D3X and IQ loss from lenses

I hope it was OK to quote on from another thread, but I would to explore this further and didn't want it to get caught in

the shuffle.

 

 

Bruce Stenman wrote:

 

"It is a trade-off between getting 50% greater resolution (which with some lenses will reduce IQ) and losing high ISO

capability by a factor of 2 f-stops. Commercial photographers and people making fine art landscape prints for gallery

sales may see the D3x as an attractive alternative to a MF camera, especially in terms of price."

 

I need great detail and large files , so am considering this camera or possibly going MF. My cameras do pay for

themselves so this is not an issue, but yet I'd like to know about the loss of quailty with the lenses. I use all pro

lenses (2.8 or lower) so is this something I have to worry about with a higher mp camera, and if so, why. because of

my need for 5 fps I haven't made the MF leap so am thinking this camera would be a good compromise.

 

Can we discuss why the IQ goes down with some lenses...and which ones? And why? I know it's been discussed

before but I am unclear.

 

thanks :)

Melanie,

 

I can't help you I just wanted to tell you that I think you have a stunning horse gallery. And coming from me that means a lot. :-)

 

Lil :-)

I believe Bruce is referring to the loss of IQ from the sensor due to the fact that some lenses have a lower image resolution and/or quality than the sensor in the camera. This would mostly apply to the lower grade "kit" lenses, as the hi-rez sensor will now record every " defect" produced by a low quality lens. which normally is masked by a lower resolution sensor

I am no expert. The way I see it is one part will always be better than the other. You will only get the quality of the lowest component. That is you may have a super sharp lens and use it with a body that has low resolution. The image will only be as sharp as the sensor in the body. Or you may have a lens that is not so sharp and a very high res body. Then the image will only be as good as the lens can deliver. I suspect if you had one of the newer Nikkor zooms like the 14-24 or 24-70 f2.8 lenses and made an image at mid f-stop on this new D3X you would have the best resolution available currently from Nikon. If you instead used a 24-120 f5.6 or some other mid range zoom the image would not have as good resolution even though on a D3X and a lower end body would give the same result.

There are a few unusual examples of lenses designed for a lower resolution sensor not working well on a higher

resolution sensor, typically they're wide angles.

 

In general, increasing sensor resolution will result in improved sharpness in the image. The improvement is

greatest in the center of the image, and at mid apertures (f/5.6) whereas at small apertures (i.e. f/16) or large

apertures

(f/2) the image definition won't improve as much (due to diffraction and aberrations, respectively).

 

However, the D3X is not out yet - why not wait until the camera has been reviewed. The comments are likely to be

more accurate after people have actually used the production version. :-)

Forgive my ignorance... but what exactly do you guys mean by IQ in this context? Thanks!

Image quality.

Thanks for the comments, and yes I full intentions of waiting for reviews before dropping 8k!

 

And thinks Lil for your kind comment on my work :)

 

My "workhorse" lens is the 70-200 2.8, plus I have the 28-70 2.8, along wth 300 f4 AFS and unfortunately the 12-24 f4 DX (unfortunate only because I am done with DX format). And of course the 50 and 85 mm 1.8's. Plan to upgrade to the 14-24.

Melanie,

 

I started riding when I was 5. We bought our first horse when I was 7, but she was a Thorough Bred so I only rode her a little compared to my sister. I got my first own horse when I was 9 - an Icelandic. I started competing when I was 13 on a Connemara Pony. I took about 15 years off when I was 20. I've now been back with horses for another 16 years & have owned my present Warmblood for about 12 years.

 

I know horses & love them. I am incomplete without them.

 

I know a good photograph of a horse when I see one - - you have many........

 

I have the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 & the 300 AF-S f/4, the 50mm 1.8 & a MF 50mm f/1.2 as well.. - - I love them all. I would love to be able to afford the D3x. It is a camera I predicted on DPR a year ago & the guys laughed at me. They told me I was wrong about the name even.... Ah well.......

 

I need to get either the 105mm macro or the 85mm 1.8 or 1.4 (I liked the colors out of the 1.4 better....)

 

I make no money out of my photography. So far I'm paid in thank yous or hugs. Not too bad..... But I've just self-published my very first book & it would be nice if I managed to sell a copy or two... My sister has just told me today that she's thrilled I made this primarily for our father - she's sure he'll love it even though he prefers photos of people....

 

Lil :)

"but yet I'd like to know about the loss of quailty with the lenses. "

 

In other words with some lens you may find that they are not as good as others, particularly older designs. but unti people actually start shooting with theD3X he is just speculating. Lenses like the newish 14-24mmf/2.8G and 24-70mm f/2.8 and other newer lenses won't be problematic but a 20mm f/2.8 (which started revealing it's flaws a few years ago with the D2X generation) might be. Yo u will also start seeing a lot of people blaming the camera for what really is their poor technique.

<p>"Yo u will also start seeing a lot of people blaming the camera for what really is their poor technique."<br>

Truer words have never been spoken about image quality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>It is a trade-off between getting 50% greater resolution (which with some lenses will reduce IQ)</em><br>

<br /> It's a very-poorly worded, and rather nonsensical, statement.  It makes as much (and as little) sense as saying that using very fine-grained, ISO 50 film will reduce image quality with some lenses when compared to using those lenses with ISO 400 film.  The greater resolution of the sensor might reveal the limitations of some lenses, but it doesn't cause those limitations.</p>

<p>Well Melanie, since your 70-200mm is your workhorse, I'd look at whatever Nikon comes out with to replace or upgrade that lens. The chances of that lens revealing its optical shortcomings on the D3x are probably pretty good. So, if your plan is to get a D3x somewhere down the line, you'll probably need to consider an alternative. if you are open to non-zooms, you may want to try the 180mm 2.8 or the 200mm f2, both of which IQ wise are remarkable. My guess is a 70-200 update soon. Great horse photography BTW, very nice.</p>

<p>Oh, to more closely answer your questions, the drop in IQ with some lenses is really based on the lens design. The optical parameters surrounding zooms and the effects on IQ are well discussed. Less complex optical designs can are usually able to reach the furthest edges of optical performance. More complex designs (fast, constant f-stop zoom, VR) start to run into some constraints, and then some compromise usually is made, and those compromises may be revealed with improvements in sensors. <br>

Some  design constraints are size, weight, and cost.<br>

 </p>

<p>You don't lose image quality, it just might be that the lens is resolution limited so that going from 12 mpix FX to 24 mpix FX doesn't end up improveing image quality all that much. Since you're mainly going to use teles, you should be more safe than those using normal and wide angle lenses, but as said, anything before having actual tests is pure speculation. Note that the 70-200/2.8 does have unsharp corners on a D3, so it will have unsharp corners on a D3x, but you should know if this is an issue for you or not.</p>

<p>Christiaan..I have a story about my 70-200. I used to shoot with 80-200AF  so when the new one came out

I ws very happy. I got good sharp photos with it, but missed many many shots due out of focus, being soft, etc. Finall

y on one important shoot the lens died all together. Since I tend to blame my abilities rather than the equipment, I h

ad a hard time admitting it could be broken and had my local shop check it out, and sure enough it was the lens. N

ikon did a major repair on it, and now I have like a 90% "keeper" rate.  I look back at my catalog now and se

e so many soft images! So in the future I won't second guess myself...it may be the equipment and not the operator.

BTW this was the only piece of Nikon equipment I ever had fail....unless I'm in denial about the vignetting I'm getti

ng with a consumer lens I'm using as a walk around on a D300. To be honest sometimes I am shocked at the cheap q

uality of some of the Nikon lenses. I was showing someone how to use a D40 recently and wow that lens was real

ly almost useless imo. I'd rather have an old metal lens...in fact I do

lol.<br>

And Oskar, I use a D700 and haven't seen any trouble with lens...but then again I don't shoot edge to

edge. 90% of what i shoot is a moving target so rarely care about the edge of a corner. I guess landsc

ape and or buildings/interiors would care very much ho

wever.</P>

<p>the major fact that users will need to know and fully realize is that the higher you go in the number of megapixels in a dslr, assuming IQ is being maintained in the camera, the elss tolerant the lens/dslr system is for errors or imperfections of any kind. this means that not on;y do the lenses have to be of max quality to get the full power and resolution of the big sensor. but the user technique has to be opf a sufficiently high level of quality to match. and flaws in the user technique will now show in the images when they did not before in lower megapixel rated dslr. it is quite possible that with a very high megapixels dslr the IQ will actually decrease due nto the fact that the user cannot supply the tremendous technique required.<br>

