When is 24-50mp not 24-50mp? When the lens won't support it

In article , Rich A
wrote:

No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't support edges,
you either put-up with second-rate images, you crop (which reduces
overall resolution) or you frame images so as not to include the far
edges of the lens, which also reduces total resolution. Specific
area resolution is ok, provided the lens is decent in the centre, if
you frame an animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the field,
that part of the field will have a higher resolution than the same
area done with a camera with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is
poorer in the centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution. Tragically, it seems
more than a few people buying into high megapixel full-frame cameras
(some of which are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those poor souls
are left to soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative
images.

So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP Canon 5DS
and put crap lenses on them? If not, what's your point?

--
Sandman

On 19/12/2015 23:05, Sandman wrote:
In article , Rich A
wrote:

No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't support edges,
you either put-up with second-rate images, you crop (which reduces
overall resolution) or you frame images so as not to include the far
edges of the lens, which also reduces total resolution. Specific
area resolution is ok, provided the lens is decent in the centre, if
you frame an animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the field,
that part of the field will have a higher resolution than the same
area done with a camera with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is
poorer in the centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution. Tragically, it seems
more than a few people buying into high megapixel full-frame cameras
(some of which are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those poor souls
are left to soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative
images.

So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP Canon 5DS
and put crap lenses on them? If not, what's your point?

An example might be something like a cheap and cheerful Nikkor 18-35 G,
which scores 24 "Perceptual Megapixels" on a D800E according to DXOMark.
The similar focal length equivalent and price $750 lens on 1/4 frame
Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 rates 9 Perceptual Megapixels, and in terms of
"equivalence" is the same as an 18-36mm f8-f11 lens on FX.


For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G thoroughly and totally
annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH, yet the
Nikkor is less than 1/2 the price.

On 2015-12-19 23:17:36 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 11:30:09 UTC-5, Me wrote:
On 19/12/2015 23:05, Sandman wrote:
In article , Rich A
wrote:

No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't support edges,
you either put-up with second-rate images, you crop (which reduces
overall resolution) or you frame images so as not to include the far
edges of the lens, which also reduces total resolution. Specific
area resolution is ok, provided the lens is decent in the centre, if
you frame an animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the field,
that part of the field will have a higher resolution than the same
area done with a camera with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is
poorer in the centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution. Tragically, it seems
more than a few people buying into high megapixel full-frame cameras
(some of which are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those poor souls
are left to soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative
images.

So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP Canon 5DS
and put crap lenses on them? If not, what's your point?

An example might be something like a cheap and cheerful Nikkor 18-35 G,
which scores 24 "Perceptual Megapixels" on a D800E according to DXOMark.
The similar focal length equivalent and price $750 lens on 1/4 frame
Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 rates 9 Perceptual Megapixels, and in terms of
"equivalence" is the same as an 18-36mm f8-f11 lens on FX.


For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G thoroughly and totally
annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH, yet the
Nikkor is less than 1/2 the price.

DXO mark is for zombies. A "sport" rating? WTF is that supposed to mean?

Yup! They don't even have to gonads to test the Fujicon XF line-up. Pathetic.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 20/12/2015 12:21, RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 19 December 2015 05:05:44 UTC-5, Sandman wrote:
In article , Rich A
wrote:

No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't support edges,
you either put-up with second-rate images, you crop (which reduces
overall resolution) or you frame images so as not to include the far
edges of the lens, which also reduces total resolution. Specific
area resolution is ok, provided the lens is decent in the centre, if
you frame an animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the field,
that part of the field will have a higher resolution than the same
area done with a camera with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is
poorer in the centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution. Tragically, it seems
more than a few people buying into high megapixel full-frame cameras
(some of which are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those poor souls
are left to soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative
images.

So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP Canon 5DS
and put crap lenses on them? If not, what's your point?

--
Sandman

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56933808

Re-posting / citing that pathetic waffle is incredibly lame RichA - even
by your standards.

On 20/12/2015 13:22, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-12-19 23:17:36 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 11:30:09 UTC-5, Me wrote:
On 19/12/2015 23:05, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Rich A
wrote:

No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't support edges,
you either put-up with second-rate images, you crop (which reduces
overall resolution) or you frame images so as not to include the far
edges of the lens, which also reduces total resolution. Specific
area resolution is ok, provided the lens is decent in the centre, if
you frame an animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the field,
that part of the field will have a higher resolution than the same
area done with a camera with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is
poorer in the centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution. Tragically, it seems
more than a few people buying into high megapixel full-frame cameras
(some of which are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those poor souls
are left to soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative
images.

So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP
Canon 5DS
and put crap lenses on them? If not, what's your point?

An example might be something like a cheap and cheerful Nikkor 18-35 G,
which scores 24 "Perceptual Megapixels" on a D800E according to DXOMark.
The similar focal length equivalent and price $750 lens on 1/4 frame
Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 rates 9 Perceptual Megapixels, and in terms of
"equivalence" is the same as an 18-36mm f8-f11 lens on FX.


For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G thoroughly and totally
annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH, yet the
Nikkor is less than 1/2 the price.

