FF lenses for the most part aren't perfect past 40mp
 

On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:57:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Proof can be seen between the the new flagship Sony and the A7RIV. While the A7RIV with its 61mp count does show some extra detail, the image is softer than the flagship with its fewer pixels.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a1-review/5

It all depends upon the nature of your photography.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4a92fnamy...04235.jpg?dl=0 is a
shot taken in very poor light 1/20 sec, f2.8, ISO 2000, hand held. I
find the fact that the bracing wires are clearly delineated for the
depth of the shot quite satisfying. That was shot with 24Mp and I
doubt that double that number would have enhanced the quality of the
photograph.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

FF lenses for the most part aren't perfect past 40mp
 

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 21:26:25 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 20:52:12 UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:57:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
Proof can be seen between the the new flagship Sony and the A7RIV. While the A7RIV with its 61mp count does show some extra detail, the image is softer than the flagship with its fewer pixels.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a1-review/5
It all depends upon the nature of your photography.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4a92fnamy...04235.jpg?dl=0 is a
shot taken in very poor light 1/20 sec, f2.8, ISO 2000, hand held. I
find the fact that the bracing wires are clearly delineated for the
depth of the shot quite satisfying. That was shot with 24Mp and I
doubt that double that number would have enhanced the quality of the
photograph.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Quality is subjective and resolution can vary in "quality." I've seen astronomical shots that displayed terrific resolution but relatively poor sharpness, but there it's defined more by seeing conditions and aperture.
However, I do not think the average lens is capable, even stopped down, of displaying all the resolution and sharpness that is theoretically possible with these new 40+ MP sensors.
Nikon has done a good job with its new mirrorless lenses, if an "average of quality over the whole line" is tested.

Basically, I am agreeing with you. For the ordinary person +50Mp is of
no real benefit.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

FF lenses for the most part aren't perfect past 40mp
 

Am 24.04.2021 um 02:52 schrieb Eric Stevens:
It all depends upon the nature of your photography.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4a92fnamy...04235.jpg?dl=0 is a
shot taken in very poor light 1/20 sec, f2.8, ISO 2000, hand held. I
find the fact that the bracing wires are clearly delineated for the
depth of the shot quite satisfying. That was shot with 24Mp and I
doubt that double that number would have enhanced the quality of the
photograph.

To assess the sharpness we would need to have a look at the 24 MP image
file (what you posted is downsampled to 1MP).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

FF lenses for the most part aren't perfect past 40mp
 

Am 29.04.2021 um 12:43 schrieb Incubus:
On 2021-04-29, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 April 2021 at 04:37:48 UTC-4, Incubus wrote:
On 2021-04-24, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 23 April 2021 at 20:52:12 UTC-4, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2021 22:57:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:
Proof can be seen between the the new flagship Sony and the A7RIV. While the A7RIV with its 61mp count does show some extra detail, the image is softer than the flagship with its fewer pixels.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a1-review/5
It all depends upon the nature of your photography.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4a92fnamy...04235.jpg?dl=0 is a
shot taken in very poor light 1/20 sec, f2.8, ISO 2000, hand held. I
find the fact that the bracing wires are clearly delineated for the
depth of the shot quite satisfying. That was shot with 24Mp and I
doubt that double that number would have enhanced the quality of the
photograph.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Quality is subjective and resolution can vary in "quality." I've seen
astronomical shots that displayed terrific resolution but relatively poor
sharpness, but there it's defined more by seeing conditions and aperture.
However, I do not think the average lens is capable, even stopped down, of displaying all the resolution and sharpness that is theoretically possible with these new 40+ MP sensors.
Nikon has done a good job with its new mirrorless lenses, if an "average of quality over the whole line" is tested.
Don't tell the fraud Ken Wheeler that.

Nikon's Z-mount is physically larger, which certainly gives design benefits.
Lenses will be heavier and costlier, however.

Yes, they're haven't been the advancements yet that will allow things like a major reduction in lens elments in complex (zoom) lenses, though they had been predicted some decades ago. The most significant two advancements have been the incorporation of ED glass and aspheric molded elements which have lessened chromatic and spherical aberration, respectively.

I think it was Canon who pioneered the use of fresnel lenses to keep the size
and weight of telephoto prime lenses down. Once the patent expired, Nikon
began offering similar lenses. I read that Nikon has a patent on using a
fresnel element in a zoom lens but Canon has brought a 70-300 that uses one to
market.

If Fresnel lenses were good, we would all be using them by now.


--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

FF lenses for the most part aren't perfect past 40mp
 

In article , Alfred Molon
wrote:

If Fresnel lenses were good, we would all be using them by now.

many people are.