If you can't make excellent images with Nikon lenses, you have a different set of problems.
Yes I imagined it would still be visible on high resolution 35mm films. Good to know. However, a 36+ megapixel DSLR will still out-resolve even the sharpest film in 35mm by a considerable margin, and are quite merciless in revealing optical flaws (or flaws in technique for that matter).
Your comment indicates that you have never done detailed resolution tests of film and digital by yourself. Otherwise you would have realised and got the test result that 36 MP sensors have a Nyquist resolution limit of about 100 lp/mm. That is their absolut physical limit. It is impossible to get higher resolution than that.
But film does not have a Nyquist resolution limit at all! There are lots of films which surpass a resolution of 100 lp/mm. All you need is just a little bit of object contrast (1:2 to 1:4 range; about one to two stops difference).
Films like Provia 100F, Provia 400X, both Velvias, Ektachrome E100G, Delta 100, Acros 100, T-Max 100, Portra 160, Fuji C200 and Superia 400 just to name a few all have significantly higher resolution at this object contrast than all 36 MP sensors.
And highest-resolution films like Adox CMS 20 II are a league of its own, no digital sensor even comes close to it. With good lenses you can reach the diffraction limit of the lens with this film, e.g. 240 Lp/mm at f5.6. Impossible to get with digital!
I've done such tests by myself, so I know quite well about the results.
I was inspired by two photography experts who have done very detailed and intensive scientific tests concerning that topic: Henning Serger and Tim Parkin. H. Serger has published his test results in the PhotoKlassik print magazine some years ago, and in some international forums (also here on photrio). Tim Parkin has published his results on his onlandscape magazine:
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/
And the results of H. Serger can for example be found here:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/rollei-rpx-25-grain-and-resolution.115244/
From my test results I can completely confirm the results of Tim Parkin and H. Serger. They have both done excellent work.
Ken Rockwell is being an entertainer with his hyperbole
It's been my experience that Nikkors capture the "smell" of the world rather than "pretty it up" like Zeiss & Leica.
Features not covered in resolution tests:
-) bokeh
-) minumum focusing distance
-) position and grip of focus/aperture ring
-) damping
-) pitch of the helicoid
-) orientation of the helicoid
-) weight
-) readability of figures
etc.
Features not covered in resolution tests:
...
-) position and grip of focus/aperture ring
....
-) damping
...
-) readability of figures
...
As for readability, there are many nicely designed lens markings. If I had to pick just one, I'd give highest credit to Hasselblad CF lenses.
I am aware of that Tim Parkin link and have read the article before. However, I don't regard that comparison as particularly valid to this discussion as he is not comparing the results of the D800E to 35mm film, but rather to results from 6x7 and 4x5.
I have also read through that RPX 25 thread before. I think the crux of the problem with these lp/mm comparisons is they depend on the object contrast, as is mentioned in that thread; with that in mind I suppose I should not have used the term "out-resolve".
Several years ago I was at the Thornwood, NY headquarters of Zeiss microscope division and was told that although some camera lenses are manufactured in Japan, a Zeiss representative is on site to assure quality control.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |