Reading mode: Light Dark

Which u43 lenses can resolve 16MP sensors of E-M5?

Go to last post
Detail resolved isn't a brick wall. smaller pixels if done right, can look better than larger pixels, since they better approximate the analog look of the optics. Optical flaws don't happen in squares, so even if you don't get much more "detail", the images will look better when viewed/printed/cropped big, and look less digital.

There are benefits of lower MPs such as smaller files sizes, and at one point it was easier to make them efficient over small ones, but as technology advances, and multiple photosites can equal or surpass the previous larger ones, the advantages are there too.
--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Currently shooting: Nikon D3S, D700
http://www.joesiv.com
 
You guys make some good points, but do you think it matters much in real life?

I mean, if I can resolve every individual hair on my cat with a 12 megapixel sensor, and I can, where does this extra detail that I can resolve with a 16 megapixel sensor come from? She doesn't have any more hair than what I am already resolving.

I've noticed that there is a limit to detail in most scenes, and once you can resolve it with a sensor of a certain size, you don't gain much by moving up. Don't get me wrong. I'm all about resolution. I own several medium format cameras and a large format camera. I'm just wondering out loud, is all.
 
bobbarber said:
You guys make some good points, but do you think it matters much in real life?

I mean, if I can resolve every individual hair on my cat with a 12 megapixel sensor, and I can, where does this extra detail that I can resolve with a 16 megapixel sensor come from? She doesn't have any more hair than what I am already resolving.

I've noticed that there is a limit to detail in most scenes, and once you can resolve it with a sensor of a certain size, you don't gain much by moving up. Don't get me wrong. I'm all about resolution. I own several medium format cameras and a large format camera. I'm just wondering out loud, is all.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean. But what you are talking about is not how/when do we get (or not) higher resolution. Rather you are saying that additional resolution wouldn't matter much for your needs, which may well be true given the kind of pictures you take and how much you care to enlarge them. Resolution is just one aspect of image quality, and sometimes we voluntarily choose to reduce it in order to gain something else, for example when we apply noise reduction.
 
bobbarber said:
You guys make some good points, but do you think it matters much in real life?

I mean, if I can resolve every individual hair on my cat with a 12 megapixel sensor, and I can, where does this extra detail that I can resolve with a 16 megapixel sensor come from? She doesn't have any more hair than what I am already resolving.
Click to expand...
Theres more than one way to skin a cat... or I should say compose a picture. Sure you can see "Every individual hair" of your cat when framed closely, but what if you started exprimenting with other types of compositions, perhaps to take in more of the enviroment.

I'm shooting wider and wider these days, becuase I'm finding that a subject without a context is not as compelling.

Anyways, if you frame the cat smaller, then less pixels are going to the detail of the hair.

That's one example.

The other is, if you print really big (or crop heavily), then upon close inspection, the viewer expects to see more detail (or an organic roll off of detail), not stair stepping pixels.

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Currently shooting: Nikon D3S, D700
http://www.joesiv.com
 
I have the Cosina-Voigtländer 25mm f/0.95 and it is pretty sharp. Should have no problem with the new 16MP sensor I guess?
 
ship2007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
--Good point as inspite of how good your sensor is your pictures will be not better than what your lenses are able to resolve. Very interesting if you consider the latest and bestest D800 FF with 36mp sensor for $3000 which reportedly has a very useful APS-C cropping mode with reduces the resolution to 14mp. So if you have a very expensive FF tele lens and you crop heavily say 1/2X to double its reach as many do you will be getting only 7.5mp resolution at most! Much better to simply get a longer m4/3 equivalent focal length lens in the first place and get from 12 to 16 mp resolution? I am sure this is not one fact FF DSLR manufactures want you to know hence continual harping over shallow DOF for which of course FF is shallower but you only need to use a longer focal length lens to get the same DOF with the smaller 4/3 sensor.
 
safaridon said:
ship2007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
--Good point as inspite of how good your sensor is your pictures will be not better than what your lenses are able to resolve.
Click to expand...
Not only will they not be better than what your lenses are able to resolve. They will be worse inasmuch as an optical chain is not as strong as its weakest link. It is weaker. That's why it might in some cases make sense to increase the resolution of the sensor even though it already "outresolves" (i.e., has higher resolution than) the lenses.
 