DXO mark is for zombies. A "sport" rating? WTF is that supposed to
mean?

Yup! They don't even have to gonads to test the Fujicon XF line-up.
Pathetic.

How do you really think Fuji x-trans would stack up?
I actually quite like the system, but the concept of the x-trans sensor
itself is serious bull**** - an answer to a problem which really doesn't
exist.

In article , RichA
wrote:

Rich A:
No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't support
edges, you either put-up with second-rate images, you crop
(which reduces overall resolution) or you frame images so as
not to include the far edges of the lens, which also reduces
total resolution. Specific area resolution is ok, provided
the lens is decent in the centre, if you frame an animal in a
wildlife shot using only part of the field, that part of the
field will have a higher resolution than the same area done
with a camera with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is
poorer in the centre than other lenses, then none of the
images produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution.
Tragically, it seems more than a few people buying into high
megapixel full-frame cameras (some of which are now relatively
inexpensive now) cannot afford the lenses needed to full
exploit their resolution. Those poor souls are left to
soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative images.

Sandman:
So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP Nikon D810 or
50MP Canon 5DS and put crap lenses on them? If not, what's your
point?

Me:
An example might be something like a cheap and cheerful Nikkor
18-35 G, which scores 24 "Perceptual Megapixels" on a D800E
according to DXOMark. The similar focal length equivalent and
price $750 lens on 1/4 frame Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 rates 9
Perceptual Megapixels, and in terms of "equivalence" is the same
as an 18-36mm f8-f11 lens on FX.

For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G thoroughly and
totally annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2
ASPH, yet the Nikkor is less than 1/2 the price.

DXO mark is for zombies.

What better data do you have? None? Ok, then.


--
Sandman

In article , Me
wrote:

On 20/12/2015 13:22, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-12-19 23:17:36 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 11:30:09 UTC-5, Me wrote:
On 19/12/2015 23:05, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Rich A
wrote:

No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't support edges,
you either put-up with second-rate images, you crop (which reduces
overall resolution) or you frame images so as not to include the far
edges of the lens, which also reduces total resolution. Specific
area resolution is ok, provided the lens is decent in the centre, if
you frame an animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the field,
that part of the field will have a higher resolution than the same
area done with a camera with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is
poorer in the centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution. Tragically, it seems
more than a few people buying into high megapixel full-frame cameras
(some of which are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those poor souls
are left to soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative
images.

So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP
Canon 5DS
and put crap lenses on them? If not, what's your point?

An example might be something like a cheap and cheerful Nikkor 18-35 G,
which scores 24 "Perceptual Megapixels" on a D800E according to DXOMark.
The similar focal length equivalent and price $750 lens on 1/4 frame
Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 rates 9 Perceptual Megapixels, and in terms of
"equivalence" is the same as an 18-36mm f8-f11 lens on FX.


For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G thoroughly and totally
annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH, yet the
Nikkor is less than 1/2 the price.

DXO mark is for zombies. A "sport" rating? WTF is that supposed to
mean?

Yup! They don't even have to gonads to test the Fujicon XF line-up.
Pathetic.

How do you really think Fuji x-trans would stack up?
I actually quite like the system, but the concept of the x-trans sensor
itself is serious bull**** - an answer to a problem which really doesn't
exist.

They do have a set of graphs for the X100... (Look at the graphs and
discard their silly numerology!):

http://tinyurl.com/jvcujd9

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compa...EOS-M-versus-F
ujifilm-FinePix-X100-versus-Nikon-D300s___819_695_614

The DP Review "Studio shot comparison" setup do not indicate that much
has changed or happened since then...

http://tinyurl.com/j8xu79s

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stud...n=internal-lin
k&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu #baseDir=%2Freviews_dat
a&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotin dex.xml&presetsFileName
=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerT itle=Studio%20scene&hea
derSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison &masterCamera=fujifilm_
x100&masterSample=dscf2567.acr&slotsCount=4&slot0C amera=fujifilm_x100&slo
t0Sample=dscf2567.acr&slot0DisableCameraSelection= true&slot0DisableSample
Selection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camer a=fujifilm_x100s&slot1S
ample=dscf4564-2.acr&slot2Camera=fujifilm_xpro1&slot2Sample=dscf2 016new.a
cr&slot3Camera=fujifilm_xe1&slot3Sample=dscf6541ne w.acr&x=0&y=0
--
teleportation kills

In article , RichA
wrote:

Rich A:
No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens won't
support edges, you either put-up with second-rate images,
you crop (which reduces overall resolution) or you frame
images so as not to include the far edges of the lens,
which also reduces total resolution. Specific area
resolution is ok, provided the lens is decent in the
centre, if you frame an animal in a wildlife shot using
only part of the field, that part of the field will have a
higher resolution than the same area done with a camera
with fewer pixels. However, if the lens is poorer in the
centre than other lenses, then none of the images produced
may actually have 24-50mp resolution. Tragically, it
seems more than a few people buying into high megapixel
full-frame cameras (some of which are now relatively
inexpensive now) cannot afford the lenses needed to full
exploit their resolution. Those poor souls are left to
soft-focus portaiture or other gauzy, pseudo-evocative
images.

