Overkilling the sensor

Think about this guys.

Optics,...like your eyes, often have ridicluously more resolution than most digital sensors, say an 8MP sensor.

baybud wrote in post #2113005
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.

its all about pixel density to compare these two models mate!

the revered author of that fine magazine is correct to a point. There is more to a fine lens then resolution. Build quality, AF speed, Color, contrast....... on and on...

I think people will take that exerpt from the magazine a little too literal. I mean sure, you'll definitely have an improvement replacing consumer lenses with L glass on say an XT, but what I think the writer was saying that there's still some improvement of IQ to be seen when using better sensors.

Upgrading a part of your rig will defintely net improvements, but not as much improvement as completely upgrading your whole rig.

Here is an example list of quality:

1(bad) : XT with kit lens
2 (better): XT with some L glass
3(BEST): 1D with L glass

I think that is the main point, eh?

liza wrote in post #2112698
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.

That could simply be the benefit of crop cameras using only the center sweet spot of the lens. Since the 5D goes to the edges of the lens you get to see all those nasty warts out on the periphery of consumer lenses that "L" glass (supposedly) does not have as bad.

For straight up image resolving power I would think the 20D/30D/XT/XTi would be more demanding since the pixels are crammed closer together (the 5D is ~ equivalent to a 6mp sensor when cropped).

Don;t know technical stuff
but after i replaced Sigma 18-200mm with 24-70L 2.8 and 70-200L IS 2.8
my rebelxt started taking different pictures, i mean completely different

it all comes down to pixel density. THe same glass will always seem sharper on a body with huge pixels. That's part of the reason why 5D is sharper then 30D/400D. So u actually need a better lens on the 400D than u need on the 5D. Take a 50 1.8 for example. It performs much better on the more expensive camera than on the cheap one. SO it's the other way round.
On the other hand u trade edge performace for center performance. I'd say that 3000x2000 is what most people REALLY need, myself included so from my pov the whole MP race is counterproductive, leading to soft pics and high iso noise.

liza wrote in post #2112698
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.

I dunno, I definately don't have high quality glass for my 5D, but even my 28-135 take stunning pictures, I can't imagine what they're gonna look like when i'm shooting a 70-200 or 16-35

Dante King wrote in post #2113719
its all about pixel density to compare these two models mate!

obviously, but it doesn't stop the fact that it produced better pictures.

The author expresses himself badly by giving the impression that attaching a high end lens to a low end camera will not improve the image. Of course it will. The image will then take a further jump up the quality scale by removing the low end camera and attaching one whose sensor can resolve a higher lpm. Also obvious.

For birders, the lens should ideally be much sharper than what the sensor can resolve. This is for us to add TCs and gain additional, effective system resolution.

Romy

Geez what's to argue about? The author essentially said that a high end lens could capture a better picture than a camera of low resolution could. There's nothing untrue about that. A 85 1.2L would outresolve the sensor of a Digital Rebel. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use that lens on a Digital Rebel. It just means the picture will appear sharper on a camera with higher resolution.

Ive seen this on photozone.de reviews, it seems when the MTF results go beyond 2000 he says that is exceeding the detail the sensor can resolve.

Maybe extreme setups might have this, like a £8000 lens on a 350D, the same lens would be better on the 16mp Canon, but I dont think we have to worry about this, I say buy the best you can afford when it comes to lenses, bodies are all about the same quality at the moment, with a body its really about features..

Nick

What I read is precisely the opposite of your statement ... and what is occurring in present day (top of the line) digital photography.

Presently, the resolution of top of the line optics are about to be surpassed by sensors ... lens makers are scrambling to improve optical resolution to keep up with sensors. Many are talking liquid lens and such to break the optical resolution ceiling barrier of glass.