Are Your Lenses Obsolete if You Buy A High Megapixel Camera?

[Canon Rumors]

Alex Cooke at Fstoppers has decided to try and tackle some of the myths and truths about sensor resolution and lenses. If you buy a Canon EOS 5DS, or EOS 5DS R, do you need to be aware of what lenses you use with them to get maximum performance?</p>
<p>It’s a tough question to answer and is difficult to quantify with any current testing methodology and in the end may be up to you.</p>
<p>From Alex Cooke:</p>
<blockquote><p>There’s also an added complication independent of the physics: we don’t normally see lower level glass paired with higher level bodies. This in itself has normally kept a certain level of separation, but now, as megapixel counts approach unforeseen levels, that gap is being closed. And so, we have to ask: if you buy a ultra-high-resolution camera, will even your good glass be rendered obsolete? Well, I can’t answer that for two reasons: first, it depends on your definition of “obsolete.” If you have a 50 megapixel sensor, are you willing to take a hit of 5 megapixels before you call a lens archaic? How about 10 megapixels? That’s up to you. Second, at this point in time, we don’t have data obtained from a publicly available, verified method to make that call. My suspicions say that indeed, the threshold of degradation may be starting to cross into lower level professional lens territory, but they’re just that: suspicions. <a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/are-your-lenses-suddenly-obsolete-85888" target="_blank">Read the full article</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Lenses are going to be updated to the latest technology for both high megapixel DSLRs as well as 8K and beyond for cinema lenses. If you’re shooting an 50+mp camera, it can’t hurt to own the latest version of a lens, but don’t be worried about using older and less expensive lenses, they’re still going to give you great results.</p>

 

[privatebydesign]

We have to get over the "out resolve" lens argument, it is specious.

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect because it doesn't account for atmospheric issues and other factors, so the numbers will never be as good as even this simplified form.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

If, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

 

[JoFT]

There are 2 important things to keep in mind

• Any APS-C Camera with 20 MP+ typically represents 40MP+ in Full Frame using the same pixel size. This means that in the center of a FF 40MP+Sensor there is no new task to be solved!
• Lenses are able to do even more: You can try this out using a lens an a µ43 body: Their prices you have to multiply by 4: 64MP as standard, 80MP in comparison to the Panasonic GX8

I tried FF Lenses on µ43 and they work.


The task to bring the performance all over the sensor area is a really challenging one....

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I tried FF Lenses on µ43 and they work.

Who said that the lenses would not work??

This is about those who bring up the question as to a sensor out-resolving a lens. Basically, this is because of a fallacy that some keep pushing.


A higher MTF body will always improve the final Lens / Camera MTF. It might be only a small improvement, or a large one, but the basic calculation of the MTF for the pair assures this.

As we get camera bodies with higher MTF ratings, the improvements will be smaller for a given lens, and diffraction will play a larger part, but there will be a improvement.

The reason I bring MTF into this is that increases of the number of camera sensor photosites do not guarantee a better MTF for a camera. Manufacturers work very hard to create that extra resolution from a high MP camera body, the electronics is playing a more significant role.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

The question is:

It's worth spending $ 4000 on a 50 megapixel camera, and keep using 24-70mm lens "only" $ 1000?
Maybe it's smarter to have a 22 megapixel camera, and then use 24-70mm lens US $ 2,000.
Obviously the best combination would be 50 megapixel camera with lens 24-70 F2.8ii.

A combination that seems to me a waste is Canon 5DSr + Canon 50mm F1.2L.
Maybe it's smarter to have 5DSr + Sigma 50mm Art, or Zeiss Otus.

 

[danski0224]

Yes, your lenses are junk.

Please PM me for a shipping address for proper disposal.

 

[mkabi]

Yes, your lenses are junk.

Please PM me for a shipping address for proper disposal.

Actually, this guy only gets rid of non-L lenses.
I get rid of all the L lenses, and I will do it for a good price too.

SO PM me with product name, and I will give you a quote and shipping address.

 

[Bernard]

A combination that seems to me a waste is Canon 5DSr + Canon 50mm F1.2L.

