...
Maybe point out where the exact "loss of information" is demonstrable?
....

I don't "do" mathematics, it's all intuitive for me. But in this instance, the difference seems obvious: the picture on the top is fuzzy, the one on the bottom is sharper. No need to specify any particular part of the image; I don't know if there are fewer dots per inch in the upper picture or what, and I don't know anything about the specifications of either camera, but there is clearly a greater "loss of data" in that picture. (Presuming that every image involves a loss of data, in that the conversion from continuous data to discrete data always involves SOME loss of data.)

[normhead]

I don't "do" mathematics, it's all intuitive for me. But in this instance, the difference seems obvious: the picture on the top is fuzzy, the one on the bottom is sharper. No need to specify any particular part of the image; I don't know if there are fewer dots per inch in the upper picture or what, and I don't know anything about the specifications of either camera, but there is clearly a greater "loss of data" in that picture. (Presuming that every image involves a loss of data, in that the conversion from continuous data to discrete data always involves SOME loss of data.)

With all respect to James Brown
Hep me, hep me please.

[dbs]

You can pixel peep all daylong but is the captured image worth the trouble.
Just use your lenses on your camera and crop to suite

[pschlute]

I don't know if there are fewer dots per inch in the upper picture or what

Dots per inch (dpi) is a property of a printer. The metric has no relevance to viewing a picture on a screen.

[GUB]

The metric has no relevance to viewing a picture on a screen.

Just as viewing an image on the screen has no relevance to the technical abilities of the lens that took it.

[Wheatridger]

Not resolution, but total pixels projected onto a sensor.

The problem is there are fewer of those "best" pixels. Would you still insist the same if we used a FF-lens on a phone-size sensor?

---------- Post added 02-12-21 at 11:52 AM ----------


Would you care to elaborate which step in my logic is faulty?

Your APSC body has a certain amount of pixels. It's the same regardless of which format lens you use. You could have your sensor seeing all of an APSC lens' image circle, or you could be cropping away half the FF lens' image. Either way, my K3 gathers 24 mpx worth of information.

These matters really aren't worth worrying about. Resolution and detail is a problem solved, for at least the past decade.

[normhead]

Your APSC body has a certain amount of pixels. It's the same regardless of which format lens you use. You could have your sensor seeing all of an APSC lens' image circle, or you could be cropping away half the FF lens' image. Either way, my K3 gathers 24 mpx worth of information.

These matters really aren't worth worrying about. Resolution and detail is a problem solved, for at least the past decade.

When we were selling images our best seller was a 10 MP Optio 90 image printed at 30x20.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Can you clarify what you mean by "captured resolution" ?
Is this the final IQ of the image after lens quality and sensor performance are combined?

I know its kind of loosy goosy term but the what the the combined resolution you are able to pull from both the lens and the sensor performance together

---------- Post added 02-21-2021 at 11:53 PM ----------

Nice one swanlefitte.
Looking back over the thread I feel angerdan's links (post #32) are interesting.
Nikkor AF-S 58mm f/1.4 G (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
Nikkor AF-S 58mm f/1.4 G (DX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis
MTFs below
They really show the dulling influence of the pixel count on the end result of the image.

And if we look at the tamron 35 and the nikon 24 1.8 they show the same pattern

Also here
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens...mp=0&APIComp=0

Certain amount of nonsense here; a "picture element" ("pixel") is a discrete element of a total image, whether it's the result of digitization by the sensor or displayed on a monitor, or for that matter, detected by photoreceptors in the retina. Discrete is discrete, continuous is continuous. And, by the way, a fuzzy picture is still just a fuzzy picture no matter what kind of math you use to describe it. If I look at two pictures and one's sharper than the other, what counts is what I see. You can get lost arguing about technicalities, but image quality is what the viewer thinks it is when he sees the image; that's where the rubber meets the road, so to speak.