Practical differences in resolution...

[hnl_imaging]

<p>At the risk of causing a bit of stir...<br>

It seems that around various places on the net, there are many who say that a camera such as the D7000 won't work well with such and such a lens because it has so much more resolving power than say, a D90 or D300s. It seems like the jump from 12.3-16.1 mpx isn't that huge, but is there some sort of threshold in there somewhere where all these old lenses wont perform on the newer bodies?<br>

The D7100 is quite a bit of a jump so that makes more sense. I am just wondering why I keep seeing it posted that a lens that seems to work beautifully on a D300 is made completely obsolete by the d7000. Especially since the Sony people and the D800 people seem to be using these lenses and getting really good results with similar or greater pixel density/resolution. <br>

Does any one have an explanation?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>It seems like the jump from 12.3-16.1 mpx isn't that huge</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was what used to think as well, until I got the 16MP D7000 in 2010 and started using my old 500mm/f4 AF-S on it. That lens is the first AF-S version (introduced in 1996) and I bought it in 1998. It had been great on various film SLRs and early digital SLRs such as the D100, D2X, and D300; I used to use it wide open at f4 most of the time.</p>

<p>On the 16MP D7000, I realized that I had to stop down to f5.6 to get the best results. Since then, I have tried several other lenses such as the 600mm/f4 AF-S VR (2007 version), and on the newer high-pixel DSLRs, I too need to stop that lens down a bit and the difference is fairly obvious.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>interesting... I wonder if it is worth downgrading a body to continue to use lenses reasonably?<br>

Whats the point in having better resolution iff it makes your lenses look worse? or makes reasonably priced lenses look bad when they otherwise would've been fine. </p>

 

[andylynn]

I had the same experience. The D7000 does manage a noticeable increase in details over the D90. When I got one it

made the differences between lenses more pronounced.

[andylynn]

But another thing to keep in mind, you don't end up with worse images from the high-resolution camera. For example,

take a D700 and a D800 and take the same photo with the same lens. If you view the photos next to each other on the

screen at 100% you will think the D800 photo is worse. But that's because you are viewing it at higher magnification.

You're magnifying the flaws. If you print the photos at the same size the D800 photo will probably look better.

[PapaTango]

<p>The real question here is not so much about the fact that increases in resolution reveal the limitations of a particular optical formulation and design--but rather what outcome the photographer is satisfied with. Here is a simple example.</p>

<p>My first digital camera was a Minolta Dimage 7. A whopping 5mp--but I was mostly still shooting lots of film with Canon A-1 and medium format. It was fine for its purpose. When that purpose changed a couple years later, I bought an XTi. Big image difference. We don't question the resolution jumps here. So, lenses were bought for the Canon.</p>

<p>Segue to January of last year. It was time to upgrade, due to the desire for printing much larger images. Naturally, my first look was at a new Canon digital body--as I already had a lens kit. The upshot was that the longer lenses performed reasonably well--but nothing stellar and needed stopped down one or two more to eke out the best performance. The clear losers were lenses both prime and zoom in the "normal" range of under 100mm. Even 3 additional stops did not fully give as sharp and full contrast range as a similar new Canon lens. The word I want to use here is "soft."</p>

<p>Understanding that in order to deliver the best performance match to body and lens would require buying a new stable of lenses, I began to look at the Nikon D7100 system. Just a couple more MP in the sensor--but whether Nikkor or Sigma lens--still showed a bit of performance edge over the similar Canon 70D. Long story short, I am now a Nikon person...</p>

<p>So my discovery was that older EOS lenses did not give as good performance with better resolution sensors unless stopped down a bit more--and the best outcomes were in longer lenses. Still not on a par though with lenses using current design technology. We are not even speaking yet on the matter of focal response times, OS performance, or optional lens programming to tailor focal sweet spots. Lens technology has moved on--especially for second tier producers such as Sigma and their Global Vision line.</p>

<p>But that stated, back to the core of the question. The XTi was handed of to my grandson and future son-in-law. They are thrilled with the thing--and go ooh and ahh over the pictures--almost all to be viewed digitally. I on the other hand need prints of 13x19 and larger--and am quite thrilled with my current setup. <strong>Different expectations, different needs. </strong></p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Andy, now that is the real question... I have printed, in the past, 20x30s from an 8 mpx (30D) and 6 mpx (10D) with a little help from photoshop. and they look pretty decent. Especially from ~4ft away or so. But neither of those out resolved the lenses, as far as I am aware. But the prints, in general, were beyond what most seem to consider the practical limit of those sensors. <br>

SO, if I were to print past the limit of say a 30D (8mpx) and closer to the useable limit of a D7000 with the same lens (theoretically...) at say 20x30, you won't notice the difference? That is great! I haven't had a chance to try something similar yet. <br>

I have been contemplating using an old lens that people say is passed its prime, on a D7000 and may end up making larger prints with it (wife likes to print big). If it doesn't really magnify the flaws as bad as every one makes it sound, it may be doable. </p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>True enough. It is quite frustrating that the new lenses aren't affordable. They are actually quite outrageous. </p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>you don't end up with worse images from the high-resolution camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the main point. If you look magnified at 100%, nearly every camera-lens combination has some flaw of sorts. Does that invalidate the image? Point is: either camera or lens sets a limit to how much information can resolved. Up till a few years ago, it was the sensor, now sometimes it is the lens. In both cases, you'll end up with an image that has a certain resolution, and hence can be only be enlarged so much, to a certain size where the flaws will become visible.</p>

<p>If you're happy with 12MP images with some lens, and then get a 24MP sensor, you will still get equally fine 12MP images. You can print equally large without worries. Maybe the lens cannot resolve the full 24MP you now have, but that only starts to matter when you want to print larger (or make very aggressive crops). So, if you feel 6MP for a print was fine before (and indeed at normal viewing distances, it can be enough), more pixels will look at least as good, and potentially better. There is no loss, only potential gain.<br>

Sure, if you want to get the best from your camera, you may have to rethink how you use your lenses, but in real life, are you going to stop using certain apertures because at 100% magnification it now doesn't look as swell as it did with 12MP? Or will you just use the aperture that suits your creative idea, as you did before?</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Aye, great. used D7K is the first "hi-res" sensor I've owned. Reading about it makes it seem worse than it is. Thanks.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I know that when I moved over to Nikon D800 everything I read about lenses made me very nervous, even Nikon only had a small list of lenses that they were prepared to recommend for use with it. When contemplating an addition to my kit I nearly always add D800 + the lens into my search title, but there was one notable exception the AFS 24-85 3.5-4.5 G bought as a cheap, light, general purpose "holiday" lens, meaning that I was prepared to accept its limitations, but, I'm very pleasantly surprised. It is however a contemporary lens designed for FX.</p>

<p>I think I've become a bit skeptical about resolution being the problem, my take on this is that our views on what makes a good looking image subtlety change over time, manufacturers seem to be aware of this and modify lenses to match our prevailing values - I only own one old Nikon lens a 75-150, and even on a D800 it always makes me smile because it images always take me straight back to the 80's.</p>

 

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Clive, yeah, color seems to be a real difference for sure. I found that at least in Pentax. The old lenses were nice in a lot of ways but didn't render the same way as the new ones did. <br />I have been contemplating the purchase of an older lens and have seen some amazing things out of it even on digital. Even on D800 others, but when ever I look at D7k with this lens I only see "it doesn't have the resolution to be good with this body, its beyond its prime." The lens should still have the same character which would make it desirable, but when reading about it, it seemed that the new bodies amplified the flaws in the lens so that say even a small print done with that lens would look terrible. But I haven't had a chance to try it. <br>

