September 18, 2014, 10:21:39 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RLPhoto

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 231
46
The page supports it. You will never get 50mp or even close to it with most lenses. The jump from 36mp to 50mp will be slight with most lenses and stark with supreme lenses. Even with aps cams, the difference is the same, indistinguishable with most glass and stark with supreme glass. That's why cropping FF 22mp vs aps 18mp the results are nearly identical. On paper they shouldn't be, but on the other thread, negligible.

The point I was trying to make before was that you can't get 50mp with any existing lens, and probably wouldn't with any lens created within the next decade. The same goes for 36mp, 24mp, 18mp. You cannot actually resolve those resolutions with ANY lens, even the best of the best of the best. Because output resolution has an asymptotic relationship with the least resolving component of the system. To even get close to 50mp, you would probably need to be shooting a lens like the Otus at f/1.4 (assuming it's diffraction limited at that aperture...if not, then you would need a lens even better than the Otus).

Assuming you don't have a crappy lens, then you can realize improvements by moving to a higher resolution sensor. Every time you do, the nyquist limit drops. That allows more information to be resolved usefully. It might be resolved at lower contrast, but until your down near the Rayleigh limit, you can still do stuff with lower contrast detail (it's more work to enhance it, but it can be done.) If you jump from 18mp to 50mp, even with just an "ok" lens, your going to see a huge difference. The frequency of detail that might have been resolved crisply at 18mp will now probably look a little soft...however, your going to be resolving a level of detail the 18mp couldn't even see at all. The same would go for the difference between 36mp and 50mp...although the amount of smaller details you resolve wouldn't be as significant, and would require more work to enhance.

For any given lens, going from 24mp to 36mp, then to 50mp, WILL realize an improvement. The improvement might start out at around 18% for the jump from 24-36mp, then drop to 11-12% for the jump from 36-50mp. It might be a mere 5% in a jump from 50mp to 70mp. Beyond that, your probably within the margin of error...however, then your in the realm of oversampling. That has a whole 'nother set of benefits.
Your absolutely correct and that's what I've been saying. To get near the 50mp resolution, you would now need supreme lenses to see a major difference. 36--->50mp would be a small jump with most lenses(negligible)and like you mentioned, huge if with an Otus.

Back to my original statement, forget about getting the most out of those 50mp with the current selection of native lenses in the A7 mount. Added on top with the small pixel size, extra camera shake.

Ah, ok. I guess I misunderstood something along the line, when you said you believed DXO when they stated the Zeiss 135 could actually get 36mp out of the D800. Good to know we agree. :P

I don't know much about native lenses for the A7 mount...however, I would really be interested in seeing how some of Canon's newer lenses work with that sensor when adapted to the A7 mount. I bet the 24-70/2.8 II is phenomenal.
I said I trusted DXO lens scores to a degree and other reviewers reflected my experience with the lenses tested. IE: Abbotts 135mm APO tests.

47
The page supports it. You will never get 50mp or even close to it with most lenses. The jump from 36mp to 50mp will be slight with most lenses and stark with supreme lenses. Even with aps cams, the difference is the same, indistinguishable with most glass and stark with supreme glass. That's why cropping FF 22mp vs aps 18mp the results are nearly identical. On paper they shouldn't be, but on the other thread, negligible.

The point I was trying to make before was that you can't get 50mp with any existing lens, and probably wouldn't with any lens created within the next decade. The same goes for 36mp, 24mp, 18mp. You cannot actually resolve those resolutions with ANY lens, even the best of the best of the best. Because output resolution has an asymptotic relationship with the least resolving component of the system. To even get close to 50mp, you would probably need to be shooting a lens like the Otus at f/1.4 (assuming it's diffraction limited at that aperture...if not, then you would need a lens even better than the Otus).