Sandman:
So, got any examples of people that buy the 36MP
Nikon D810 or 50MP Canon 5DS and put crap lenses on them? If
not, what's your point?

Me:
An example might be something like a cheap and cheerful
Nikkor 18-35 G, which scores 24 "Perceptual Megapixels" on a
D800E according to DXOMark. The similar focal length
equivalent and price $750 lens on 1/4 frame Zuiko ED 9-18mm
f4.0-5.6 rates 9 Perceptual Megapixels, and in terms of
"equivalence" is the same as an 18-36mm f8-f11 lens on FX.

For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G thoroughly
and totally annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG Nocticron
42.5mm F1.2 ASPH, yet the Nikkor is less than 1/2 the price.

RichA:
DXO mark is for zombies.

Sandman:
What better data do you have? None? Ok, then.

I think this comes back to the archaic idea that in-camera
correction of aberrations is somehow "wrong" and that the lenses
should 100% stand on their own two feet. This is no different than
people who claim IS/VR is a bad idea.

A simple "No, I have no better data" would have sufficed.

--
Sandman

In article , RichA
wrote:

Rich A:
No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens
won't support edges, you either put-up with
second-rate images, you crop (which reduces overall
resolution) or you frame images so as not to include
the far edges of the lens, which also reduces total
resolution. Specific area resolution is ok, provided
the lens is decent in the centre, if you frame an
animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the
field, that part of the field will have a higher
resolution than the same area done with a camera with
fewer pixels. However, if the lens is poorer in the
centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution.
Tragically, it seems more than a few people buying
into high megapixel full-frame cameras (some of which
are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those
poor souls are left to soft-focus portaiture or other
gauzy, pseudo-evocative images.

Sandman:
So, got any examples of people that buy the
36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP Canon 5DS and put crap lenses on
them? If not, what's your point?

Me:
An example might be something like a cheap and
cheerful Nikkor 18-35 G, which scores 24 "Perceptual
Megapixels" on a D800E according to DXOMark. The similar
focal length equivalent and price $750 lens on 1/4 frame
Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 rates 9 Perceptual Megapixels,
and in terms of "equivalence" is the same as an 18-36mm
f8-f11 lens on FX.

For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G
thoroughly and totally annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG
Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH, yet the Nikkor is less than
1/2 the price.

RichA:
DXO mark is for zombies.

Sandman:
What better data do you have? None? Ok, then.

RichA:
I think this comes back to the archaic idea that in-camera
correction of aberrations is somehow "wrong" and that the lenses
should 100% stand on their own two feet. This is no different
than people who claim IS/VR is a bad idea.

Sandman:
A simple "No, I have no better data" would have sufficed. --
Sandman

Better question; what is GOOD about DXO's "data?"

Isn't it better to answer the question asked of you first before you start
asking counter-questions, hmm?

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , RichA
wrote:

Rich A:
No, not the centre, the edges. If your lens
won't support edges, you either put-up with
second-rate images, you crop (which reduces overall
resolution) or you frame images so as not to include
the far edges of the lens, which also reduces total
resolution. Specific area resolution is ok, provided
the lens is decent in the centre, if you frame an
animal in a wildlife shot using only part of the
field, that part of the field will have a higher
resolution than the same area done with a camera with
fewer pixels. However, if the lens is poorer in the
centre than other lenses, then none of the images
produced may actually have 24-50mp resolution.
Tragically, it seems more than a few people buying
into high megapixel full-frame cameras (some of which
are now relatively inexpensive now) cannot afford the
lenses needed to full exploit their resolution. Those
poor souls are left to soft-focus portaiture or other
gauzy, pseudo-evocative images.

Sandman:
So, got any examples of people that buy the
36MP Nikon D810 or 50MP Canon 5DS and put crap lenses on
them? If not, what's your point?

Me:
An example might be something like a cheap and
cheerful Nikkor 18-35 G, which scores 24 "Perceptual
Megapixels" on a D800E according to DXOMark. The similar
focal length equivalent and price $750 lens on 1/4 frame
Zuiko ED 9-18mm f4.0-5.6 rates 9 Perceptual Megapixels,
and in terms of "equivalence" is the same as an 18-36mm
f8-f11 lens on FX.

For a "portrait" lens, then a Nikkor 85mm f1.8 G
thoroughly and totally annihilates the Panasonic Leica DG
Nocticron 42.5mm F1.2 ASPH, yet the Nikkor is less than
1/2 the price.

RichA:
DXO mark is for zombies.

Sandman:
What better data do you have? None? Ok, then.

RichA:
I think this comes back to the archaic idea that in-camera
correction of aberrations is somehow "wrong" and that the lenses
should 100% stand on their own two feet. This is no different
than people who claim IS/VR is a bad idea.

Sandman:
A simple "No, I have no better data" would have sufficed. --
Sandman

Better question; what is GOOD about DXO's "data?"

Isn't it better to answer the question asked of you first before you start
asking counter-questions, hmm?

Why would that make sense? ;-)
--
teleportation kills