How can lenses catch up to the developments in sensors?

[pradeep1]

How can lenses catch up to the developments in sensors? Or will they?

With the intro of the Canon 1Ds MkII, 16.7 MP full frame sensor, Michael Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape is saying that this sensor exceeds the resolving capacity of the best lenses available today.

So does this mean a limit in how high this megapixel race will go with full frame sensors (35mm equivalent), or are there any new developments in lenses that can push this further?

Back in the film days I remember how film was inadequate to capture the output of the best lenses and people fooled around with all sorts of chemical sharpening, etc. to make extraordinarily crisp prints. What happens now?

[Jon]

How they can? if Diffractive Optics work (they're still in the early stages), and nanotechnology will permit optical material with symmetric refractive properties, they may be able to get better. But one limit they're starting to run into isn't going to be so easily dealt with - and that's the wavelength of visible light. That affects diffraction and sensor element size, for two.

[photoguynorth]

I think the real question is - do they need to? How sharp is sharp enough? I can make prints from my Digital Rebel at 12x18, obviously the 1Ds Mk II can blow that away easily. At that point, I think most of us would want a smaller system that could do the same rather than ever-increasing detail and resolution that would be indistinguishable in prints. For the few who need higher resolution, maybe medium format digital systems would be a better solution.

[pradeep1]

Maybe I was dreaming of the magic of getting to make mega-prints (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/new_page_13.shtml)from the output of a small and portable camera. 8)
That photo in the link was actually made by a medium format 4X5 camera.

Yeah, but you are right, you do have the whole wavelength of light thing to deal with.

[Hellashot]

This guy might have made a statement to make a statement to sound important whether it is true or not. You might need to know an awful lot about optics, sensor technology, computers, and print technologies to make such a statement that is accurate.

[FlyingPete]

I read somewhere on the web of a guy doing landscapes and getting an equivelent of 20-50MP images by stiching a whole lot together (2x2 & 3x3).

Gets around the lens issue as well, shame it doesn't work for anything that is moving :(

[Tom W]

One should consider that in absolute sensor resolution, the 20D has a higher pixel density than does the 1Ds mk II.

I think that Mr. Reichmann is partially mistaken - while today's sensors (including the 300D/Rebel and the 10D) can clearly show the weaknesses in glass, in terms of line pairs/mm, good glass still outresolves digital sensors.

The problem is that overall resolution is a combination of glass and sensor, and is not directly limited by the weaker of the two. A sensor that can resolve, say, 40 lp/mm will still show the differences between glass that resolves to 80 lp/mm and glass that resolves to 60 lp/mm. In that respect, while the sensor doesn't outresolve the glass, it will clearly show the difference.

[defordphoto]

With the intro of the Canon 1Ds MkII, 16.7 MP full frame sensor, Michael Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape is saying that this sensor exceeds the resolving capacity of the best lenses available today.

You know what I find interesting is that the ultra-pixel-peepers say that even at 16.7mp that digital STILL does not meet the resolving capabilities of film. "They" say that film is upwards into the 25mp-plus range. Some claim even into the 30mp and above ranges. And who knows how "they" came up with those numbers.

That being said, back in the days when we were shooting 25mp film, this issue of out-resolving our lenses was never mentioned.

Why is it now? Are the pixel-peepers wrong? Does even 6.5mp out-resolve film? Or are they just doing too much peeping and over-inspecting digital files at 500% magnification.

[Tom W]

Or are they just doing too much peeping and over-inspecting digital files at 500% magnification.

Umm, you may be on to something there. Though, I limit myself to 100%. :)

[pradeep1]

This guy might have made a statement to make a statement to sound important whether it is true or not. You might need to know an awful lot about optics, sensor technology, computers, and print technologies to make such a statement that is accurate.

