Putting the NX 30mm and 85mm in Perspective

Both of these lenses scored 14 perceptual megapixels on DXO Mark. I'm going to assume perfect scaling for these comparisons even though we don't get that quite in real life, it can be better or worse. They were tested on the NX20, 20 MP.

Out of the m4/3 lenses tested, only 2 are sharper. (looking at a mix of bodies, mostly 16 MP and perfect scaling to 20 MP by (PMP/16)*20

From the Canon lenses, only 2 are sharper (looking at tests on the comparable MP 7DII)

From the EF-M, EF-S, Sony E-mount APS-C nothing is sharper.

Sony full frame FE.... appear to be eating everyone's lunch with a whopping 13 sharper lenses. All tested on the A7RII, so the lack of an AA filter could be a real contributer here. Actually, it is almost certainly the case, as I look over to Sony A mount results (on the also 42 MP sensor of the Alpha 99 II) and see that none of those are sharper after scaling than the NX 30 and 85.

Hold on now though, Nikon FF has an even larger group, hosting more than 20 lenses that run sharper after scaling. Wow.

Canon FF has some scaling wonders, but a pedestrian 4 only, small change over the other two. Probably what is hurting them here is that the sensor is out pacing the lenses. So we can see that scaling isn't always great here, looking at the 5DIV in particular, it's lower 30 MP brings a host of additional lenses into the fold over the Samsung lenses.

So what have I learned here? The 85 and 30 are far sharper than many using other systems would like to admit, but, we should be cautious because it's not clear where these lenses will start having more diminishing returns that we see the FF cameras start having after the 30-36 MP range (though some of the Sony FF lenses push on, check out that macro at 42 of basically 42). What is clear is that they have few equals when we look at cameras that are more similar, roughly close MP and APS-C. I'm almost certain that if DXO had retested on the NX1 these would be resolution leaders for sensors smaller than FF due to the AA removal and higher MP (still no, other APS-C with 28).

Overall, this makes sense to me. A lot of the scaling comparison is easier sticking to one size of sensor, because then the pixel sizes basically scale with MP. But when going from say FF to APS-C, we can have both more pixels and bigger pixels, and this is what gives larger formats their edge here (there's more to it, but it's basically this). Actually, the 5DSR is kind of a good example for scaling APS-C to FF, because the pixel pitch is quite close, 4.14 microns on the 5DSR, and also about 4.1 (number I found didn't have more precision) for the 7DII. We find that lenses scale fairly well here, e.g. https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Tamron/Tamron-SP-70-200mm-F28-Di-VC-USD-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II__977 goes from 36 MP on the 5DSR to 13 MP on the 7DII. Lenses like that bode well for NX lenses (of course they're APS-C only, but my point is that they are indeed very sharp and we can expect the NX1 results to be good though they'll probably never be tested).

Disclaimer, I'm aware that the sorting on the DXO site may have led me to miss some better combos, since when choosing by mount they give the highest MP sensor of the mount, but I think it was only a major problem with the 5DS/5DSR.

But I'm preaching to the choir, you guys know NX lenses are awesome already. I was just surprised at just how well they stacked up, since most systems have some sharpness monsters lurking.

Very interesting "paper". I'd also like to understand how much resolution do we need for large enough prints. I love printing 40x60 (cm) or 50x75 (cm) on high res forex or high dpi paper. And sometimes I need to crop my pics so that the actual printing area is 20mp, scaled down from 28mp. I usually feel that at those sizes the sharpness I get is very good, both with s lenses and primes. What do you think about this?

tecnoworld wrote:

Very interesting "paper". I'd also like to understand how much resolution do we need for large enough prints. I love printing 40x60 (cm) or 50x75 (cm) on high res forex or high dpi paper. And sometimes I need to crop my pics so that the actual printing area is 20mp, scaled down from 28mp. I usually feel that at those sizes the sharpness I get is very good, both with s lenses and primes. What do you think about this?