m reichman on luminous landscape.com had several articles on this when he was reviewing the canon 1ds, mkII, and mkIII. he flat out stated that lenses that were glorious before simply will not work on the new 1ds type dslrs. also the technique has to be flawless otherwise every error will be seen in all their glory.<br>

lastly, there has been said several things that midgrade lenses will not work on the new high mps dslrs, they will you just will not be getting all the resolution posssible. heck, a kit zoom will work and take a picture, just that the resulting image will not have the resolution that could have been there.<br>

 </p>

<p>Melanie, I can relate, those newer Plastik lenses sure feel like a toy, especially compared to the hunks of metal I grew up shooting with. Sounds as if having a zoom is important to your style and methods of shooting, which is of tremendous importance, since How you shoot has an effect on How It Looks. I would also suggest the very fine 200-400mm AF-S VR, yes its big and heavy and expensive but that IQ as well is superb. But, once again, having that large bulky lens around horses may pose more shooting challenges. Like, if your working style with horses requires moving and shifting positions (quietly and unobtrusive I'm sure) then the extra bulk will hinder you, or you could work around it by the fact that the lens is so much longer, which allows you to be further away in the first place. The build quality of the AF-S long lenses is in another class, the 70-200 IMO is compromised in a few areas, one of which is durability, its about 80% of what it could be due to weight issues. <br>

I shoot polo as well as weddings, so I know about the challenges of equine photography. To guard against future important shoot failures, I would have you consider the AF 180mm. Its in your range of most useful length, its fast, light, fairly inexpensive (especially for the quality it delivers) amazing IQ (especially backlit, an area where it leaves the 70-200 far far behind) and the build quality I can personally attest to is very high, a very tough and durable lens. Yes, its not a zoom, but as a backup its light enough to throw it in to the bag to CYA. Hey, you may just boost it up to primary lens after using it a while.</p>

<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-

GB"><em></em></span><br>

 <br>

 <br>

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-

language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic" lang="EN-GB"><em>"Can we discuss why the IQ goes down with

some lenses...and which ones? And why? I know it's been discussed before but I am unclear."</em></span><br>

<em><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-

language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-style: italic" lang="EN-GB">As has been mentioned above, IQ doesn`t goes down,

it simply could become more evident or noticeable.</span></em><span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black;

FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-GB"></span><br>

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-

GB">Image formation geometry is not perfect but full of deviations. This are the aberrations, some are more evident

than others when high resolution sensors are used. Some lenses are designed to be used under certain conditions,

and a change of that conditions could limit the performance of the system. Lenses optimized for small DX sensors,

some "film era" lenses, etc. could not perform as expected on current FF sensors.</span><br>

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-

GB">A clear sample of this issue could be the “older” full format film wide angle lenses, or the current 70-

200VR. </span><br>

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-

GB">The most known aberration could be the longitudinal chromatic aberration or color fringing. This effect consists

on the dispersion of the different wavelenghts (colors) on the sensor surface. Roughly speaking it means that a

sharp point (subject) will not be captured on the sensor as a sharp point but on a blurred point. The image formed on

the sensor has been dispersed by the lens, and is shown with fringed colors instead of a sharp uniform point (or

line). This effect becomes more noticeable as far as the lens axis you go, and gets worst as the focal length

increases (tele lenses). Sometimes it cannot be avoided with smaller apertures.</span><br>

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-

GB">Higher definition sensors, with their smaller pixels, are able to capture this fringed color areas separately,

becoming more obvious under the screens, or at big enlargements.</span><br>

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">This

issues seems that can be partially corrected or minimized via firmware. The 70-200VR mentioned above has been an

astounding performer on DX cameras but not acclaimed by the first FX users… looks like firmware updates corrected

some of that corner unsharpness. </span><br>

<span style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB" lang="EN-GB">At the

D3X presentation was said that definitive firmware were not installed yet, this is crucial for lens testing. Current

cameras need to know what the lens used is in order to apply whatever the control they have over the image. We

must wait to have here the D3X to know about performance of lenses in this camera. As has been said here, surely

Shun will have fun testing the new camera…</span><br>

 </p>