Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Next PZ lens test report: Sigma AF 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 DC HSM (Nikon DX)
#31
[quote name='IanCD' timestamp='1305756226' post='8557']

Well, I was about to thank you there, Klaus, and now I'm unclear again..! Thanks Popo! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />

It's a bit like the answer I was trying to get to [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/745-d7000-lens-tests-implications-of-high-mp-density-sensor-on-lens-choices/page__p__6681__fromsearch__1#entry6681"]here[/url] a while ago

[/quote]

A lens will not be decentered more, nor will there be more chromatic aberration or diffraction. There will only be more detail captured, also of afore mentioned optical mishaps.



You won't notice a thing, with higher pixel counts, when you print at the same size. Unless you print at such big sizes that the lower pixel count image will show its resolution deficiency. In other words: You will only see an increase in lens softness, CA or diffraction when the lower res. image starts to show you its pixels. And then, the lower res, image will always be the least attractive one!



Even noise wise, increased pixel density is not detrimental. It may well be that on pixel level one can measure a "louder" noise level, but the wrongly coloured pixel also shrink in size. Same sized prints will not show worse noise.



It is pixel peepers who think that increasing pixel density/sensor resolution is something bad. But they have been saying so since when the top digital cameras were only 3mp. They said it when DSLRs were 6 and 8 mp, and they say it now when we have APS-C DSLRs with 16 and 18 mp. Truth is, the 16 and 18mp APS-C DSLRs perform quite a bit better, detail wise and noise at higher ISO settings wise, than the 6 and 8 mp DSLRs from 6 years ago.
#32
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1305754764' post='8551']

Isn't this a variation of the myth of the megapixel myth? Sure higher density sensors will magnify at pixel level any weakness, but the "big picture" flaw will be the same. A bad lens is still bad, but a great lens can get better if it would otherwise be held back by the sensor.

[/quote]



Even a great lens has a certain degree of decentering.

One of the local magazine used to measure the centering during their MTF test (at 40 lp/mm) and even the greatest of the greatest lenses had a centering variation of 5% ... brand new. And even the greatest of the greatest lenses should be used so these 5% will deteriorate.
#33
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305761255' post='8568']

You won't notice a thing, with higher pixel counts, when you print at the same size.

[/quote]



What is the point then with more megapixels ? An ever increasing pixel density on a 30x20cm is rather pointless at normal viewing distances.



At 300dpi (which is considered to be a high-res print) and 24mp we would be at a print size of 50x34cm - a typical double sided magazine image. Now I've seen numerous such images in magazines where i was able to spot centering problems upon first view ... from normal viewing distances that is, not with a loupe.



Many horse-powers are pointless if the tires cannot deliver the traction.



I know we had a couple of discussions about this already. I reckon we can agree that we don't agree. :-)
#34
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305782875' post='8575']

Even a great lens has a certain degree of decentering.

One of the local magazine used to measure the centering during their MTF test (at 40 lp/mm) and even the greatest of the greatest lenses had a centering variation of 5% ... brand new. And even the greatest of the greatest lenses should be used so these 5% will deteriorate.

[/quote]

I'm not suggesting we all build a sensor assuming we can feed it with diffraction limited f/1.4 optics, but my feel is we are able to extract more detail out of the better lenses already existing than we can with existing sensors. Personally, I am quite a cropper, so if that detail exists, I want it lens flaws or not. At least until Sigma invents an anti-gravity attachment for the 200-500/2.8. If the lens potential isn't there, you haven't really lost anything worse than a little capacity on your storage device.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#35
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1305783778' post='8576']

What is the point then with more megapixels ? [/quote]



Well, some people print big so they'll appreciate more MP. The same goes for those who often crop their images. But I agree, for the vast majority it is pointless. Apparently there is only one major point for more megapixels: Marketing managers are convinced that "More MP == More sales".
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)