Reading mode: Light Dark

Which lenses will resolve 36mp? Which will struggle?

Go to last post
John Sheehy said:
the fact is, if you're out there with one lens, no matter how good or bad it is, you're going to get a better image, resolution-wise, with a 36MP FF than with a 12MP. The 12MP obscures the subject matter more.

--
John

Click to expand...
John, I appreciate you trying to explain in these forums some facts when the topic comes up that one better improve their pic taking skills and get better lenses if they are going to use greater MP's. The skills are equally needed to optimize their capture regardless if it's 12 or 36 MP's. With 36mp one can blow up their image larger so yes they can see their expertise or their flaws in a bigger way.

John R
 
John M Roberts said:
John Sheehy said:
the fact is, if you're out there with one lens, no matter how good or bad it is, you're going to get a better image, resolution-wise, with a 36MP FF than with a 12MP. The 12MP obscures the subject matter more.

--
John

Click to expand...
John, I appreciate you trying to explain in these forums some facts when the topic comes up that one better improve their pic taking skills and get better lenses if they are going to use greater MP's.
Click to expand...
Greater MP's gives you better lenses. So, here's the thing. You upgrade your MP's, all the lenses in your collection improve. Now, you can do things with them you couldn't do before, or you can just do what you were doning before and enjoy the extra image quality.
John M Roberts said:
The skills are equally needed to optimize their capture regardless if it's 12 or 36 MP's. With 36mp one can blow up their image larger so yes they can see their expertise or their flaws in a bigger way.
Click to expand...
Or they can leave it the same size, and see the camera taking away less from their expertise.
--
Bob
 
I feel we're missing something in this thread.

All this talk of more pixels equals better resolution doesn't explain why so many pixel-laden compacts look awful. Their resolution is completely mashed away even at base-ISO's. Plus the sharpening is cheap and the images look flat when compared to any old DSLR image, even ones from the 2.7mp D1.

Even when comparing just compacts: I made pixel-peeping comparisons between my old 5mp Ricoh GX and one of those Olympus FE compacts with 10mp or 12mp. In every peep the resolution of the GX looked better: it looked sharper, it looked more real, it looked better in every single way.

I believe the issue here is the size of the pixels...it gets to a point where they are simply too small (see also mobile phone cameras with their 10mp and tiny sensors).

They're gaining nothing in resolution a good 5mp compact can't compete with. And I can't imagine sticking the GX lens on one of those FE sensors will improve matters much.

So how does this explain a lot of the reasoning in this thread? Is there a pixel-pitch threshold? i.e. once the pixel-pitch reaches a certain small size the general IQ will diminish, regardless of lens?

36mp full-frame is still ok, as it is within most expert's educated assumption of reasonable pixel-pitch limits. But could a future 120mp full-frame camera potentially suffer due to its pixels losing their light-gathering power due to their smaller physical size?
 
dholl said:
I feel we're missing something in this thread.

All this talk of more pixels equals better resolution doesn't explain why so many pixel-laden compacts look awful. Their resolution is completely mashed away even at base-ISO's. Plus the sharpening is cheap and the images look flat when compared to any old DSLR image, even ones from the 2.7mp D1.
Click to expand...
That's very simple. The manufacturers know that the public is ignorant, and gauges images at 100% pixel view, so they NR the hell out the output. If you get a compact with RAW, per unit of sensor area, it can trash the 5D2 at high ISOs.

--
John

 
dholl said:
I feel we're missing something in this thread.

All this talk of more pixels equals better resolution doesn't explain why so many pixel-laden compacts look awful. Their resolution is completely mashed away even at base-ISO's. Plus the sharpening is cheap and the images look flat when compared to any old DSLR image, even ones from the 2.7mp D1.

Even when comparing just compacts: I made pixel-peeping comparisons between my old 5mp Ricoh GX and one of those Olympus FE compacts with 10mp or 12mp. In every peep the resolution of the GX looked better: it looked sharper, it looked more real, it looked better in every single way.

I believe the issue here is the size of the pixels...it gets to a point where they are simply too small (see also mobile phone cameras with their 10mp and tiny sensors).

They're gaining nothing in resolution a good 5mp compact can't compete with. And I can't imagine sticking the GX lens on one of those FE sensors will improve matters much.

So how does this explain a lot of the reasoning in this thread? Is there a pixel-pitch threshold? i.e. once the pixel-pitch reaches a certain small size the general IQ will diminish, regardless of lens?

