Overkilling the sensor

In the October 2006 issue of Shutterbug magazine, I read in the Digital Help section a response to the following question called “Overkill?”

“….if I buy a super-expensive lens of top quality will it be overkill for the sensor?

David Brooks of Shutterbug answers:

Your basic assumption of “overkill” is probably correct. The limiting factor, given that the lens is well corrected for distortion, is really the resolution of the sensor. Generally until you get into pricier digital SLRs with 12 or more megapixel resolution, the advantage of a professional-grade lens will not be markedly realized.

Anyone have other thoughts about this?

No, the lens makes a picture, not the camera.

I would think that a nicer lens 'pampers' a cheezy camera like my XT.

Actually a better camera mainly has better features, whereas a 'less professional' camera will take mainly the same pic, right?

Someone correct me if i am wrong

BTW, i am getting a 70-200 2.8L IS for my cam this month, so will i get crappy pics?
2000 dollar lens, and 1000 dollar camera.
Of course not, the lens makes a picture better. Thats just what i have heard

I disagree with the first post...

glass for the win...if you take an expensive camera and use a crappy lens, you get crappy pics...if you get an entry level DSLR with nice glass, your pics will come out sharp, clean, etc...regardless of the mpx...unless it's like 2 mpx...lol

Thats what i have heard. Thats why the glass is so dang expensive!

Some L lens' definitely will out resolve a XT/XTi/30D sensor. So the original post is correct. There's a point where the galss can take a sharper picture than your camera can produce.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2112594
Some L lens' definitely will out resolve a XT/XTi/30D sensor. So the original post is correct. There's a point where the galss can take a sharper picture than your camera can produce.

But the big aperture/build/focus speed etc. also provides an advantage beyond just the resolution.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2112617
But the big aperture/build/focus speed etc. also provides an advantage beyond just the resolution.

Yeah I know - But that doesn't have anything to do with outresolving the sensor

If someone has a 300 2.8 IS and a 400 2.8 IS im sure they wont be shooting with an XT/XTi... well hopefully

What a load of crap!

He may be referring to the 45 point autofocus of the 1 series cameras as opposed to the 7 to 9 autofocus points on lower end consumer cameras. I have also heard that there's really a difference taking photos with the 5D with consumer glass vs. L glass. Many on these forums and others have said that you need good glass with the 5D as opposed to the XT, for example, because the difference is very noticeable. Perhaps that's what this fellow was referring to.

From my experience I would say this is good advice. Anyone who has seen what lenses can do on a large sensor will know that it definately makes a differnce. For example, from my experience the 50 1.4 on a 5d out performs a 35 1.4 on a 20d, however the 35 1.4 on the 5d is in a world of its own. The larger sensor will let you see a lens at its full potential for certain

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2112594
Some L lens' definitely will out resolve a XT/XTi/30D sensor. So the original post is correct. There's a point where the galss can take a sharper picture than your camera can produce.

In any given system there is always a weakest link, everytime you fix it, the weakest point will just be somewhere else until there is nothing left to improve on. So if you have a XT/XTi/30D with the kit lens, the sensors on those cameras will out resolve the kit lens, so you upgrade to something better that out resolves the XT/XTi/30D, then you go and get a 16MP 1D, once again it out resolves your new lens, so you upgrade to say a ED85L f/1.2, what then?

surfologist wrote in post #2112507
BTW, i am getting a 70-200 2.8L IS for my cam this month, so will i get crappy pics?
2000 dollar lens, and 1000 dollar camera.
Of course not, the lens makes a picture better. Thats just what i have heard

to a certain degree but when i was using the 1d mark II N everything came out sharper + just looked better, and im talking no PP raw files compared to my 20D with the same lenses.

Most queer.

Really though, it seems to me to be like the difference in film quality. The more you enlarge the image, the more you are going to see the weakness in your film (sensor). I find that my 300D with it's 6.3 megapixel sensor will look just great at 13x19, even with some cropping, as long as I use a good sharp lens for the job. If I went to enlarge it to 130x190, then each pixel will be 10 times larger per side, and you would see the step-shape on angles, rather than smooth lines. On a cheap film, your image might look good small, but if you enlarged it 10x, you would see the flaws in the film showing.

As far as needing 12mp to realize the quality of the pro lenses, I have a book on nature photography where every image was taken with a 3.2mp camera, and let me tell you, they are AWESOME. And what was the original 1D? Something like 4mp I think. I'm sure it still worked better with L glass than without.