Apr 3 2013, 08:54 AM
QUOTE(alpha_company @ Apr 2 2013, 06:31 PM)
It will never be a short story..and its not that simple.
Older FX lenses like the 17-35 & 70200vr1 has much better central sharpness and soft corners. I don't really know why, but some say it's because at that time digital wise, there are only pro DX DSLR like D2h, D2x, before the first FX dslr (the D3), these digital sensors is more demanding on the glass expecially on central sharpness because it is a crop sensor comapred to the film bodies such as F4,F5. I dont know if this is true but from what i've read this is the reason for the central sharpness of older pro lenses.
Later pro lenses such as the AFS 70-200VRii and AFS 80-400VRii has better sharpness across the frame (glass surface) and would benefit FX more than DX.
@ifer
- Pixel count is different from pixel density . The D7000's 16mp is more demanding on the glass compared to the D4's 16mp.
The D7000's 16mp is cramped on a smaller sensor - using only the central glass area - more demanding on the glass central area - any flaws & weakness on the central glass area is more pronounced in the d7000 images
The D4 has 16mp spread across a larger sensor - It has larger pixel pitch/pixel size - use the glass area up to the edges - less demanding on the lenses - only clear weakness is that it is more prone to wide open vignetting
D800 is an FX but has almost the same pixel pitch as the d7000 because of the large 36mp on it's sensor. - like the d7000 it is also more demanding on the glass BUT it demands all around sharpness.
You can see what I mean by pixel pitch in this video on a new AFS 80-400VRii. D4 vs D7100 at the same ISO on the same lens. The image on the D7100 is softer compared to the D4's.
1. because the newer lens has better all-around sharpness.
2. because the pixel pitch of the d7100 is higher which requires more out of the lens central area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIvK7ixsiEY
Play at 5:04. Large at least at 360p or better yer 720p quality.
You can see the D4 has better contrast and more saturared colours and sharper.
I used and tried quite a few lenses and nikon dslrs... it's not as clear cut to say that FX lenses on DX bodies will be sharper or even pro FX lens will be sharper than normal lenses.
From what i've tested and also proven by pro photographers on the net -
AFS 85 1.8G performs better only on the D800 compared to the pro level 85 1.4G. However the 85 1.4G performs exceptionally on other FX bodies.
17-35 2.8 has better central sharpness and performs well on DX but has soft corners on FX. On FX, Even stopped down, it cannot beat the newer 16-35's sharpness.
more infos but dont want to write any more.. you get i meant.
ok, my mistake there.Older FX lenses like the 17-35 & 70200vr1 has much better central sharpness and soft corners. I don't really know why, but some say it's because at that time digital wise, there are only pro DX DSLR like D2h, D2x, before the first FX dslr (the D3), these digital sensors is more demanding on the glass expecially on central sharpness because it is a crop sensor comapred to the film bodies such as F4,F5. I dont know if this is true but from what i've read this is the reason for the central sharpness of older pro lenses.
Later pro lenses such as the AFS 70-200VRii and AFS 80-400VRii has better sharpness across the frame (glass surface) and would benefit FX more than DX.
@ifer
- Pixel count is different from pixel density . The D7000's 16mp is more demanding on the glass compared to the D4's 16mp.
The D7000's 16mp is cramped on a smaller sensor - using only the central glass area - more demanding on the glass central area - any flaws & weakness on the central glass area is more pronounced in the d7000 images
The D4 has 16mp spread across a larger sensor - It has larger pixel pitch/pixel size - use the glass area up to the edges - less demanding on the lenses - only clear weakness is that it is more prone to wide open vignetting
D800 is an FX but has almost the same pixel pitch as the d7000 because of the large 36mp on it's sensor. - like the d7000 it is also more demanding on the glass BUT it demands all around sharpness.
You can see what I mean by pixel pitch in this video on a new AFS 80-400VRii. D4 vs D7100 at the same ISO on the same lens. The image on the D7100 is softer compared to the D4's.
1. because the newer lens has better all-around sharpness.
2. because the pixel pitch of the d7100 is higher which requires more out of the lens central area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIvK7ixsiEY
Play at 5:04. Large at least at 360p or better yer 720p quality.
You can see the D4 has better contrast and more saturared colours and sharper.
I used and tried quite a few lenses and nikon dslrs... it's not as clear cut to say that FX lenses on DX bodies will be sharper or even pro FX lens will be sharper than normal lenses.
From what i've tested and also proven by pro photographers on the net -
AFS 85 1.8G performs better only on the D800 compared to the pro level 85 1.4G. However the 85 1.4G performs exceptionally on other FX bodies.
17-35 2.8 has better central sharpness and performs well on DX but has soft corners on FX. On FX, Even stopped down, it cannot beat the newer 16-35's sharpness.
more infos but dont want to write any more.. you get i meant.
i initially wanted to use D7100 and D800E as comparison as both do not have AA filters but i thought the image size will be a huge different and that will lead to other argument. and i agree with your test of using the 17-35 and 16-35 lens.
EDIT: opps, seems like the pixel density of D7100 is higher than D800E.
apparently, what i know from the hasselblad's R&D guys is that you either get sharp corners or barrel distorted corners. it is very hard to get both corrected. and hasselblad chose to have sharp corners with barrel distortion. then, when you use phocus or now aperture and light room, the software automatically detect the lenses used and auto correct the distortion. i guess that explains why 16-35 (when zoom to 16) looks a bit fish eye-ish
the thing is, i do not agree that FX lenses, when use on DX camera will give you a result that is lower than FX lenses use on FX camera. i do get what you mean by pixel density. if we are comparing both cameras that have the same pixel density, i do not see the reason why there is a difference in terms of image quality (apart from 1. sensor inferiority and/or 2. user inferiority and/or 3. older FX lenses that have a lower resolving power)
This post has been edited by ifer: Apr 3 2013, 09:22 AM
Quote
0.0367sec
0.64
7 queries
GZIP Disabled