Assuming you don't have a crappy lens, then you can realize improvements by moving to a higher resolution sensor. Every time you do, the nyquist limit drops. That allows more information to be resolved usefully. It might be resolved at lower contrast, but until your down near the Rayleigh limit, you can still do stuff with lower contrast detail (it's more work to enhance it, but it can be done.) If you jump from 18mp to 50mp, even with just an "ok" lens, your going to see a huge difference. The frequency of detail that might have been resolved crisply at 18mp will now probably look a little soft...however, your going to be resolving a level of detail the 18mp couldn't even see at all. The same would go for the difference between 36mp and 50mp...although the amount of smaller details you resolve wouldn't be as significant, and would require more work to enhance.

For any given lens, going from 24mp to 36mp, then to 50mp, WILL realize an improvement. The improvement might start out at around 18% for the jump from 24-36mp, then drop to 11-12% for the jump from 36-50mp. It might be a mere 5% in a jump from 50mp to 70mp. Beyond that, your probably within the margin of error...however, then your in the realm of oversampling. That has a whole 'nother set of benefits.
Your absolutely correct and that's what I've been saying. To get near the 50mp resolution, you would now need supreme lenses to see a major difference. 36--->50mp would be a small jump with most lenses(negligible)and like you mentioned, huge if with an Otus.

Back to my original statement, forget about getting the most out of those 50mp with the current selection of native lenses in the A7 mount. Added on top with the small pixel size, extra camera shake.

48
I did link it previously

The page I saw did not in any way support what you are claiming.

Quote
To really get 50mp worth of detail, don't expect anything less than the most expensive glass to achieve it. Sure, I understand there will be gains but in my original post here, I stated most lenses will never get close to resolving the full 50mp in that sensor.

I think the #1 problem is that the way you are describing things is fundamentally wrong. MP is not a measure of resolved detail, but a measure of sensels on a chip. If you put a Coke bottle in front of a 50 MP chip, you still get 50 MP. There's no such thing as "real" or "fake" 50 MP or getting "50 MP worth" of detail.

If you are looking at DxO "MP equivalent" scores for lenses they are wrong to present the data that way, and (yet again) observably wrong even if you try to translate their incorrect usage of terminology into something valid.

lpmm for a given target MTF point is a measure of resolved detail.

A 50 MP sensor + just about any lens will yield an observable system gain in lpmm over most or all of the MTF curve. The lpmm resolved will be higher with better glass of course.

Now I would be the first to say that we are into diminishing returns and unless you are printing really, really big there's not going to be much to gain by jumping to 50 MP. But I would not say that 50 MP is invisible or completely worthless with everything except a handful of super expensive lenses.

And I'm not just saying that from theory. Observation trumps theory, and you can readily observe IQ gains on 18-24 MP APS-C sensors with glass that's already on the market. Those lenses will yield similar gains on 40-50 MP FF sensors. I'm not as familiar with Nikon glass, but there is a lot of Canon glass which would work well on a higher resolution FF sensor.
The page supports it. You will never get 50mp or even close to it with most lenses. The jump from 36mp to 50mp will be slight with most lenses and stark with supreme lenses. Even with aps cams, the difference is the same, indistinguishable with most glass and stark with supreme glass. That's why cropping FF 22mp vs aps 18mp the results are nearly identical. On paper they shouldn't be, but on the other thread, negligible.

49
Zeiss probably knows better to not put AF in so reviewers can't say "the otus is the sharpest lenses ever made but it's AF sucks." AF would add an extra set of problems and they understand that if your buying a lens this sharp, you need to use Manual focus and confirm your frames as you work. Any tiny mistake by the user means a less sharp photo and Zeiss pulled the AF out to focus on solely the optics.

My guess on no AF anyway.

50
Technical Support / Re: Any way to extend a failing shutter's life time?
« on: September 06, 2014, 10:37:11 AM »
Well you got your money's worth of life out of it. That 60D should have died much earlier. The best option I've personally used before is if your camera is broken, you can send it in to canon for an exchange rate on a newer camera like a 70D. I used that to jump from my broken XSI---->7D.

If you don't mind keeping the camera for the next three years, replace the shutter but don't keep shooting to be frustrated when it dies when you need it the most.

otherwise don't use it, and sell for what you can get for it.

51
The DXO info perfectly supports my claim. Jumping to a 50mp sensor, your never going to get close to that resolution with most of your lenses.