No idea. Printing is an area where, while I have some knowledge I have little experience. Imaging Resource actually incorporates a review of prints in their review process, so you may find that useful. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/samsung-nx1/samsung-nx1-image-quality.htm#print-quality  As a starting point personally, for my cropped shots I would scale their sizes by the same amount as the crop.  I do have a few shots I intend to print when I get around to it.  Like this one that took me months to finally put online even:

Actually this one is a 5DSR shot, but my point is that I'm slow to get them from the camera to display/print.

Kisaha wrote:

12-24 is very sharp, astonishing sharp at times, and from wide open, the 45 also, especially from 2.8f.

They didn't rate the 12-24, the 45 was their 3rd place NX lens at 12 perceptual MP.  S lenses are also not rated.

Early september I used a 6300 with the 18-105 as a 3rd camera for some projects, and I took some pictures with it and the NX500 with the 30mm, when I saw them later it was night and day! You have to compare the NX 30mm to other systems to realize the performance. Of course the Sony was a zoom, I wouldn't expect it to be equal, but on the screen and similar focal length, it blew my mind!

I had 45mm, it's far from being sharp wide open, only at 2.4 and further. 16-50mm S zoomed to 45mm f2.8 was on par with 45mm at f2.8. Maybe my copy wasn't sharp.

cyberpi1 wrote:

I had 45mm, it's far from being sharp wide open, only at 2.4 and further. 16-50mm S zoomed to 45mm f2.8 was on par with 45mm at f2.8. Maybe my copy wasn't sharp.

I believe the DXO Mark measurement is taken as the sharpest for each lens (they usually test only one copy, but at several f-numbers and focal lengths).  But if you go further into their data you can see performance at each f-number.

I totally agree on the quality of the 30mm (i dont have the 85mm sadly so i cant speak). I am currently comparing my 30mm with my 40mm STM and i must say that i like the 30mm better althrough the 40mm is still a nice and sharp lens.

That said i think that we must put in perspective the dxo parameters itself.

I like to look at the sharpness field maps in dxomark lens testes. I found it to be correct respect on how the lenses i own perform.

If you look at the NX 18-55 and the canon 18-55 stm you will see that the NX sits on top of the canon, but... if you look at sharpness field map you will find that the canon performs better across the frame and on the tele end.

I think that the PMP is a "peak" value that is useful when looking at a prime but does not tell the whole story of a zoom lens.

mordor_74 wrote:

I totally agree on the quality of the 30mm (i dont have the 85mm sadly so i cant speak). I am currently comparing my 30mm with my 40mm STM and i must say that i like the 30mm better althrough the 40mm is still a nice and sharp lens.

That said i think that we must put in perspective the dxo parameters itself.

I like to look at the sharpness field maps in dxomark lens testes. I found it to be correct respect on how the lenses i own perform.

If you look at the NX 18-55 and the canon 18-55 stm you will see that the NX sits on top of the canon, but... if you look at sharpness field map you will find that the canon performs better across the frame and on the tele end.

I think that the PMP is a "peak" value that is useful when looking at a prime but does not tell the whole story of a zoom lens.

Yep, it is a maximum value from a single lens sample.

-- hide signature --

http://samsungnxtips.blogspot.com

Kisaha wrote:

cyberpi1 wrote:

I had 45mm, it's far from being sharp wide open, only at 2.4 and further. 16-50mm S zoomed to 45mm f2.8 was on par with 45mm at f2.8. Maybe my copy wasn't sharp.

As I said, "especially from 2.8f", but as a specialized portrait lens, you do not need ultra sharp wide open.

The 12-24 which is a landscape lens, is ultra sharp wide open, the 30mm as an all purpose lens is quite sharp from wide open, and the most amazing thing about the 30mm is the ratio of price/size/f stop/sharpness of it.

45mm is usually praised for it's sharpness even wide open, I just wanted to say it's not true, not even close. It's always easier to unsharp a picture.

For me sharpness of 45mm at f/1.8 was not enough and also it lacks OSS, so that's why I sold it when I got 16-50mm S.