I know from Pentax I was a little concerned about the resolution of some of my old M and K series lenses, but they were nice in many other ways. Many of them were really sharp. But the color looked quite a bit more natural than the new lenses (usually...). The new lenses seemed a little over saturated and some times a little overdone in print for some reason. </p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Jason, one of the joys back when I had a Fourthirds system was trying out all sorts of legacy lenses, Minolta, Leica R, M42, Contax/Yashica, there was a purpose behind this, as a sculptor I'm obliged to supply pictures of my work for all sorts of purposes, I'd developed a personal view that virtually every sculpture seen on the net was being photographed by either Canons or Nikons and there was sameness to the images, I wanted mine to be subtly different hence trying these lenses out. There is no quicker way of getting to see the philosophies of each different company, I found Pentax to be a bit harsh and hard for my taste, I got to appreciate the differences between Zeiss and Leica etc.</p>

<p>Where you say, "it seemed that the new bodies amplified the flaws in the lens" I'd probably say amplified the lens' character - of course there are many lenses that were never any good to start with. And you can't expect a 1980's lens to take a 2016 picture or visa versa for that matter. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Ah, the curse of pixel-peeping!<br>

However, it's only natural that if you've got a DX format camera with a 24 megapixel sensor that you want a lens that doesn't throw half of those pixels away with "empty data". Pure resolution is only part of the story though. CA correction and contrast have to be excellent as well.</p>

<p>There's no real comparison with a 36 Mp D800, D810 or even a 42 Mp Sony A7RII. The pixel density of a D7100 or D7200 would need a 54 Mp (!) full-frame camera to equal it. And remember you're effectively magnifying any lens defects by a factor of 1.5 over a full-frame camera when using the DX format.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Rodeo Joe, yep being able to see it really is awkward. Especially if its readily apparent. The question is, how apparent is it. <br>

Yes, the image should be more important than the lens defects, etc... but some times, especially with excessive CA those defects cover up the image quite literally some times. Softness maybe not as bad. And real contrast desirable as well. <br>

I am not sure how current this is, and I have other things going on... but back in the day the Canon 30D and 5D were said to have basically the same pixel density at 8mpx and 12mpx respectively. Proportionally the 5D was 12/8=3/2 more pixels over a full frame image. Providing that still holds, a D800=36mpx and a D7100=24mpx :. 36/24=3/2. IFF what you are saying is true, what else is missing in the math? They seem to be pretty equivalent otherwise, over the same sensor dimensions. <br />If the above is true, that would mean that the D600 should have about the same resolving power as the D7000 but produce a larger image. I get the 1 px worth of CA on full frame is probably ~1.5 pix on APS-C. But a drastic change in resolution isn't readily apparent. <br>

I am not saying you are wrong, just saying that I was pretty content with my gear for a LONG time and didn't keep up with this stuff until just recently when all of my gear changed. So what am I missing.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>With my D7100 I'm still shooting my Ais, manual focus Nikkors: 28mm 2.8, and 50mm 1.4 and 105 pre AI f2.5. These lenses just keep getting better with each camera upgrade! All are so sharp that if focused well (wide open for the 28, f2 for the 50, f4 for the 105) they don't need any sharpening in ACR when processing a full size 4000 by 6000mp image, which is 13.3 x20 inches at 300 ppi. I just don't see any degrading of image quality because of higher pixel resolution. The 105 goes back to the 1960's.</p>

[PapaTango]

<p>Steve, there are some of the old film lenses that were the finest of their kind in the day. One particular that comes to mind and I used with an adapter and the D400 was the Canon 100mm 2.8 S.S.C. prime. What a tremendous short throw tele, and superb for candid portrait work. Sharp, and nicely contrasty. </p>

<p>Some complain that against today's color rendition standards it is too "cool". We have come once again to what one expects, what ones eye sees, and what outcome they are looking for. </p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>I don't think there's any lens made that gives its best resolution wide open. On my D300, every lens I have improves as I stop down. By the thinking expressed by a couple of people here, none of my Nikon lenses are good enough for my D300, then, nor is probably any lens Nikon ever made.</p>

<p>The real question always should be are the results sharp enough for the prints you really do make, not against some theoretical idea of perfection, or prints you never will make.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>jason inskeep, you mixing up pixel count and surface area a little. Full frame FX is 24x36mm (864 square mm) and Nikon crop DX is 24x16mm (384 square mm). So FX has 2.25 times more surface area than DX.</p>