You didn't link to anything that supports this claim. For however significant you consider the jump to 50 MP in the first place, that gain is not going to be muted or blocked by better lenses. Glass is not (yet) the limiting factor, at least not at the upper end.
I did link it previously and only the zeiss APO 135mm was able to get the maximum 36mp out of the camera. A lowly 24-70mm wasn't even close to getting the details out of the d800. You should check the link.

To really get 50mp worth of detail, don't expect anything less than the most expensive glass to achieve it. Sure, I understand there will be gains but in my original post here, I stated most lenses will never get close to resolving the full 50mp in that sensor. Just like most lenses won't get even close to resolving the majority of the 36mp in the current d800.

First...no lens could ever get close to resolving the actual megapixel count of any sensor unless your talking about diffraction limited performance at extremely wide apertures...like, f/2 and faster wide. It's an asymptotic relationship...theoretically, it's actually impossible for an undersampled lens to ever actually resolve the full megapixel count of a sensor.

That's why DXO's numbers are such a joke. To claim that ANY lens could actually resolve "36mp out of 36mp" period is just flat out impossible. Not even the Zeiss could do that.

I would also be willing to bet that if you could slap a Canon 24-70 II onto the D800, that it would resolve a hell of a lot more detail than the Nikon 24-70. The Canon lens scores the same as the Nikon lens (both score 28), despite the fact that the 5D III has 62% fewer pixels than the D800. The Canon lens actually resolves 18mpix according to DXO, vs. the Nikon lens which resolves 16mpix.

It is a very common occurrence on DXO for Canon lenses to score the same as Nikon lenses, when used on the 22.3mp 5D III vs. the 36.3mp D800. In the majority of those cases, Canon lenses score higher on the MPix scale, despite the lower pixel counts.  (The real flaw in DXO's lens scoring is their massive overweighting of "Transmission"...which completely imbalances resolving power tests in favor of benchmarking how much vignetting is occurring (an issue that merely requires a single click to fix in post). That's in line with the core theory of how lenses and sensors work together to resolve...one doesn't simply outresolve the other and that's that.
You made my original point exactly. The nikkor 24-70mm would be a poor performer to get 50mp of detail while a better lens like the Canon would get closer, and the Zeiss would get the very closest.

And again, the 16-35s, 24-70,70-200s are very common good lenses but even they wouldn't be the lenses that could get the most out of a 50mp sensor. To do so, you'd need those primes and if that's the case, the actual details rendered from a7r 36mp----->50mp a7x wouldnt be stark/negligible unless you had an otus or 135mm apo.

Now if all lenses performed at the level of the otus and we all had them already, great no complaints from me about more resolution.

52
The DXO info perfectly supports my claim. Jumping to a 50mp sensor, your never going to get close to that resolution with most of your lenses.

You didn't link to anything that supports this claim. For however significant you consider the jump to 50 MP in the first place, that gain is not going to be muted or blocked by better lenses. Glass is not (yet) the limiting factor, at least not at the upper end.
I did link it previously and only the zeiss APO 135mm was able to get the maximum 36mp out of the camera. A lowly 24-70mm wasn't even close to getting the details out of the d800. You should check the link.

To really get 50mp worth of detail, don't expect anything less than the most expensive glass to achieve it. Sure, I understand there will be gains but in my original post here, I stated most lenses will never get close to resolving the full 50mp in that sensor. Just like most lenses won't get even close to resolving the majority of the 36mp in the current d800.

53
DXO is consistent with my uses on the lenses I have and trust their lens results to a degree.

The page you've linked to at DxO does not support your claim.

Quote
So slapping on a 24-70mm on a 50mp camera is not going to look much different than a 36mp camera, which looked pretty nice on a 22mp camera.

But there is going to be an observable gain.
The DXO info perfectly supports my claim. Jumping to a 50mp sensor, your never going to get close to that resolution with most of your lenses.

54
Negligible or Indistinguishable with most lenses. 18mp aps-c is using the center and see the marginal gain but the 50mp FF would see all the ugly edges.

Most of the lenses I listed do not have ugly edges. With some of those comparisons I cannot say the difference is negligible.