You may be right, but Michael Reichmann is a well respected photographer and author, so I do tend to listen to his opinion more than others. I personally have not seen what he has seen in terms of sensors out-resolving lenses, but then again I don't have a 1Ds MkII pre-production model to compare with, nor do I have access to the type of equipment he regularly seems to get to play with. But I wouldn't take his observations lightly, since he was the one who coined the term "pixel peeper". :P

So will we see any developments in lens technology that will "keep up" with these uber sensors that our beloved camera manufacturers will push on us in a few years? :wink:

Thanks for your thoughts guys,

[daveh]

That being said, back in the days when we were shooting 25mp film, this issue of out-resolving our lenses was never mentioned.

Really? I got into photography around 1970 and this was mentioned all the time then.

[pradeep1]

That being said, back in the days when we were shooting 25mp film, this issue of out-resolving our lenses was never mentioned.

Really? I got into photography around 1970 and this was mentioned all the time then.

Yeah, walk into a room of gearhead photographers and announce that you are shooting with a variable 20-35 megapixel sensor. When they look startled, let them know it's film. :wink:

[djtowle]

Use Bigger Sensors! At least thats what Nasa does for their cameras. Sorry don't have a link, it was some time ago I read about this.

[MarkH]

With the intro of the Canon 1Ds MkII, 16.7 MP full frame sensor, Michael Reichmann over at Luminous Landscape is saying that this sensor exceeds the resolving capacity of the best lenses available today.

Personally I do not believe this. In fact I don't think this is anywhere near being true.

The new 1Ds MkII only has the pixel size of a 10D or 300D or D60, even though it does have more pixels. The 20D has smaller pixels.

Lenses like the 300 f2.8L IS or the 100 Macro should have no problem resolving images for these sensors and for the sensors coming out next year and the year after.

[Andy_T]

One reason why the 1DsII would outresolve the glass earlier than a 20D is precisely that the 1DsII is a full frame camera.

So while the 20D has higher pixel density, it only uses the center of the lens, whereas the 1DsII also uses the corners (that normally bring up problems earlier)

Best regards,
Andy

[Canuck]

One reason why the 1DsII would outresolve the glass earlier than a 20D is precisely that the 1DsII is a full frame camera.

So while the 20D has higher pixel density, it only uses the center of the lens, whereas the 1DsII also uses the corners (that normally bring up problems earlier)

Best regards,
Andy

Just out of interest, where did you find that out?

[Andy_T]

One reason why the 1DsII would outresolve the glass earlier than a 20D is precisely that the 1DsII is a full frame camera.

So while the 20D has higher pixel density, it only uses the center of the lens, whereas the 1DsII also uses the corners (that normally bring up problems earlier)

Best regards,
Andy

Just out of interest, where did you find that out?

Actually, I didn't find that out myself.
However, if somebody sends me their 1DsII for an extended review, I'll do some scientific tests to prove the point 8)

Most lenses are softer around the corners than in the center.
Take a look at this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40700&highlight=2+0+135 where drisley posts some samples that show that even the 1.8/85 has a performance fall-off if you go to the corners.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Canuck, long time no see :wink:

[Canuck]

One reason why the 1DsII would outresolve the glass earlier than a 20D is precisely that the 1DsII is a full frame camera.

So while the 20D has higher pixel density, it only uses the center of the lens, whereas the 1DsII also uses the corners (that normally bring up problems earlier)

Best regards,
Andy

Just out of interest, where did you find that out?

Actually, I didn't find that out myself.
However, if somebody sends me their 1DsII for an extended review, I'll do some scientific tests to prove the point 8)

Most lenses are softer around the corners than in the center.
Take a look at this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40700&highlight=2+0+135 where drisley posts some samples that show that even the 1.8/85 has a performance fall-off if you go to the corners.

Best regards,
Andy

PS: Canuck, long time no see :wink:

I know, it was a hiatus. It was not due to me getting wound up over some flaming, actually a moving back to the other side of the pond. I miss the UK, it was so cool! At any rate, I will check out the link. I was thining moer in the chromatic abberation/vignetting area, rathaer than fall-off. I leave the forum for a few months and my skill get rusty :) It is good to be back on the forum.

Cheers,
Canuck

[pradeep1]

Something interesting and along these lines:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=346002#346002