<p>So a 24 megapixel full frame sensor (like D750, D610) has the same pixel density as a 11 megapixel DX sensor (~D200).<br /> A 36 megapixel full frame (D810) has the same pixel density as a 16 megapixel DX (D7000).<br /> A 16 megapixel full frame (like D4S, Df) has the same pixel density as a 7 megapixel DX (~D70).</p>

<p>Megapixel increase is not the same as the increase in theoretical resolution. For instance 12 megapixel D300 to 16 megapixel D7000 is a 33% increase in megapixels but a 15% increase in theoretical resolution - square root of (16/12).</p>

<p>Most people don't make big prints to judge their image quality, they judge it by looking at 100% zoom on the screen. As the megapixels increase that means that people are a watching more and more magnified view of what the lens produces and the sensor samples. And of course they see that their lenses are not as sharp anymore. Improvements in lens design are not as fast as the theoretical resolution increase of the sensor. That's why all the old lenses are "crap" on a new camera. If people would make same size prints to compare cameras and lenses with, they wouldn't get as disappointed with their old lenses. But perhaps they'll be disappointed in how little their new camera has improved the quality of their prints.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Pete, thanks. I did know that the FX sensor and DX sensor are infact different sizes... I should've worked it out instead of going by the old fable that the 5D and 30D were equivalent if you were to crop the 5D down to APS-C equivalent.<br>

I admit, I don't print that big that often. But I do print that big when we can afford it and the wife wants something. The last large print I made was from the 30D. Other than that its been 8x10, 11x17. <br>

But, if the lenses behave the same way at the same print size basically regardless of the megapixels then it isn't a big deal. As long as the greater megapixel count doesn't exacerbate the issues to where I would have to print smaller. </p>

 

[hnl_imaging]

<p>I've never used my nikon lenses on any other camera, so I wouldn't know if there was a change. They are practically bran new to me so I have no idea how they act in print. I know one is pretty scary on screen sometimes though... </p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Steve, I have been really interested in that 105/2.5 ais. it is a pretty perfect focal length and max aperture. It generally seems to produce what I want in an image. It's worth looking at for the D7100? how soft is soft at f2.5-2.8. I would use it there fairly often. </p>

[SCL]

<p>Although pixel peeping is enticing for us perfectionists, when it comes to prints, the proof is in the pudding, as they say. And that relates to the viewing distance. It would be pretty unusual to be routinely viewing a 16x20 print from 12 inches away....more like 6-10 ft or greater. My experience with older lenses is that for that type of work, they usually do just fine...but if pixel peeped, I'd probably b disappointed.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>jason, there are several threads on this lens. Here are a couple:<br /> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bdAi<br /> http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cHZu<br /> I have a pre Ai "Sonnar" version (Ai'd by John White) I began shooting it in the late 1960's. When I got a D70 in 2005 I used it successfully as well and continue to use it with the D7100, although its a bit long for the "documentary" type of portraiture I do, where I like to be closer to my subject. Anyway, I believe mine is best at f 4 and usable at f 2.5. I've read many people have versions that are quite sharp wide open though. Its a great lens for the money, as many people have stated throughout various threads. Beyond sharpness, this lens is most sought after because of its smooth bokeh, apparently almost unrivaled.</p>

<p>Here's a shot I did with the D70, probably at f4.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/4550246</p>

<p>and my favorite of my daughter for graduation, pre digital on color film, again probably at f4<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/1522609<br>

portrait with natural lighting and the 105 on the D70<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/5448379&size=lg</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Not yet jason. Judging from comparisons with other lenses I have, the 105 is as sharp (mine at f4) and looks no less capable of enlarging as any other good lens. I am preparing a set of 16x20 inch prints from the D70 through the D7100. I haven't had prints made yet, but judging from the quality of enlargement with the current pscc acr, I think any good lens will be able to print a quality 20x30 starting with a raw file of the D7100. I think this is a good question to post on another thread to get the responses of people who have been making large prints. </p>