The digital sensor used in the D2x is notoriously sensitive to the quality of lenses that one uses with it, and readily shows any flaws in their performance.
In what way?
The only way I can imagine this statement would make any sense is that you are talking about edge/corner performance or D2x's lack of good in-camera corrections that later and better cameras employed. Many pre-digital lenses (especially wide angle) perform poorly on digital. But that is more about limitations of digital sensors in general (which modern lens designs successfully worked around).
Although the D2x is the highest resolving 12mpx camera yet created, my comment isn't solely about its resolution capabilities.
The digital sensor used in the D2x is notoriously sensitive to the quality of lenses that one uses with it, and readily shows any flaws in their performance.
But do note that there isn't a single small format photograpic medium that outresolves the multicoated Nikkor 50mm f2.
You are completely ignoring the fact that the D2x with only 12 MP is a lower resolution camera. With a resolving power much much lower than that of mediocre lenses.
As a former D2x user I cannot support that claim at all. The D2x has no such special capabilities. Just in the opposite with that cam I've seen the same result I've seen with all other digital SLRs in the 12-20 MP range: Because of their lower resolution they are levelling differences in lens performance.
Differences.
which were clearly visible on films like Provia, Velvia, TMX, HR-50 e.g. But not visible, or to a much lesser extent visible, on these DSLRs.
That's a bold claim.
As you are saying outresolve: You can only say that if you have made resolution tests which allows you to quantify your results:
Therefore I am very interested in your data:
The resolution capabilities of the D2x greatly exceeds any other 12mpx models, meets or exceeds the resolve of all 16 mpx models but the Pentax K5II, and even manages to outresolve nearly all 24mpx models that I have tested in low light/high ISO.
But as I stated, its peculiar lense matching property is not about resolution!
Until you have performed the tests that I have, you don't have a leg to stand on here.
You are contradicting known facts to support your flawed position.
The lense in question managed to resolve to the factory stated limit's of both Tech Pan and CMS 20II.
Oh, now it is getting even more weird. Claiming that the D2x surpasses in resolution cameras like the 16 MP D7000, the 24 MP D7200, or the professional 20 MP D500.
You cannot change physics, and you cannot obtain the same or even more resolution (as you have claimed) from a 12 MP compared to a 20 or 24 MP cam.
You will always get higher resolution with a D7200 and D500 compared to the D2x.
If you don't trust me, go to one of the numerous Nikon forums and ask there, why almost all have upgraded from the D2x to higher resolution models.
When you tell them the D2x is superior in resolution, and low light performance, just be prepared to get a lot of shaking the head or laughter.
The D2x has an AA filter, and that is leveling lens differences, making them less visible.
E.g. my results of the mentioned films, with their higher resolution compared to the specific DSLRs I mentioned.
And I recommend to you to read about sensor technology and the physical resolution limit of the Nyquist frequency. Then you'll immediately realize the mistakes in your statements.
Sorry, but that is not possible at all because of the laws of physics:
CMS 20 II has a resolution limit of 800 lp/mm at high contrast details. That is measured without (!!) a lens, in a direct copy process.
Some of this discussion falls into the area of artistic taste. On the technical side, if you carry out a calculation to too many decimal places the end result is less meaningful. It may be exciting to know that a particular document film can resolve X lines but not even the best general purpose lens will provide 250 lines/mm. That's just not realistic.
Improvements in lens sharpness have been incremental.
It has been observed that the 85/1.8 AF Nikkor is sharper than the 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor. I have and like both. If you can't get sharp images with a 105/2.5 AIS, it's not the lens.
When we are talking about very slow films (under ISO 100), these are already not suitable for every kind of picture taking.
Can someone see great improvement in lens quality by looking at 5X7" prints? Probably not.
Again, if I know I will need to make a much larger print, I would rather use medium format film.
If used properly, slower film can make the images look even better.
I am actually one of the worlds formost experts on the subject, and I am here to tell you that the Nyquist theorem is rubbish!
Again, you are qouting things out of context to my claims. I am well aware of these limitations, and don't need to be schooled in them.
No, I don't.
You made made these claims. And you have not given any proof at all to substantiate your claims.
2. The Nyquist frequency is approved by all experts in the scientific literature.
Please give me a link to your publications, in which you prove all others wrong.
You are completely ignoring the fact that the D2x with only 12 MP is a lower resolution camera. With a resolving power much much lower than that of mediocre lenses.
And because of that it is not at all a good tool for lens evaluations.
Being a crop-camera which excludes all critical parts of the image circle (exactly those parts of the picture where good lenses especially demonstrate their superiority to lower quality lenses) further contribute to the ineptness of this camera for proper lens tests.
As a former D2x user I cannot support that claim at all. The D2x has no such special capabilities. Just in the opposite with that cam I've seen the same result I've seen with all other digital SLRs in the 12-20 MP range: Because of their lower resolution they are levelling differences in lens performance.
Differences, which were clearly visible on films like Provia, Velvia, TMX, HR-50 e.g. But not visible, or to a much lesser extent visible, on these DSLRs.
Well, it is realistic when you are using the right lenses and the right film. See my post above.
Zeiss had published their test results on Spur Orthopan film (Agfa HDP microfilm, identical to Adox CMS 20, first version) with their ZM Biogon at f4 of 400 lp/mm. So they reached the diffraction limit at f4.
Here on photrio we've had several reports that members reached the diffraction limit at f5.6 (about 250 lp/mm) with high-quality lenses (me included).
No, they have been huge at open aperture, very big at one stop stopped down, and clearly visible more stopped down with the modern, highest quality lens designs.
The point is: With these improved modern lenses it is possible to use slower films with their better quality much more often, because it is not needed anymore to stop down the lens by 2-4 stops to get very good optical quality.
Defintely yes. As already explained, the difference in lens performance with the improved current lenses is clearly seen, especially at open aperture and one stop stopped down.
Just two questions:
1. If it is rubbish, why never ever results of resolution above the Nyquist frequency have been published?
To record one line-pair, you need at least two pixel: One for the black, the other for the white line.
It simply does not work with one pixel, or with 0.5 pixel.
2. The Nyquist frequency is approved by all experts in the scientific literature.
these types of debates
Correct.
The Nyquist frequency is a physical resolution upper limit of digital sensors, which cannot be surpassed at all. Physically impossible.
You will always get resolution values below that limit.
I have tested the resolution of all my digital cameras over the years, and also of some cameras of friends.
The real resolution has been about 10% below the NF with sensors without AA filter, and 15-20% below the NF with sensors with AA filter.
With film it is of course different, as there is no NF. Therefore often higher resolution values are possible with a certain object contrast and high(er) resolving low- and medium-speed films. And the better the lens, the higher the resolution.
Several years ago I was part of a confidential consulting engagement to see how many line pairs per millimeter could be resolved. With the confidential, legal, restrictions, I am not able to share any more than cursory details. With my Nikkor 600mm lens on my F5, controlled lighting, special film shot at ISO 12 and processed with carefully-controlled chemistry, we were able to resolve 1,500 lp/mm--exactly what the client wanted to know. It would be of interest to see folks' outcomes with even higher resolution. On to >= 6,000 lp/mm?
For values of "dependable" which don't include the autofocus motor. I've had to replace mine twice.My favorite prime 35mm is the 35mm f/1.4. However, I recently sold it and use (my only zoom lens for Nikon or Hasselblad V-series) the Nikkor 17-35 (NOT the 16-35!) It is the proverbial "brick"--solid, dependable, sharp, and almost bullet-proof!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?