Reading resolution charts comparing MFT lenses to FX lenses

Started Mar 29, 2013 | Questions thread
Daniel Lauring
Daniel Lauring Veteran Member • Posts: 9,342
Re: Ideally...

Great Bustard wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I think we are well, well, well past the point where differences in resolution matter for the vast majority.  That is, if you took a pic of a scene with the kit lens and the 12-35 / 2.8, printed them even at 16x24 inches, put them both for sale, they'd sell for the same price and in the same amount.  Well, maybe you'll sell 53 of the pics shot with the 12-35 and 47 pics shot with the kit lens, but you get what I'm saying.

I'm just coming to the opinion that any IQ differential between lenses and systems is simply unimportant for the vast majority in the vast majority of situations, and it's only for the extremes that it matters.  And by "extremes", I mean the very extremes.

This is mostly true...especially when you compare it to how far we've come over the last couple centuries with lens designs.  There were some pretty amazing and iconic pictures taken with lenses that today would be considered low res...not to mention full of chromatic aberrations.

Then there are all the other factors related to resolution...high iso noise, camera shake, pixel density, diffraction, atmosphere between camera and subject...etc, etc, that are often way more important, to the final result, than the resolution capability of the lens.

Having said all that, lens "sharpness" is one factor in the chain of resolution and the more resolution our systems are capable of, the more flexibility we have for cropping after the fact, vs. in the camera.  That is the biggest benefit of all these gains we are getting.  Less so is the ability to print HUGE.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow