far out-resolve sensors. Remember, 35mm film has an insanely high resolution compared to digital, and they're using related lens designs.
2) The difference between 12mp and 16mp is actually minimal. You'd need to go up to 48mp in order to actually double the resolution of the sensor.
2) The difference between 12mp and 16mp is actually minimal. You'd need to go up to 48mp in order to actually double the resolution of the sensor.
Anders W
Forum Pro
Regardless of whether a lens resolves less or more than the sensor, an increase in sensor resolution will increase image resolution. The image resolution will increase more if the lens is good than if it isn't but that's all.
Pete Berry
Senior Member
Actually the 36 MP FF sensor has the same density as a mythical 9 MP 4/3 sensor, which has half the diagonal, dictating 1/4 the area.
Pete
Sosua
Senior Member
Rather than a Sensor.
Example - you have a lens which can resolve 14-15mp density on M43.
Which imaging chain has the highest resolution - the lens on a 12mp chip, or on a 16mp chip?
Not that any of this technical babble matters - if a lens can produce sharp results on your sensor at your common apertures and your print sizes, its all good.
--
http://www.samwaldron.co.nz
Example - you have a lens which can resolve 14-15mp density on M43.
Which imaging chain has the highest resolution - the lens on a 12mp chip, or on a 16mp chip?
Not that any of this technical babble matters - if a lens can produce sharp results on your sensor at your common apertures and your print sizes, its all good.
--
http://www.samwaldron.co.nz
Yes. You are right.
halfmac
Senior Member
The biggest problem with 35mm full frame cameras on resolving power is the frame edges. m43 lenses are designed to be sharp on the edges in digital. Most lenses are fine in the center. Most m43 lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness. On a whole most m43 lenses are sharp corner to corner compared to full frame 35.
--
Alan - http://frugalfilmmakers.com/
GH2 G Vario 7-14mm G 14mm G Vario 14-140mm Leica DG 25mm Oly 45mm G Vario 100-300mm
--
Alan - http://frugalfilmmakers.com/
GH2 G Vario 7-14mm G 14mm G Vario 14-140mm Leica DG 25mm Oly 45mm G Vario 100-300mm
This is why adapted 35mm lenses can perform better on m43 than they did on film. You are only using the sweet spot of the lens on m43. So a lot of legacy lenses that were criticized for soft corners on 35mm are sharp corner to corner on m43. For this reason there is a lot of potentially good m43 glass available for very little money on ebay. People read the lens reviews from film from 15 years ago, and don't realize that the lens might do better on m43. Of course, there are some dog lenses out there too.
Also (in response to other posts), the difference between 12 and 16 Mp is not much, which others have pointed out. That's because Mp deal with area, which is the square of the increase in length. I'm not going to look it up, but you only get something like a few hundred pixels in each dimension on the G3 as compared to the G2.
TheEye
Senior Member
Do you prefer the sensor to out-resolve the lens, or vice versa? I prefer the latter.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photography-by-thomas/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photography-by-thomas/
Robiro
Veteran Member
Leica 14-50mm f2.8 can. But it is a 4/3 lens.
A picture taken with it (forcibly resampled to 1600 but believe me, the original shows true 16MP resolution):
A picture taken with it (forcibly resampled to 1600 but believe me, the original shows true 16MP resolution):
Even the 17mm f/2.8, which is sharper on my GH2 than on my E-P1.
Don't worry about it.
BTW, there was a nice article some time ago in Chasseur d'Images, a french nice photo magazine, that shows with some tests that even a lousy kit lens have better resolution, in a 16'x12' print, with a 16mpix Nikon D7000 than with a 12 mpix Nikon D300.
People are just fooled by pixel peeping at 100% screen view, and think the resolution is less because it's softer at 100%, which is wrong.
--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/
Don't worry about it.
BTW, there was a nice article some time ago in Chasseur d'Images, a french nice photo magazine, that shows with some tests that even a lousy kit lens have better resolution, in a 16'x12' print, with a 16mpix Nikon D7000 than with a 12 mpix Nikon D300.
People are just fooled by pixel peeping at 100% screen view, and think the resolution is less because it's softer at 100%, which is wrong.
--
Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/blog/
Pete Berry
Senior Member
But the roughly 15% increase in file dimensions, ergo theoretical resolution, can readily be seen on comparisons at large print sizes with the same good lenses
on my GH1 and GH2 (P-L 14-150 and Panny 7-14).
A very sharp 20x27 is not outside the possibilities of the GH2 - which along with the GH1 are paragons of pixel sharpness in the sensor world. Each handily out-resolves comparable MP 4/3-m4/3 and crop DSLR sensors.
Pete
Anders W
Forum Pro
Yes, but such would be the case even if the sensor "outresolved" (i.e., had higher resolution than) the 17/2.8. Image resolution increases with sensor resolution even if the sensor "outresolves" the lens.
No I don't.
Fully in line with expectations (see above).
Exactly!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum