Optical constraints for DSLRs > 36mp

[longzoom]

I don't think the article is saying these lenses are rubbish, or that you need to replace your lenses.

What it's saying is that there is no point is buying a higher-resolution camera if those are the lenses that will be paired with it.

So in fact, he is saying that if you are happy with your current lenses, and they are not on the list, then you don't need to buy the higher resolution camera.

  Some of my lenses that are not on the list, will cover the next 60+ MP sensors of the next generation. LZ

[Peter Forsell]

The article seems to ignore the fact that the final system resolution is the convolution of lens resolution and sensor resolution. In other words, you get more resolution in the end product by either using a higher resolving lens, or a higher resolving sensor, or for highest gain, both.

There is no such thing as sensor outresolving a lens or vice versa.

[Birna Rørslett]

--
There is no such thing as sensor outresolving a lens or vice versa.

If that were true, we would never be bothered by moiré or aliasing artefacts.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I don't think the article is saying these lenses are rubbish, or that you need to replace your lenses.

What it's saying is that there is no point is buying a higher-resolution camera if those are the lenses that will be paired with it.

So in fact, he is saying that if you are happy with your current lenses, and they are not on the list, then you don't need to buy the higher resolution camera.

You have three sentences all saying three different things. I don't agree with parts.

Sentence 1:
Yes that is what he says,
Yes it is true

Sentence 2:
Yes that is what he says,
No - a higher resolution camera can benefit older lenses. This is what the solitaire attests to, and I can confirm

Sentence 3:
I'm not sure if this is what he is saying, but that doesn't matter much.
I believe that buying a higher resolution camera makes a difference with lenses on and off his list.

[the solitaire]

If that were true, we would never be bothered by moiré or aliasing artefacts.

I'm no expert on optics, but moiré is the lens outresolving the sensor, and the sensor making the best of it? Or did I get that wrong. Because I remember moiré being a serious issue with the D100 and D70 back in the day

[Birna Rørslett]

Moiré is one of the expressions of "spurious" resolution due to insufficient spatial resolution of the sensor (compared to what the lens delivers of transferred contrast towards the Nyquist limit). In that sense, the lens can definitively "outresolve" the sensor.

A sensor "outresolving" the lens would yield increasing amounts of mush, as the lens cannot render detail with sufficient transferred contrast at high spatial frequencies.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Most modern lenses will be able to handle high MP just fine, provided your willingness to stop down.
I'm sure many have the 50mm/1.4 AIS lens. Close than down to F5.6, the sharpness and detail is amazing on my D810. Wide open, that's another story, not so great that is.

There are many cases where a lens out-resolves the sensor or vice versa. The science that goes into this stuff is almost esoteric, it's very messy and confusing, especially since cameras have their own algorithms to handle the photos, and on top of that, programs to read and edit will have a say in the final result as well.

Monochromatic sensors yield superior sharpness and resolution for any lens compared to colour sensors, all lenses designed for the VIS spectrum will produce the best MTF under green light.
Debayering must be accounted as well.

In microscopy, it's important to match the camera to the microscope setup's resolution. ie we don't want the camera out-resolving the microscope setup (softness, mush), or vice versa (moire!). However when it comes to non-monochromatic sensors, stuff such as debayering and the camera baking raw files (not a true raw) must be accounted for as well. An objective might be calculated to match a 24MP fullframe sensor, but we need to account for tolerances, so I would suggest a 36MP instead. That's also why I haven't upgraded my D810, 36MP is all I need, 45MP is too much. My microscopy setup can't handle that, as it's matched to around 22MP on FX.

Read more here: https://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials/matching-camera-to-microscope-resolution

Too add to the mess, there's also the case of resolution drop-off. There's many lenses that are very high resolution, however they suck when coupled with an FX sensor since the corners are just horrible. An example would be the 5x NA0.28 HR objective lens I have. It has an NA equal to my 10x objective, it stomps all the 5x lenses I have in terms of sharpness and resolution, this however only applies to the centre, perhaps just 10% of it. Anything outside of the centre is basically unusable. However I can also push this lens to 10x, making it almost as good as my native 10x. This is why lenses designed for smaller sensors have higher resolution, they need to resolve smaller pixels, a more complicated design is required. Don't be surprised at those massive M4/3 or Fujifilm DX lenses, they need that size.

Or tl;dr, don't worry about this stuff, modern lenses are good enough and will handle that 45 of 60MP FX sensor just fine. Knowing this information won't make better looking photos. Framing is more important than the lenses' ability to capture lines printed on glass.

[Tristin]

With how few people really have any need for >~12mp (myself included the vast majority of the time), I find the resolution concerns people have to be generally amusing.  I can't wait to hear the cries for more MP and sharper lenses once the triple digits have been attained.

