[bossa]

I know this was a rhetorical question - but in all probability the total piece of crap lens on FF will outperform the Zeiss on APS-C in terms of resolution. That's the point - that the change in format is a huge factor in terms of resolution per picture.

I say this both as an owner of a Zeiss lens and a FF camera (but primarily just understanding the optics/tests involved).

I'm sure someone could dig out a 1963 JC Penney lens that's been scratched to hell... but in terms of new lenses sold today, 95% of FF lenses out-resolve the best 5% of APS-C lenses.

Whether any of this matters to you...?

This is why people get confused. The term 'resolution' when applied to photographs is problematic due to the fact sensor size combined with output can give a false representation of 'resolution'. The photograph that captures more real estate due to sensor size is deemed of a higher resolution due to the amount of information captured but it is not necessarily a higher resolution in absolute terms. When viewed at 100% it is possible that the smaller sensor may in fact be a higher resolution system in absolute terms.

People here were asking questions about their lenses and it seems to me that the lw/mm answers those questions better than the lw/ph measurement. IOW, for lenses where they have only been tested on APS-C and you're wondering how those lenses would perform on FF, it would be easier to extrapolate from lw/mm measurements which are more likely to exist than measurements on non-existent sensors. As both measurements depend on pixel density it would be necessary to consider that when attempting to project the future IQ of a system using existing glass. Those things being 'equal' I suppose in the end it would make little difference which measurement scheme you used as long as the format was known.

---

Last edited by bossa; 11-14-2012 at 01:53 PM.

[LFLee]

This is why people get confused. The term 'resolution' when applied to photographs is problematic due to the fact sensor size combined with output can give a false representation of 'resolution'. The photograph that captures more real estate due to sensor size is deemed of a higher resolution due to the amount of information captured but it is not necessarily a higher resolution in absolute terms.

out of topic.... bossa, looks like you have been switching to Nikon FF and selling your Pentax. Would like to know how is the conversion going for you? money wise and lenses?

Lee

[bossa]

out of topic.... bossa, looks like you have been switching to Nikon FF and selling your Pentax. Would like to know how is the conversion going for you? money wise and lenses?

Lee

The lenses I bought 'used' I made a profit on. The lenses I bought from a local store I made large losses on. The lesson here is only buy used if you intend selling down the track.I have not been able to sell the remaining items at what I would call a reasonable 'loss' so I may keep them.They are at a store for sale on consignment right now so I'll see how it goes.

I regret selling the DA*55, FA31 & FA77. If I had to do this again I would sell off all the musical gear I have laying around that I'll never use again instead.

Lenses I have bought:
70-200 VR 2 is a great lens but heavy. 9/10
Sigma 150 macro OS not available for Pentax but pin sharp and a super-achromatic lens 9/10
Zeiss 21/2.8 fantastic and expensive (but I paid 1600 for my FA31 anyway.. stuff is expensive here in OZ when you buy new from a store) 9/10
Nikon 35/1.4 is my current favourite prime.. probably as sharp as the FA31 but on FF 9/10
Sigma 50/1.4. I bought this as a portrait type lens so I didn't mind the edge softness but I am thinking because I hardly use it I would have been better off buying a Nikon 50/1.8. 7/10
Sigma 85/1.4 A nice lens for portraits and low light anywhere else. Sharper than the Nikon 85/1.4 in the center of the frame early on, which is why you buy a f/1.4 lens 8/10
Nikon 300/4 Sharp but doesn't seem as nice as my FA*300 F4.5 was. I really wanted a 400mm but they don't appear to be available in 'affordable' on Nikon. Still, with the TC 14E II it's a reasonable compromise. 8/10

I probably overdid it a bit as my initial intention was to buy one camera body and 3 primes, keeping my Pentax kit for my general use. But it didn't work out that way after I had focus issues with the 1st body. I thought it was the lenses (Sigma) as I couldn't get them to AF fine-adjust correctly. In the end I swapped the 150 for the 70-200 after going through 4 copies (150). It really screwed me around and I got confused, forgetting my original plan. After buying the 70-200 I realized that it was the camera that needed an adjustment and that I still needed a Macro... After the expense of the Zoom and then the new macro I had to start selling things to get things under control again and it just spiraled a bit further out there ... my bad as they say.

The gear is great though and I can't complain.

[normhead]

I regret selling the DA*55, FA31 & FA77. If I had to do this again I would sell off all the musical gear I have laying around that I'll never use again instead.

I severed a tendon in a finger on my left hand a few years ago and it's useless trying to play guitar without completely retraining myself, but I still have to have a guitar around the house. I can't play it, but it has to be there. Maybe musical equipment is just like that.

Your take on this is so different than mine. My feeling was if was going D800 Id' start with the 14-24 which is apparently latest thing since sliced bread in landscape lenses. If I was going FF it would definitely be FF for landscape and stay with APS-c for telephoto work. My only other initial lens would have been the Tammy 28-75, which seems to be very highly rated on FF systems as well. Good to see that 35/1.4 is working out for you. Good information.

[bossa]

I severed a tendon in a finger on my left hand a few years ago and it's useless trying to play guitar without completely retraining myself, but I still have to have a guitar around the house. I can't play it, but it has to be there. Maybe musical equipment is just like that.

Your take on this is so different than mine. My feeling was if was going D800 Id' start with the 14-24 which is apparently latest thing since sliced bread in landscape lenses. If I was going FF it would definitely be FF for landscape and stay with APS-c for telephoto work. My only other initial lens would have been the Tammy 28-75, which seems to be very highly rated on FF systems as well. Good to see that 35/1.4 is working out for you. Good information.

The D800 is also a APS-C camera in 1.5 crop mode so the need for a second APS-C camera is not all that important unless it is a higher (24MP) resolution APS-C than the 15MP that crop mode offers. I was hoping that Pentax would release a 24mp camera instead of the two K-5 II models as this would have allowed a higher resolution for telephoto work than a D800 offers in crop mode. When I realized it was going to be another year before they got something like that going I just decided to make a break.

I decided against the 14-24 zoom because of it's size and the fact it can't take filters and flares badly. The Zeiss is a better lens anyway and is sharp right from f/2.8 (and sharp into the corners on a D800) unlike the Nikon. But it would have been a very nice lens to own just the same.

Regarding guitars, I have ten of them as I was a professional guitarist for 35 years. When I say 'gear' I am more referring to effects pedals, amps and recording equipment than guitars. I'm sitting here with a wall of guitars behind me right now. Things wouldn't be the same in this studio if they were gone.

Sorry to hear of your accident Norm.I'd be shattered if that happened to me.

[bossa]

Just as an example. The following picture is of two birds at near the top of a 60' Gum Tree.

D800E AF-S 300/4 and TC 14E II in 1.5x crop mode: Scaled back to 2000 pixels on the long side


100% crop from full file:


Somewhere near the top of this tree: D800E & Zeiss 21/2.8

[RonHendriks1966]

Just as an example. The following picture is of two birds at near the top of a 60' Gum Tree.

D800E AF-S 300/4 and TC 14E II in 1.5x crop mode: Scaled back to 2000 pixels on the long side

some fine equipement.

[bossa]

some fine equipement.

Cheers Ron

[Cannikin]

LW/PH is a phoney resolution format as it also takes into account the sensor size and disregards the absolute resolving power of a system.

LW/PH is no more a "phony" measurement than "1080p" is a "phony" measurement for TV resolution. Argue all you want about the merits of a 32 inch 1080p TV vs a 46 inch 1080p TV (maximum LW/mm for a sensor would be roughly analogous to DPI/PPI), that doesn't change the fact that both can output at most 1080 horizontal lines across the entire image.

[bossa]

LW/PH is no more a "phony" measurement than "1080p" is a "phony" measurement for TV resolution. Argue all you want about the merits of a 32 inch 1080p TV vs a 46 inch 1080p TV (maximum LW/mm for a sensor would be roughly analogous to DPI/PPI), that doesn't change the fact that both can output at most 1080 horizontal lines across the entire image.