36mp full-frame is still ok, as it is within most expert's educated assumption of reasonable pixel-pitch limits. But could a future 120mp full-frame camera potentially suffer due to its pixels losing their light-gathering power due to their smaller physical size?
Click to expand...
You said Tiny Sensors, but some how it is still the tiny pixels fault! :)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabbitstu77/
http://500px.com/RabbitStu
 
John M Roberts said:
With 36mp one can blow up their image larger so yes they can see their expertise or their flaws in a bigger way.
Click to expand...
I don't think people with bad shooting skills will be blowing up their images.
--
-Dan
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
'Cameras don't take pictures, people do.'
'No one sees your camera when they're looking at your pictures.'
http://www.danharperphotography.com/ -BLOG/stock site
http://www.danharperphoto.com/ -Commercial portfolio
http://www.wpgphoto.com/ -My Winnipeg based photography community
 
Sorry for the short response...I am unwell at the moment and don't really have the energy for a lengthy reply.

It isn't gobbledigook...basically you compared small sensor with big and blamed pixel size, when you should have blamed sensor size. In that example two things changed, the sensor size and the pixel size. Some how it's always the pixels fault....unfairly :).

If you made a 2 different sensors sizes using the exact same pixel in each...the bigger sensor would be better.

or another direction. For two same size sensors identical in every single way bar megapixel count...the higher megapixel count one will be better (IQ wise....not speed wise or small file size).
dholl said:
dholl said:
You said Tiny Sensors, but some how it is still the tiny pixels fault! :)
Click to expand...
Eh?

I fear my post is only bringing out gobbledigook responses...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rabbitstu77/
http://500px.com/RabbitStu
 
RustyKnee said:
Sorry for the short response...I am unwell at the moment and don't really have the energy for a lengthy reply.

It isn't gobbledigook...basically you compared small sensor with big and blamed pixel size, when you should have blamed sensor size. In that example two things changed, the sensor size and the pixel size. Some how it's always the pixels fault....unfairly :).

If you made a 2 different sensors sizes using the exact same pixel in each...the bigger sensor would be better.

or another direction. For two same size sensors identical in every single way bar megapixel count...the higher megapixel count one will be better (IQ wise....not speed wise or small file size).
Click to expand...
I disagree with all of that, it's far too generalised and is not backed up by any amount of tests or user experiences.

Example: the Canon G10 had 14mp, and the G11 had 10mp. Most agree the G11 had better IQ.

Example 2: the Olympus E-1 used the same Kodak sensor as the E-400, yet almost everyone prefers the IQ of the 5mp E-1 over the 10mp E-400.

So, we could technically argue that the G10 and E-400 displayed more resolution, but most users will tell you it simply didn't look as good as their lesser-MP siblings.

But I do wish you good health, mate :)
 
For the most part all of them will.
dholl said:
Which lenses in your collection have the ability to take full advantage of the D800's 36 million pixel sensor? Which do you think will struggle?

I have many lenses in Nikon-mount collected over the last few years, they've seen use on my old F90X & F-801, as well as myriad Nikon DSLR cameras, my current one being the D1X. I've not mounted the suspected pre-Ai lenses on my D1X for I might damage its aperture lever, those lenses however get excellent use on my Canon 5DII via adaptor (and previously on Micro-Fourthirds).

Does this same caution with pre-Ai lenses apply also for Nikon FX cameras? As far as I know only the entry-level bodies without internal AF motor can mount pre-Ai lenses safely (D40 onwards).

Ok, here's my list...which of these do you think can resolve 36mp worth of detail?
  • Elicar 200mm f3.5 (I think pre-Ai)
  • Nikkor AiS 50mm f1.4
  • Nikkor Ai 24mm f2.0
  • Nikkor Fisheye 16mm f3.5 (not sure if this is pre-Ai or not)
  • Nikkor AF 24mm f2.8
  • Nikkor 50mm f2 (I think this is pre-Ai)
  • Nikkor 180mm f2.8 (almost sure this is pre-Ai..."Nippon Kogaku")
  • Nikkor Micro 55mm f3.5 (another "Nippon Kogaku")
  • Nikkor 50mm f1.4 ("Nippon Kogaku")
  • Sigma 14mm f3.5 (Ai, I think)
  • Sigma AF 18-35mm f3.5-4.5
  • Sigma AF 50mm f2.8 Macro
  • Sigma AF DG 70-300mm f4-5-6
  • Tokina 17mm f3.5 (Ai, I think)
  • Tokina AT-X AF 24-200mm
  • Zeiss Planar ZF 50mm f1.4 (the modern one)
I'll do some resolution tests with my 21mp 5DII with these lenses too, this should help find out which lenses have potential. From memory the Zeiss and Nikkors perform very well on my 5D. Even the third-party primes do quite well, the zooms less so.

I'm also interested which lenses in your own collection do you think will do well with the D800 sensor? Are you sticking with high-end modern zooms and primes or do you have older lenses which can keep up?

