10-01-2011, 08:22 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1317273853' post='11957']
I think the original misconception was/is that our LW/PH figures were meant to show the lens resolution, not the total system resolution.
Knowing that the lenses still outperform the sensor (in the center) we chose the parameters in the way that they are close to the center ceiling resolution in the best case.
[/quote]
Most lenses "outresolve" sensors at larger apertures, actually, certainly in the centre, except if they are really bad. Having said that, in the end it still is about system resolution, which is the end result, and that is always lower than the lowest common denominator. In most cases this is the sensor resolution, except where diffraction limits lens resolution to values lower than the sensor resolution.
Kind regards, Wim
I think the original misconception was/is that our LW/PH figures were meant to show the lens resolution, not the total system resolution.
Knowing that the lenses still outperform the sensor (in the center) we chose the parameters in the way that they are close to the center ceiling resolution in the best case.
[/quote]
Most lenses "outresolve" sensors at larger apertures, actually, certainly in the centre, except if they are really bad. Having said that, in the end it still is about system resolution, which is the end result, and that is always lower than the lowest common denominator. In most cases this is the sensor resolution, except where diffraction limits lens resolution to values lower than the sensor resolution.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....