"I viewed a portrait at 100% and the surface texture of my subject's eye boogers lacked acuity, unacceptable!"

[Macro_Cosmos]

With how few people really have any need for >~12mp (myself included the vast majority of the time), I find the resolution concerns people have to be generally amusing.  I can't wait to hear the cries for more MP and sharper lenses once the triple digits have been attained.

"I viewed a portrait at 100% and the surface texture of my subject's eye boogers lacked acuity, unacceptable!"

Don't show it to your subject, (assuming) she will want to smack you after seeing the skin. 

[the solitaire]

With how few people really have any need for >~12mp (myself included the vast majority of the time), I find the resolution concerns people have to be generally amusing.  I can't wait to hear the cries for more MP and sharper lenses once the triple digits have been attained.

"I viewed a portrait at 100% and the surface texture of my subject's eye boogers lacked acuity, unacceptable!"

After seeing results from a 12 Mp D3 and a 36 Mp D800 back to back for a few years, I do see one advantage in having those extra pixels, eve if it is mainly to produce 12 Mp files from those 36 recorded Mp.

High ISO noise. Some might say, the D3s is a lowlight beast, made to be used at high ISO, but the extra pixels of the D800 allow for even higher ISO speeds to be used. When the files are reduced to a lower resolution, most of the noise is reduced to a level where it is no big issue.

I found myself using my D3 at no more then 1100 ISO and started losing detail as soon as I used higher ISO speeds. The noise produced wasn't really bothering me, but the loss of clarity really was an issue for me. With the D800 I now go up to 2000 ISO and still feel that there is plenty of clarity in small details, after reducing file size a bit.

In that sense, the files I get from the D800 are far better then those from the D3, even if I resize both files to 12 Mp.

The D3 had better white balance and color accuracy however. Files from the D3 hardly needed editing in that area, where the D800 files need quite some tweaking to get the colors right

[arthurking83]

All this talk of higher resolution, more Mp's and whatnot, not only amusing but in my view a lot of BS too.

1/. you don't buy a new camera with more megapixels(eg. D800/810 -> D850) in isolation!
It's bought as a system in itself. The D850 will have a better(cleaner) ISO, which turned out to be the case. It'll have better AF, It'll have better buffer clearing times, it'll have faster frame rates .. etc.
Maybe some folks buy the higher resolution camera for the fact that it has more pixels, but the reality turns out that it has better 'everything else' factor that comes with it.

So the photographylife article is pretty much a load of hot air, not really realising the reality of buying a so called "higher resolution camera"
Articles like these are usually best ignored so that the creator doesn't attract any more attention than they deserve!

Then you get articles from other sources that complain when Nikon(or any other manufacturer) .. DON'T!! .. make next gen products with more pixels!

To my mind the issue is not the number of pixels(more or less), products, manufacturers. engineering, gear(ie. lenses or otherwise) that users have .. it's simply that such articles should just be ignored so that the authors don't get any more airtime.

I've gone from 6 to 12, to 24 to 36Mp, and have never seen any real issue with any sub par, or inadequate lenses on higher and higher res camera models.
It's not that the image quality is actually reduced in any way! it may not be a quantum leap of extra pop or wow factor if that was the expectation, but the notion that Nikon should stop making >36Mp sensored cameras is stupid!
May sound harsh, but it's the reality of it.
Nikon should make whatever they feel is necessary to sell as many of that product as they think they can. If that means a 100Mp Fx sensor D850 replacement, this is Nikon's call to make, not another internet based armchair expert!
This then becomes my option(should I choose) to have one or not.

Basically, Mansurov should just stop chasing a dream he could never hope to achieve .. and that is for Nikon to make for his own pleasure a product based on his expectations!
ie. if he doesn't want more than 36Mp sensor product, why upgrade to a 45Mp one!

He needs to realise that his choices are for him to make and not for Nikon to enforce upon him.

 

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to the 100Mp D850 update to go with my Hanimex 70-600 f/4.5-5.6 consumer lens from 20 years ago! 

[John Geerts]

High ISO noise. Some might say, the D3s is a lowlight beast, made to be used at high ISO, but the extra pixels of the D800 allow for even higher ISO speeds to be used. When the files are reduced to a lower resolution, most of the noise is reduced to a level where it is no big issue.

It's not only the lower noise, but also the better colour (Color fidelity) and luminance at high ISO where the D3s excels. Despite the downsizing advantage of the D800/850 the D3s clearly wins *(should it be a contest). With some minor color chrominance corrections ISO 12800 gives clean results.   

[Macro_Cosmos]

So I actually read that article...

Except in some cases, as it turns out, increasing camera resolution is pretty much pointless if lenses do not have enough resolving power to be able to provide enough detail.

Do I need to elaborate on how wrong and stupid this statement fundamentally is?
Yeah, I won't.

Then he makes a list of lenses that Nikon recommends for their D850, crossing out ones that can't handle 45MP as he claims to counter his previously made statement. Many lenses need to be stopped down which substantiates to my statement of "provided one's willingness to stop down".

His test provides us with 2 conclusions:
- Higher MP yields more resolution for any lens
- Newer lenses are able to yield better MTF numbers on higher resolution cameras
I honestly did not expect the 14-24 to do that well, it's almost a decade old, it was designed well ahead of its time.

His conclusions are pretty baffling. "No major improvement on 45MP, therefore the lens can't resolve 45MP". That's just fallacious at best.
He never compared the result to lenses that aren't on the list, so it's not even a controlled test and thus his conclusion is absolutely useless.
I won't call a score of 3000+ in the centre on the 85/1.8G "unable to resolve 45MP".
The 28/1.8E is interesting. 4162 in the centre by F2.8 but 2214 mid-frame, whereas the 24/1.4G gets 2356.

While it's true that some lenses are resolution bound, I question the claim of "not being able to resolve 45MP". If anything, Nikon should make more modern F-mount lenses optimised for high MP, not stop making high MP bodies. There's plenty lenses on the market that handles 45MP just fine, such as the printing-nikkor/Nikon Rayfact lenses, Schneider's Xenon-Sapphire lenses and the Macro-Varon... the list goes on, the author acknowledges it with third party manufactures such as Sigma and Tamron in his conclusion. There's plenty people (like myself) who use the camera as merely a digital back, Nikon's F-mount lenses doesn't matter too much to me, it's merely convenience when it comes to ordinary shooting. What I need is a good ecosystem, clean images (ISO 64!), and ergonomics, all of which Nikon offers on their D850 DSLR, in fact it's the only one that ticks all boxes.

Nikon might not enhance their F-mount F1.8 and F1.4 lineup until the Z-mount is fully established. However if they wish to put out more DSLRs with high MP, they probably should, unless the DSLR market shrinks or something. I'm still waiting for the 24 and 45 PC-E to be modernised, which I guess will never come.   

[simsurace]

45MP is too much. My microscopy setup can't handle that, as it's matched to around 22MP on FX.

Isn't this statement somehow similar to this one:

Except in some cases, as it turns out, increasing camera resolution is pretty much pointless if lenses do not have enough resolving power to be able to provide enough detail.

?
I wonder what happens if you use your above-mentioned microscopy setup with a 45MP sensor.

[Macro_Cosmos]

Isn't this statement somehow similar to this one:

?
I wonder what happens if you use your above-mentioned microscopy setup with a 45MP sensor.

Let's see… so my lenses are able to resolve about 22MP. Having debayering and other in-camera baking in the equation, 36MP is about enough.

Let's say my lens can resolve one pixel on a 22MP fullframe body. Now the same pixel is split into about 4, ie 1/4 of a pixel, and there's 4.

This results in essentially "digital enlargement", otherwise called "mush". So I'm wasting megapixels and there's no improvement. This analogy is overly simplistic, but it epitomises the need to match camera resolution to the lenses.

The two fields can't be compared. Nikon can just make new lenses optimised for higher MP. Objectives manufactures can, but they won't. An objective lens is intended to be used on a microscope.

Adequate working distance is required for lighting, therefore the only way to get higher NA while retaining acceptable working distance would be to make the objectives bigger, which doesn't work as they won't fit on a microscope turret anymore. One can shrink the working distance to get higher NA, this however would make lighting difficult and yield a thinner depth of field, essentially making it harder to use. "Closing down" isn't an option, the relay lens should always be wide open but it can't be too fast or else spherical aberration will kick in, along with other weirdness. The equivalent aperture after the pairing is well into diffraction territory already.

This is obviously not the case for consumer lenses, Nikon etc can just make bigger bulkier lenses with more sophisticated optical formulas. Market defines everything, there's no industrial or scientific need for massive microscope lenses optimised for large sensors and high MP. 

That's why the statement stands when it comes to applications that are truly limited by either physics, consumers, or both. For commercial photography, neither is the case, therefore his statement is fundamentally wrong. Considering that most never go beyond 1:1 when it comes to macro, it's safe to say the author never considered this case nor does he care.

Moving up to a d850 will be incredibly beneficial for me, however not on the MP side. The d850 has a fully electronic shutter, the d810 only has EFSC. At 10x and beyond, shutter shake becomes an issue. The d850's tilt screen is a welcomed addition, as well as far better liveview capabilities, as I don't pair my system with a computer. I own the 70-200 F2.8E which will benefit from the far better AF engine, and my Nikon Rayfact and Xenon-sapphire lenses will pair well with 45MP.

That said, I'd much rather have a d8x0 with that newer 36MP 16-bit Sony sensor.

Hope it makes sense.