I know this is very much an unknown for most of you, maybe only those of you with experience of the D3X will roughly know how good the lenses have to be. The D800 looks like it will be a very important release, in all the threads so far I've not seen too many discuss how our lenses may or may not be able to take full advantage of the 36 million pixels on offer.
Click to expand...
--
Pablo
 
A roll of Rollei ATP 1.1, Velvia 50 or Ektar 100 will pretty much tell you what those lenses will do on a 36MP sensor which sounds like a lot, but is not that much unless you go full bore with the D800E.

I have all kinds of Nikon glass, from modern bombs like the 14-24, 35 1.4G and 70-200-II to old classics like the 28 and 35 F/2 AIS, 50 1.8E and incredible 105 2.5 AIS. All of them perform fantastic on my D700 and I expect no less on the D800.

All the D800 is doing over the D700 is blowing up the details or the lack of them if that is what the lens serves up. For example, I use my 35 1.4G over my 35mm F/2 AIS if corner to corner wide open sharpness is key like on low light aerial work. Otherwise, if I am shooting reportage in which wide open corner sharpness is not as critical, the AIS version will be fine, smaller, lighter and cheaper if a loss occurs.

This is what Nikon has in big fat spades over the competition, you can use lenses from decades ago on a body that has yet to even hit the shelves, it's the best camera system in the world and it always will be as long as they keep the F-mount...

Just plug a lens on and see what it does, that simple!

--

'Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something
acutely disconcerting about it.'
 
Dan Nikon said:
This is what Nikon has in big fat spades over the competition, you can use lenses from decades ago on a body that has yet to even hit the shelves, it's the best camera system in the world and it always will be as long as they keep the F-mount...
Click to expand...
It's not that different to the EF-mount:

You can mount any Nikkor from 1977 onwards on a high-end Nikon DSLR.

You can mount any Canon from 1987 onwards on any Canon DSLR.

This is only 10 years difference, with the EF mount obviously having the advantage of allowing full use of classic lenses from the OM, PK, M42 and Leica R mounts.
 
CriticalI said:
Kaj E said:
CriticalI said:
Grevture said:
But also consider that many lens abberations (like CA, distortion) are correctable, and the more resolution the sensor has, the better you can make the corrections.
Click to expand...
Most corrections reduce resolution - especially distortion. This will be more obvious. CA will cover more pixels and will be harder to eliminate to the required level for large prints.
Click to expand...
Agree with Grevture here. More pixels make corrections better because there is more information to start with.
Click to expand...
Only if you are printing at the same size
Click to expand...
If if makes it better for one size it also makes it better for another. The improvement in the file with higher MP does not depend on print size.
CriticalI said:
CriticalI said:
Correction of lateral CA in Capture NX2 is very efficient as the cause of the problem is fixed with mathematical accuracy for each Nikon lens.
Click to expand...
You cannot resolve a perfect edge from one which has CA. You can only approximate. More pixels doesn't help, it just makes the approximation more obvious.
Click to expand...
You can call it an approximation if you want, but for all practical purposes it is very accurate in Capture NX2.

Lateral chromatic aberration is caused by that light of different wavelengths do not have the same convergence point. If you know the properties of the lens (as Nikon obviously know theirs) it is very easy to refocus the different colors to the correct point by a simple algorithm in PP. This is how the automatic correction for lateral chromatic aberration works in Capture NX2. I have never observed any lateral CA even pixel peeping at 100% with myNikon lenses on the D700

I don't expect the automatic CA correction to be noticeable worse with the 1.7 times more linear pixels of the D800 compared to my D700. We have to wait and see.
CriticalI said:
CriticalI said:
I am particularly keen on more pixels for correction of converging verticals ("perspective correction") that has been a problem occasionally even on mid-sized prints with the D700.
Click to expand...
Fine if you plan to print he same size as you did before.
Click to expand...
As I said before if more pixels improves the print on one size it also improves it on another as far as geometric corrections go.
CriticalI said:
Not if you plan to print larger
Click to expand...
Over and out.
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt
 
Here is an interesting post from one of our forum members, Koen1, quoted from another thread but also relevant here (original thread is about why people feel amount of megapixels are important):
Koen1 said:
Well, for me 22 MP is enough.
I just like to bring the following to everyone's attention:

For all you wishing you had more MP.
This comes at a cost that a lot of you are missing completely.