Any M43 lens can resolve 16Mp sensor, I think 40 Mp too.

It depends on you, how do you focus lens, how do you use DOF, and if you do everything right, any M43 lens will resolve the sensor.
--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

 
Nope, I want the sensor to take advantage of every bit of quality the lens offers. If the lens out resolves the sensor, you're not taking advantage of all the lens can give you.
TheEye said:
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/
Click to expand...
--

Bokeh is the aesthetic quality of the blur in out-of-focus areas of an image, or the way the lens renders out-of-focus points of light. Bokeh is not the same as depth of field (DOF).
 
ship2007 said:
s_grins said:
Any M43 lens can resolve 16Mp sensor, I think 40 Mp too.
Click to expand...
The samples from G3 review at DP show many lens are not, especially at wide open.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
Use them properly, close to F = 3.5- 8
ship2007 said:
ship2007 said:
It depends on you, how do you focus lens, how do you use DOF, and if you do everything right, any M43 lens will resolve the sensor.
--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I’m surprised how much Wikipedia contributes to the forum.

 
Since m43 sensors at 12 and 16MP are already quite dense than even D7000 or new D800, won't camera shake and technique play a big role in good sharp pictures?

I remember this being an issue on D90 to D7000, and it will be more of an issue for D700 to D800 transitions?

Is this phenomenon felt more or less on a smaller sensor?
--
Rick Halle wrote:

" Keep in mind that tall buildings sway back and forth so they require faster shutter speeds."
 
When using 4/3 lenses I heard that the assumption was that they were designed to stand 20 Mpx.

m4/3 might have started with less, but that should be the implicit limit, unless there is a tidal change.

With an AA filter approaching zero we must now be close to the limit.

I wonder if a doubling of resolution is even possible.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric
 
I knew I shouldn't open this thread......

Here's what you need to be doing: Take camera. Load with freshly formatted SD card. Put lens of desired focal length on camera. Go out. Shoot photos all day til you are tired.

Come home. Download photos. Sort, process the good ones, and print. Eat dinner. Go to bed. Get up the next day and do it again. Be happy.

I know this is a gear forum, but you know, this level of introspection on a topic that has been addressed in some very good summary articles is just a head bangingly boring waste of time.

And yeah, you are all right, I should NOT have opened the thread if I knew it was going to make me nuts, but really......

-Janet
 
jalywol said:
I knew I shouldn't open this thread......

Here's what you need to be doing: Take camera. Load with freshly formatted SD card. Put lens of desired focal length on camera. Go out. Shoot photos all day til you are tired.

Come home. Download photos. Sort, process the good ones, and print. Eat dinner. Go to bed. Get up the next day and do it again. Be happy.

I know this is a gear forum, but you know, this level of introspection on a topic that has been addressed in some very good summary articles is just a head bangingly boring waste of time.

And yeah, you are all right, I should NOT have opened the thread if I knew it was going to make me nuts, but really......

-Janet
Click to expand...
You imply that we don't need E-M5. Just grasp cheaper E-PL1 and take photos, and be happy. Good point.
 
ship2007 said:
You imply that we don't need E-M5. Just grasp cheaper E-PL1 and take photos, and be happy. Good point.
Click to expand...
Well need is subjective. I'm as much of a pixel peeper as anyone else on this forum, so if the E-M5 has a sensor that actually gets better tonal gradation detail and better shadow detail with less noise than what's out there in M43 land already, then I'll be definitely getting one, at least to evaluate.

My point was not that the resolution of lens vs sensor wasn't a valid question, but that it already has been addressed well in other places, and that dissecting it to the nth degree was kind of an exercise in navel inspection.....sort of futile and painful to watch.

My bad for reading it though, since I had a feeling it would bug me. I should not care what others do, really; at least this is harmless. :)

-J
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top