It really depends on the look you are trying to achieve. If you like the way the 50mm F1.2L draws images, then why not? Using it on a 50MP body will get you better tonality, better smoothness, more flexibility in post-processing and printing. It's a win-win.

We need to get away from the fallacy that "sharpness" is anything other than an artistic choice. I know how we got here: the first generation of affordable DSLRs had 6 megapixels. Everybody wanted more sharpness because they couldn't get any. It was "forbidden fruit."
Those days are gone. Nobody is impressed anymore if you make a sharp print, or a big print. You need more than that to differentiate yourself.

Not every image needs to be super-sharp, just like not ever song needs to be played super-loud.

 

[Sporgon]

Some of the most impressive quality images that I have seen from the 5Ds so far have been shot on.........the 24-105L. Have a look at Action Man Keith's pictures on the 5Ds thread. Private's post explains it.

But Hey ! Canon et al must love these forums. I'm sure more people have been spending more dosh on expensive lenses since the inception of the internet.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The question is:

It's worth spending $ 4000 on a 50 megapixel camera, and keep using 24-70mm lens "only" $ 1000?

It depends on how many of the $1000 or $2000 lenses you own. I have several "L" lenses as well as some very good non L lenses. By upgrading from a 5D MK III to a 5DSR, for $1500 more, I can improve the IQ of my images more than investing another $10,000+ in lenses, so from that standpoint, it might not be a bad decision. However, I really do not see the need for more resolution, I'm waiting to see what else new pops up in the next generation of cameras. I can shoot 1500-2500 images in a week, so the extra time to process high MP images is a significant factor. All that editing with a mouse has resulted in a issue with my arm and wrist that Dr's have not solved, so spending less time editing is going to be a requirement.

 

[applecider]

Alex Cooks article doesn't answer the question he poses. In fact he throws out numbers like losing 5-10 M pixels with inferior lenses, but without any proof or attempt to quantify his statements.

Are your lenses obsolete if you buy a high megapixel camera?..... NO. There is your answer.

Lens rentals addressed this issue in their article http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/06/canon-5ds-and-5ds-r-initial-resolution-tests . The summary : "Every lens will have better resolution when shot on the new cameras, at least in the center of the image. How much of a difference will range from noticeably better, to "wow" depending upon the lens, type of photography, and subject matter."

All of your lenses give you more resolution on a higher MP camera does that make them obsolete?

 

[danski0224]

Actually, this guy only gets rid of non-L lenses.
I get rid of all the L lenses, and I will do it for a good price too.

SO PM me with product name, and I will give you a quote and shipping address.

Just to set the record straight, I *never* excluded L lenses with my offering.

I can even accept those nasty ones with leaded glass elements.

As long as it's Canon EF or FD mount, I'll take them.

;D

 

[Mitch.Conner]

What I'm personally wondering is: with the recent rumor that Canon may fast track lenses with better IQ for an ultra high MP camera - what would the likely cutoff date be for lenses actually designed with an ultra high MP sensor in mind?

2010 seems to be the date for lenses designed with the 5Ds/sr in mind. Would the new 35mm lens be the first lens designed for an ultra high MP sensor?

Would every f/4 or smaller aperture lens be problematic due to diffraction?

I'm not pretending that I know the answers to ANY of these questions. In all honesty, I feel like the whole discussion regarding high MP relation to lenses goes over my head.

 

[keithcooper]

The rising tide floats all boats

All my lenses look better with my 5Ds than 1Ds3

As to how much - it varies, but I'm not going to start ditching lenses because of it.

From my own POV I'm minded to wonder if the whole 'is this lens sharp enough' argument misses the point about what things can contribute to good photos ;-)

Much as I'm interested in the physics and optics, I try and remember that a really sharp rubbish photo is still a rubbish photo...

This 1958 Tamron works just fine...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-old_lens.html

 

[dolina]

Wonder how many here will have customers that will notice old lenses being used on a new body.

Us photogs tend to be a our harshest critiques. Only time anyone would upgrade if is they have the spare cash on hand or if it is a job requirement.