This is from the Nikon Technical manual for D800/D800E posted on nikonrumors.com and available for download as PDF.
P4 - Shooting Techniques:
At the high resolutions off ered by the D800/D800E, even the
slightest camera motion can result in blur. The technique revealed
in this section minimizes blur through a combination
of live view photography and a tripod.
P6 - Same Shot No Live View
Live view photography was not used in creating the second
example below; consequently, the mirror was not raised until
the photo was taken and the results are blurred.
P9 - Shutter Speed
The superior resolution of the D800/D800E makes small
amounts of focus blur more obvious. Select a shutter speed
slightly faster than you would choose when photographing
the same subject with other cameras.
Diffraction
With the D800/D800E’s high resolution diffraction effects generally
become noticeable around f/11

(EvilTed wrote this in NEWS section, and I haven't read it in the many posts at DP / POTN / FM).

Just my 2P
Click to expand...
original thread here for those who enjoy these kind of discussions:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=40539974
 
dholl said:
At the high resolutions off ered by the D800/D800E, even the
slightest camera motion can result in blur.
Click to expand...
The blurring isn't caused by extra MP, only the perception of it is heightened by deeper pixel-peeping, so we can dismiss that.

But I'd like to focus on this:
dholl said:
dholl said:
With the D800/D800E’s high resolution diffraction effects generally
become noticeable around f/11
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If the diffraction limit on a 12mp D700 is f/16, and it's f/11 on the 36mp D800, surely that is cast-iron proof that the same sensor with more pixels isn't always superior?

And that some lenses will be able to deal with this better than others...
 
dholl said:
dholl said:
dholl said:
With the D800/D800E’s high resolution diffraction effects generally
become noticeable around f/11
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If the diffraction limit on a 12mp D700 is f/16, and it's f/11 on the 36mp D800, surely that is cast-iron proof that the same sensor with more pixels isn't always superior?

And that some lenses will be able to deal with this better than others...
Click to expand...
No it's not, because the 'diffraction limit' in the sense that they talk about it, does not exist. It is a myth resulting in a garbled understanding of a garbled website. Here's an example of the same lens (that is the same copy) on two different resolution cameras, taken for DxO lens test data.





This is an MTF (resolution) curve. MTF of a perfect lens is limited by diffraction, and the curve of the diffraction limit against f-number is a straight descending line. In the case of this lens at large apertures aberrations make it far from a perfect lens, and it resolves distinctly below the 'diffraction limit' As the aperture is closed, the aberrations lessen and the performance of the lens climbs. As it is stopped down more, diffraction becomes the dominant source of resolution loss and the resolution falls, so that later part of the curve is 'diffraction limited'. Now note two things about these curves:
i) the curve begins to drop at the same f-number for the two cameras.
ii) there is no 'limit' at some f-number where resolution suddenly falls.

Thus the 'diffraction limit' caused by pixel size is imaginary and can be ignored.

Note also that the camera with more pixels resolves more with the same lens, at every f-number.
--
Bob
 
bob2n,

I appreciate the tech reply, and I don't disagree...just that I'd like the thread to show some real-world photographs demonstrating the points we're making in this thread, it will add a kind of humanising feel to the debate...I'll try to get some in myself before too long.
 
dholl said:
bob2n,

I appreciate the tech reply, and I don't disagree...just that I'd like the thread to show some real-world photographs demonstrating the points we're making in this thread, it will add a kind of humanising feel to the debate...I'll try to get some in myself before too long.
Click to expand...
You'll have a job, because the factors we are talking about are really hard to show in a photo displayed at less than a megapixel.

--
Bob
 
John Sheehy said:
CriticalI said:
Many lenses show all kinds of aberrations off centre.. good quality lenses tend to be better corrected for FF sensors than poor quality ones (or at least have issues which are easier to correct in post). If you print large (as one can with 36MP) these effects will be far more obvious.
Click to expand...
You can print large with the 12MP, too. The 36MP is a little better than the 12MP with a poor lens, and much better than the 12MP with a good lens. It is never an advantage to use the 12MP from a resolution perspective, regardless of the lens.
John Sheehy said:
I had several lenses which were incapable of giving satisfactory results at A3 on a 12MP sensor, not because of the number of pixels but because of the size of the print. Even a modest amount of decentering will ruin a good landscape image. Whereas many types of shot don't require a lot of resolution (including portraits arguably) a nasty dose of purple fringing, colour shift, focus shift, geometric distortion or really bad coma is obvious even in a small print.

Which means I don't plan using any poor quality lenses on my D800.
Click to expand...
You can do whatever you want, but the fact is, if you're out there with one lens, no matter how good or bad it is, you're going to get a better image, resolution-wise, with a 36MP FF than with a 12MP. The 12MP obscures the subject matter more.
Click to expand...
Resolution wise, yes, but who cares if everything else about it is junk?

This whole thread is absurd, its like suggesting you spend 3k on a camera because it makes your $100 plastic kit lens work better. It wont. Not in any meaningful way.

As usual this thread is hanging on semantics and missing the point.
John Sheehy said:
--
John

Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Steve
 
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