Quote
You'd never even get close to getting 50mp of real detail from it w/o the Zeiss Otus or 135mm APO. Sure you'd have a nice big file to downsample but 50---->36mp is already diminishing returns.

You keep claiming this, but what is your evidence? What makes you think the 70-200 f/4L IS or any of Canon's super teles won't show a gain?
Visit dustin abbotts review on the APO 135mm and look at other results. DXO is consistent with my uses on the lenses I have and trust their lens results to a degree.

 135mm f/2L is no slouch but even that lens can't get more detail at a certain point when the APO zeiss gets much more. Diminishing returns, more expensive glass to get detail in those MP, and certainly without a shadow of a doubt, the lens is the limiting factor for getting what your paying for in a 50mp camera.

So slapping on a 24-70mm on a 50mp camera is not going to look much different than a 36mp camera, which looked pretty nice on a 22mp camera.

55
And another person that couldn't photograph the inside of a paper bag

Well, guess I prefer sujets & subjects that actually make the cut for paid for publication.
Should the paper bag ever be a topic I'll defer to your expertise.
Oh really? By all means let us see you work on these publications. We're all dying to see them now that you mentioned them.

56
There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E

As a rule I ignore DxO :) That said the page you linked is offering 3 of the "best lenses", not claiming they are the only 3 to show any gain.

At 18 MP crop (= 46 MP FF) I can see a difference between the 17-40L and new 16-35L; the 70-200 f/4L vs f/4L IS; the older Sigma 50 vs Canon's 50 1.4 and 1.8 (and the new ART is much sharper); and the 300 f/4L vs the 100-400L.

It's a good bet that the new 16-35, the Sigma ARTs, any L tele prime, the 70-200 f/4L IS and latest f/2.8 IS, any of Canon's macros, the newer T/S lenses, and Canon's fast wide primes will show an improvement on a 40-50 MP sensor. There are Zeiss primes that would show an improvement as well. You could argue that some of these lenses wouldn't offer as much of an improvement as possible with even better glass, but you will see an improvement.

I'm speaking practically of course. Again, the way resolution works, you should be able to detect some improvement even with only moderately good lenses even if what you gain is meaningless in real world prints.

Negligible or Indistinguishable with most lenses. 18mp aps-c is using the center and see the marginal gain but the 50mp FF would see all the ugly edges. You'd never even get close to getting 50mp of real detail from it w/o the Zeiss Otus or 135mm APO. Sure you'd have a nice big file to downsample but 50---->36mp is already diminishing returns.

57

You should seek professional help, something might be blocking reality of lens limitations from sinking into your brain.

And another person who doesn't understand that lenses are analog devices. But lots of blind faith in numbers to compensate...Penn&Teller come to mind :P
And another person that couldn't photograph the inside of a paper bag and let alone understand the point of diminishing returns. You should really seek some help with that.  :)

58
It's that simple.

Only to those who don't understand how the resolution tests work. Those misconceptions lead to fallacious assumptions about which lenses are suitable for higher res sensors and which are not.
Really now? Lets take your advise to the extreme and slap a nikkor 50mm from the 1970's on a 5D3 and a D800. I bet the resolution difference will be indistinguishable or at best negligible. Afterall, it should be able to resolve so much detail on the Higher MP body.  ::) ::) ::)

You should really work on your comprehension skills. Both here and a page earlier.
You should seek professional help, something might be blocking reality of lens limitations from sinking into your brain.

59
It's that simple.

Only to those who don't understand how the resolution tests work. Those misconceptions lead to fallacious assumptions about which lenses are suitable for higher res sensors and which are not.
Really now? Lets take your advise to the extreme and slap a nikkor 50mm from the 1970's on a 5D3 and a D800. I bet the resolution difference will be indistinguishable or at best negligible. Afterall, it should be able to resolve so much detail on the Higher MP body.  ::) ::) ::)

60

There is not that many lenses that satisfy the 36mp nikon.
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-lenses-on-the-D800E


You're repeating the same mistake made a few posts earlier...so much for oversimplification.
Most lenses will not resolve the majority a 36mp sensor let alone a 50mp. It's that simple.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 231