The point is that lw/mm removes the sensor size as a factor but retains the sensor pixel density as a factor. Ultimately though, you are correct in that the output is all that matters, relative to the viewer.

PS. Yes I should not have used the word 'phony 'but it's too late now and point taken. But LW/PH is still NOT an absolute measure of resolution but a relative one re' picture height. Only the ability of the system to resolve fine lines or double stars can be used as a true measure of the 'actual' resolving power of an optical system. For the photographer though, this may seem irrelevant for every day use because, as in reality, size does matter.

[WPRESTO]

Question: are the images you get satisfactory?
If YES: don't lust for a different camera/sensor;
If NO: look carefully at new or different sensor options.

Corners sometimes do, frequently do not contain important image information. Vignetting was commonly, even frequently added during B&W printing specifically to suppress corners and emphasize the central image, especially in portraiture. In virtually all of my nature photos, Bokeh is what matters in the corners. So don't sweat the corners.

[normhead]

But LW/PH is still NOT an absolute measure of resolution but a relative one re' picture height. Only the ability of the system to resolve fine lines or double stars can be used as a true measure of the 'actual' resolving power of an optical system. For the photographer though, this may seem irrelevant for every day use because, as in reality, size does matter.

I've spent quite a bit of time trying to establish a relationship between LW/PH and IQ or apparent resolution in the real world, and as you know, I've been pretty much unsuccessful. The D800 just flat out kicks butt, but so many other FF systems don't. When you're talking lenses, I know I can see the difference between lens separated by 200 LW/PH , on the same sensor, but I can't seem to find a convincing argument for seeing a difference of LW/PH on sensors. For me the D800 stands out in a class of it's own, and no other DSLR camera seems to offer significantly more than a K-5. The only possibility I think of right now is that the D800 is the only FF camera that fully exploits the capabilities of an FF sensor using current technology, the difference being the MP count. I can't find a theory to explain it, I just know what I'm seeing.

[Clavius]

Corners sometimes do, frequently do not contain important image information. Vignetting was commonly, even frequently added during B&W printing specifically to suppress corners and emphasize the central image, especially in portraiture. In virtually all of my nature photos, Bokeh is what matters in the corners. So don't sweat the corners.

I agree, corner performance is not important to some styles of photography. But have you ever tried panorama-stitching with lens with corner and/or border issues? It would be a complete and utter disaster. Same goes for macro work where stacking or stacking and stitching is involved. Or even normal landscaping. And architecture. Real-estate work. etc... For all those applications the uniform resolution of a good FF lens on a crop camera is very helpfull.

[vonBaloney]

I agree, corner performance is not important to some styles of photography. But have you ever tried panorama-stitching with lens with corner and/or border issues? It would be a complete and utter disaster. Same goes for macro work where stacking or stacking and stitching is involved. Or even normal landscaping. And architecture. Real-estate work. etc... For all those applications the uniform resolution of a good FF lens on a crop camera is very helpfull.

Or anything where you want to frame a foreground element off-center, e.g. a huge percentage of any art photography. For instance, if I take a picture of a rustic running fence with posts running off into the distance, am I going to frame that foreground post right in the center? No way -- it is going to be on the extreme edge with the rest of the fence (likely OOF) running through the center of the image to the opposite edge. Edges are hugely important -- it pretty rare that I put "the subject" smack dab in the center as that usually makes a dull picture. Rule of thirds anyone?

[WPRESTO]

Clavius & vonBalony: Granted, and at times I want sharp edges/corners, but generally those can be obtained a stop or two down. It's just that the feverish preoccupation with ultimate sharpness, which lens and which sensor, wears me down. Composition, lighting, subject, "the moment," etc, etc will almost always trump lab determined differences in resolution, sharpness, etc. I'd rather have a better eye/imagination than a better lens/sensor.