If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Is there any graph that shows lenses versus sensors?
That is, is there anything that says at what
point sensor resolution outstrips current lenses in terms of what they are capable of delivering? Lenses have theoretical limits to resolving power, but sensors don't, as far as I know. -Rich |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
That is, is there anything that says at what point sensor resolution outstrips current lenses in terms of what they are capable of delivering? Lenses have theoretical limits to resolving power, but sensors don't, as far as I know. -Rich For Canon L series lenses, it's probably around 25 megapixels. This is based on Linepairs Per Milimeter (lp/mm) comparisons between the best film (slow speed slide film) which reolves around 75 lp/mm and extrapolating the resolution up from the Canon 1Ds Mark II which resolves aroung 60 lp/mm. It's certainly possible that some lenses are capable of resolving well beyond the 75 lp/mm of the best slide film, so the limit of sensor resolution could be even higher, but the lenses had no way of really being tested beyond the limits of the best film. One table that may be of interest to you can be found at: "http://www.katharos.org/david/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemi d=32" Lp/mm is one more reason why larger sensors make sense as resolutions increase. The Olympus E300 for sure, and probably the Nikon D2x, are already exceeding the resolving power of many of the lenses that work with those cameras, not because of the resolution, but because of the lp/mm that are a result of the small sensor size. This is an interesting subject, and I'll probably add lp/mm to the web site tables. Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:36:30 GMT, SMS
wrote: RichA wrote: That is, is there anything that says at what point sensor resolution outstrips current lenses in terms of what they are capable of delivering? Lenses have theoretical limits to resolving power, but sensors don't, as far as I know. -Rich For Canon L series lenses, it's probably around 25 megapixels. This is based on Linepairs Per Milimeter (lp/mm) comparisons between the best film (slow speed slide film) which reolves around 75 lp/mm and extrapolating the resolution up from the Canon 1Ds Mark II which resolves aroung 60 lp/mm. It's certainly possible that some lenses are capable of resolving well beyond the 75 lp/mm of the best slide film, so the limit of sensor resolution could be even higher, but the lenses had no way of really being tested beyond the limits of the best film. One table that may be of interest to you can be found at: "http://www.katharos.org/david/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemi d=32" Lp/mm is one more reason why larger sensors make sense as resolutions increase. The Olympus E300 for sure, and probably the Nikon D2x, are already exceeding the resolving power of many of the lenses that work with those cameras, not because of the resolution, but because of the lp/mm that are a result of the small sensor size. This is an interesting subject, and I'll probably add lp/mm to the web site tables. Steve http://digitalslrinfo.com Doesn't this imply that resolution of some of the P&S cameras is around 200 lpmm? Compared to around 100 lpmm for DSLRs because of the much smaller sensor sizes of some high pixel count P&S sensors? "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
[] Doesn't this imply that resolution of some of the P&S cameras is around 200 lpmm? Compared to around 100 lpmm for DSLRs because of the much smaller sensor sizes of some high pixel count P&S sensors? Yes, in terms of linear resolving power, the lenses for some P&S cameras will far exceed the resolution of some DSLR lenses. Shock, horror? No. David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
That is, is there anything that says at what point sensor resolution outstrips current lenses in terms of what they are capable of delivering? Lenses have theoretical limits to resolving power, but sensors don't, as far as I know. Sensors do. The limit of the sensor is imposed by Nyquist - an anti-alias filter is required to ensure that the response of the sensor is zero at half the element spatial frequency. In practice, some AA filters are better than others. David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" wrote in message . uk... SNIP Yes, in terms of linear resolving power, the lenses for some P&S cameras will far exceed the resolution of some DSLR lenses. Shock, horror? No. Indeed, although some will be shocked. Due to the tiny physical dimensions of the sensor array the image needs a huge magnification for output, which will reduce the resolution rapidly (and magnify the noise and lens aberrations). I use the same criterion as suggested in the http://www.katharos.org/david/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemi d=32 table intro, sensor lp/mm divided by magnificaton (from sensor array size to output size) should not fall below a certain quality level (e.g. 8 lp/mm for close viewing), anything less is a compromise. Bart |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
RichA wrote:
Doesn't this imply that resolution of some of the P&S cameras is around 200 lpmm? Compared to around 100 lpmm for DSLRs because of the much smaller sensor sizes of some high pixel count P&S sensors? Consumers love megapixels. Even many DSLR buyers look only at resolution, without looking at pixel size, and those that are smart enough to look at pixel size are usually doing so only from the perspective of noise versus ISO, and deciding that they don't need high ISO capability, they aren't looking at the lpmm. You can look at threads in this newsgroup regarding the noise issues of some DSLRs. I think that lpmm is probably one of the reasons that Canon ended up with three different size sensors for their DSLRs (which probably drives their marketing group crazy). It's not that engineering didn't understand the cost benefits of sticking with a smaller size, it's that it made no sense to have a high resolution digital SLR with a small sensor. Try explaining lpmm to a customer that understands only megapixels. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
"David J Taylor" wrote in message . uk... SNIP Yes, in terms of linear resolving power, the lenses for some P&S cameras will far exceed the resolution of some DSLR lenses. Shock, horror? No. Indeed, although some will be shocked. Due to the tiny physical dimensions of the sensor array the image needs a huge magnification for output, which will reduce the resolution rapidly (and magnify the noise and lens aberrations). I use the same criterion as suggested in the http://www.katharos.org/david/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemi d=32 table intro, sensor lp/mm divided by magnificaton (from sensor array size to output size) should not fall below a certain quality level (e.g. 8 lp/mm for close viewing), anything less is a compromise. Bart I think it would be more helpful to take sensor size out of the equation, and think of line pairs (or cycles) per picture width when trying to compare DSLRs and P&S, although I also find the idea of representing an MTF curve with a single value as too great a simplification. David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
SMS wrote:
[] Try explaining lpmm to a customer that understands only megapixels. Cycles per mm are only a relavant measure if the sensor size is the same. Cycles per picture width are a more relevant system comparison. David |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"David J Taylor" wrote in message news SNIP I think it would be more helpful to take sensor size out of the equation, and think of line pairs (or cycles) per picture width when trying to compare DSLRs and P&S, although I also find the idea of representing an MTF curve with a single value as too great a simplification. That's almost (I used LP/PH) exactly what I posted some time ago, http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/Imatest/SFR_Graphs.png, but that needs an understanding of how such a curve translates to real life images. Also, MTF doesn't tell the whole image quality story although it does describe 'resolution' and contrast better than a single number ever could. Bart |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX | Duncan J Murray | 35mm Photo Equipment | 89 | April 23rd 05 08:01 AM |
To K , M, or A. What's a guy to choose? | Pat OBrien via PhotoKB.com | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | April 19th 05 04:05 AM |
[LONG] Theoretical estimates for film-equivalent digital sens | Ilya Zakharevich | Digital Photography | 52 | April 9th 05 09:06 AM |
[Survey] -Prime Lenses in the kit -results | Orville Wright | In The Darkroom | 69 | June 29th 04 02:38 PM |
Pentax "K" & "M" Lenses ? | Radio Man | 35mm Photo Equipment | 16 | June 23rd 04 10:23 PM |