 

[9VIII]

We have to get over the "out resolve" lens argument, it is specious.

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect because it doesn't account for atmospheric issues and other factors, so the numbers will never be as good as even this simplified form.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

If, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

That formula needs to be made into a T-shirt and shipped with the 5Ds. It's shocking how often people still say there's no point in using low quality glass with high megapixels.
Not to mention even Canon's cheapest EF lenses (the Nifty Fifty and Pancake) are fantastically sharp stopped down anyway. If resolution is your goal you don't need to spend more than $125 on lenses.

 

[privatebydesign]

We have to get over the "out resolve" lens argument, it is specious.

System resolution can be broadly shorthanded down to this equation, it isn't perfect because it doesn't account for atmospheric issues and other factors, so the numbers will never be as good as even this simplified form.

tsr = 1/sqrt((1/lsr) ² + (1/ssr) ² )

Where tsr is total spatial resolution, lsr is lens spatial resolution, and ssr is sensor spatial resolution.

If, for example, we have a sensor that can resolve 100 lppmm, and a lens that can resolve 100 lppmm we get this

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/100) ² ) = tsr of 71 lppmm

Leave the same lens on, good or bad, and double the sensor resolution to 200 lppmm

1/sqrt((1/100) ² + (1/200) ² ) = tsr of 89 lppmm


You will notice that the system resolution, even in this simplified form, can never resolve 100% of the lowest performing portion of that system, so if a 24MP sensor is returning 80% of the potential of a lens then a 50MP sensor might return 90%, how useful that is in real life is a moot point, but it does illustrate that even the most modest lens will show increased resolution when put in front of a higher resolving sensor.

That formula needs to be made into a T-shirt and shipped with the 5Ds. It's shocking how often people still say there's no point in using low quality glass with high megapixels.
Not to mention even Canon's cheapest EF lenses (the Nifty Fifty and Pancake) are fantastically sharp stopped down anyway. If resolution is your goal you don't need to spend more than $125 on lenses.

That would be a good idea!

The formula also explains why there is such a modest increase in actual image resolution when you compare real world crop camera images to cropped ff images in focal length limited situations. It is nice when a relatively simple bit of maths theory actually translates to real world performance, it can give us realistic expectations of what we should be able to achieve from a new piece of hardware.

On a more interesting note. Has anybody else found some moire in their images and used the LR moire removal tool? It is exceptionally good but I have only tried it on a couple of images, I wondered how effective it is across a broader range of problem images. Or, if anybody has links to images with moire specifically from the 5DSR I'd like to play with them.

 

[MrFotoFool]

I would be more concerned about my computer becoming obsolete with a 5Ds than with my lenses!
(And this is not a joke).

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I would be more concerned about my computer becoming obsolete with a 5Ds than with my lenses!
(And this is not a joke).

When I jumped to the 5DII (I was a very early adopter) from a 5D, I went through the shock of 12mp > 21mp jump. I needed twice as much hard drive space, I needed a vastly superior CPU and a lot more RAM. In fact I had to upgrade my desktop and my laptop, which were working seamlessly well with my 5D. So when the 5DIII came along, I was really relived to see a mild 1mp bump. When I look at the file and pixel size of the 5Ds files...i lterally shudder. I already have a state of the art Quad core i7 with 16gb ram and a pair of fast and large SSD's....and my 5DIII work flow is now fast and lag free. If I punt for a 5Ds...I have to slow down my workflow because PC's and Macs haven't quadrupled their processing power in the last few years.
I'm curious...what's the file size for a single 16 bit JPG in photoshop? A 5DIII file is about 64.5mb. It must be in the order of 140mb +

I'm finding that I don't really need anything more than my existing MP. I'm getting great results and my largest prints are A1+ in size. My landscape technique is impeccable, so I'm getting pixel sharp images at 22mp. They enlarge very well to my largest print size.

 

[Loswr]

Re: The rising tide floats all boats

...I try and remember that a really sharp rubbish photo is still a rubbish photo...

^^ This.