Nikon mount Zeiss lens resolves 320 lp/mm

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. nikojorj_jaimepaslapub, Mar 2, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. What a snore. There are no films or sensors in production that resolve
    anywhere close to that. All that wasted resolution does is aggravate Moiré
    in your dSLR.

    And twice the price of a lens that's just as good in real life isn't "very

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 2, 2006
  4. Zeiss wouldn't have done such a shot-in-the-foot, for the following 2
    reasons :
    - the press release says "resolve" 320lp/mm, it doesn't specify whether
    the MTF is 2 or 4% at this resolution ;oP.
    - I'm not really involved in that field (but I'd like and you are
    welcome to send me all the zillions dollars you want to support my
    personal knowledge and research in this area), but the only DSLR
    without AA-filter should be the not-very-common Kodak DCSPro14n?

    But saying that it is not a real problem doesn't imply it is one great
    step beyond anyway ;oPPP.
    nikojorj_jaimepaslapub, Mar 2, 2006
  5. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <du6jet$2um$>
    Film was used to test the Nikon F6 camera. Future Nikon DX sensors will
    be extremely high res.

    In the Uk the discount price for the Nikkor f1.4 50mm is 220UKP the f1.4
    85mm is 800UKP.

    Take your misinformation elseware. You pollute the newsgroups.

    deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006
  6. First some people claim that a D2X is a problem because diffraction kicks
    in a f/8 and then producing high quality lenses don't matter anymore
    because some people want to take picture of fabrics (and other man made
    Well, I think 500 euro for a new high quality lens is very affordable.
    I often pay more than 500 euro for second hand lenses.

    The Nikon 85/1.4 is more than 1000 euro, so don't any problem there.
    Philip Homburg, Mar 2, 2006
  7. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    I have no loss of resolution with my D2X at f8 with my Nikkor prime lenses.
    For landscape photography I can use all the resolution I can get.
    There is mention of a 10 blade iris. They sound very desirable lenses.
    The wideangles should be stunning.

    deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006
  8. deryck  lant

    Bill Funk Guest

    The Sigma SDx cameras don't have AA filters.
    Bill Funk, Mar 2, 2006
  9. deryck  lant

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Exactly. If you look at this chart:

    already at 40 lp/mm the MTF is below 40%. At 320 lp/mm it will probably
    be fractions of a %.
    Alfred Molon, Mar 2, 2006
  10. deryck  lant

    W (winhag) Guest

    I'd love to see a standout 50mm for Canon like that. I own the (Canon)
    50mm 1.4 and the 100mm 2.8 macro.
    The 50mm is quite a good lens but I can definately say from my
    experience (film and 20D) that the 100mm
    is better. (Better=less CA, more detail, and the images just look
    better in a way that is not obviously measurable by the standard
    tests-probably a combination of low distortion, low flare etc. etc.).
    So I think there is room to improve on the Canon 50mm 1.4 and I would
    love to see if Zeiss is the ticket.
    W (winhag), Mar 2, 2006
  11. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006
  12. deryck  lant

    SimonLW Guest

    SimonLW, Mar 2, 2006
  13. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    deryck lant, Mar 2, 2006
  14. deryck  lant

    Rich Guest

    What was the whine we heard from the FF crowd? "What if Canon
    goes all FF and the crop lenses you buy are then useless?"
    Same thing here. Maybe sensors could appear that do have the
    resolution of the lenses?
    Rich, Mar 2, 2006
  15. deryck  lant

    W (winhag) Guest

    In addition there are so many issues. The resolution is at center. What
    about the resolution across the field?. Plus other lens
    characteristics. I'm a believer in the more choices you have the
    W (winhag), Mar 2, 2006
  16. deryck  lant

    Alfred Molon Guest

    According to the MTF charts the resolution is "relatively" stable until
    about 20mm from the centre (at F1.4 and F5.6, between 10 and 40 lp/mm).
    Which is not too bad (although the MTF charts say nothing about the
    resolution beyond 40 lp/mm - I wonder why).
    Alfred Molon, Mar 3, 2006
  17. You know the Littleboy routine by now Rich...
    Pay peanuts, get monkeys.
    Crap in = crap out.
    No point in buying a $1000 lens if a $200 one is available.

    Every experienced Photographer in the world knows the difference between
    multiplier\zoom factor and crop factor except him. Why then would you expect
    him to comprehend the value of such a lens? It was proven in Television
    cameras 20 years ago that lenses which resolve more than the tubes could,
    still produced better pictures. This lens is forward looking. No doubt Zeiss
    expect sensors in the future to be able to handle this sort of resolution or
    maybe they just know that the value of better quality is understood by their
    target market?
    Tropical Treat, Mar 3, 2006
  18. Thanks for pointing them out, I forgot them!

    Nicolas, still curious to know what "resolves" means in terms of MTF
    nikojorj_jaimepaslapub, Mar 3, 2006
  19. SNIP
    What is useful in analog imaging, high modulation at high spatial
    frequencies, is probably not very helpful in sampled imaging. Sampled
    imaging has a physical resolution limit imposed by the sampling
    density. A good lens design would favor higher MTFs below that so
    called Nyquist frequency rather than a lower MTF but higher resolution
    beyond Nyquist, it's a typical trade-off. The higher the modulation at
    or beyond the Nyquist frequency (behind Anti-Aliasing filter), the
    higher the chance of Aliasing artifacts.

    Very dense sampling sensors (e.g. 2.5 micron sensel pitch) can be
    found in P/S cameras at the expense of having noise issues. The
    Nyquist frequency of such a sensor is e.g. 200 cycles (~linepairs) per
    millimeter. It is unlikely that for the better quality cameras that
    typically have sensel pitches of 6 micron and higher, which would mean
    83 cycles/mm and lower Nyquist frequencies, such very high lens
    resolution bring any benefit.

    So unless photon shot statistics can be changed, there is no benefit
    for a lens to resolve much more than some 80 cycles/mm with high MTF,
    quite on the contrary. High MTF for lower spatial frequencies is what
    does matter, and that usually means lower MTF for extreme resolution.

    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 3, 2006
  20. In the ISO standards it is mentioned that a modulation of 10%
    correlates quite well with limiting visual resolution. In practice
    that would mean that e.g. details with 10:1 contrast would be at the
    brink of being visually resolved, because approx. 1% is the luminance
    limit of visual resolution detection under a given level of ambient
    lighting. Lower contrast detail would be lost at lower spatial
    frequencies already, and higher contrast detail would be easier to
    visually resolve.

    If the Nyquist frequency still has a higher modulation than 10%, then
    that spatial frequency is taken as the limit because there is no true
    resolution beyond that limit in discrete sampled imaging, only

    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 3, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.