according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses. Does thids mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.

No, what it means is that lenses are not obsolete in three years as camera bodies generally are. So there are many new lenses up to handling D7100/D5300, etc., but you must choose carefully for the best performance. That's not limited to DX format - the same situation applies to full frame cameras.Best regards,Linleerob wrote:according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses. Does thids mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.

leerob wrote:according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses.It is utter nonsense.Having good lens never hurts, but _every_ lens performs better on a higher resolution sensor than it does on a lower resolution sensor. The image resolution is a product of the lens resolution and the resolution of the sensor (in a sense that if one improves, the result improves as well).

No, however it IS statements such as that that remind me why I very rarely agree with, or listen to Ken Rockwell.

leerob wrote:according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses. Does thids mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.I think this is the case with every camera, regardless FF or crop sensor. In a DSLR world, lenses are in constant keep up with ever expanding sensor development. All major camera sensors (Nikon's Expeed or Canon's Digic) are usually followed by a release of new (read expensive) lens or lenses with higher resolution than predecessors.I think D7100 is designed to be the best APS-C camera on the market ... IMO Nikon hit the homerun. 24MB sensor might be an overkill right now but for those who're planning to stick with it for at least 2-3 years, it will prove to be an awesome investment.You can find some older professional Nikon lenses that are still 100% compatible with D7100. One of them is Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8. Amazing zoom lens  ... outstanding performer that will utilize all 24 megapixels worth of goodness.

I agree with you and that's why I asked here. Do you agree with lens recommendations by dxo mark? -- Adam Kielcz

leerob wrote:according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses. Does thids mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.KR can usually be safely ignored. In this case what he means is, if you don't have good lenses, why get a D7100? But Nikon has produced lenses back in 1999 (17-35mm FX) and 2003 (17-55mm DX) that can outperform much more modern lenses on high resolution cameras.  I tested one of Fuji's 16mp cameras vs the D7100 with the 17-35mm (a good lens but not Nikon's best) about a week ago. Both have no AA filter over their sensors, and the D7100 clearly out-resolved the X-A1. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon's latest kit lens (18-140mm) also did almost as well.So it's not that lens development lags sensor development although that's occasionally true (compare the new 80-400mm vs the original Nikkor for example), it's that to get the best out of modern high resolution cameras, you need to use high quality, relatively expensive lenses.

leerob wrote:I agree with you and that's why I asked here. Do you agree with lens recommendations by dxo mark?Must say yes. Haven't seen them rate a weak lens high nor great lens low.All the lenses I have used, I'd rate similarly to how they rate them.

Ken RockwellKen RockwellKen RockwellKen RockwellKen RockwellKen RockwellKen RockwellKen RockwellKen RockwellKen Rockwell

It's the same issue with sub-standard technique -- an issue some began to notice with the D7000.A given lens, or hand-holding technique on a 10mp camera, might seem fine when viewed at 100% on a PC monitor, but the exact same approach and gear might start to show problems when mated with a 24mp camera and then viewed at 100%...Theoretically, a great lens in current technology mounted on a 200mp camera, with the resulting image viewed at 100% could look pretty awful.But if that exact same setup and image was used to print at 12x18, it could look stunningly sharp.

leerob wrote:according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses. Does thids mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.KR can usually be safely ignored. In this case what he means is, if you don't have good lenses, why get a D7100? But Nikon has produced lenses back in 1999 (17-35mm FX) and 2003 (17-55mm DX) that can outperform much more modern lenses on high resolution cameras.  I tested one of Fuji's 16mp cameras vs the D7100 with the 17-35mm (a good lens but not Nikon's best) about a week ago. Both have no AA filter over their sensors, and the D7100 clearly out-resolved the X-A1. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon's latest kit lens (18-140mm) also did almost as well.So it's not that lens development lags sensor development although that's occasionally true (compare the new 80-400mm vs the original Nikkor for example), it's that to get the best out of modern high resolution cameras, you need to use high quality, relatively expensive lenses.There are other lens examples where this isn't really true. I have my resolution problems with my Nikon 10-24 on the D7100. (I tested 2 copies so far). The lens is very sharp on the short end, but poor on the long end at the resolution of the D7100. I can however imagine that the same lens performed flawlessly on a 8-10 megapixel camera in the past and nobody complained about it. (The Sigma 10-20 is much sharper for example, but it has other disadvantages relative to the Nikon 10-24). So the answer to the original question is: 24 mp isn't too much on DX, but you need very good lenses. And indeed such lenses have been produced for many years now, but there are also expensive lenses that does ot are up do the resolution of modern DX DSLRs.

leerob wrote:I agree with you and that's why I asked here. Do you agree with lens recommendations by dxo mark? -- Adam Kielczdxo mark's rankings are rather limited in scope and frankly rather opaque...no one really knows how DXO came up with their "perceptual megapixel" score, and DXO themselves aren't that forthcoming.That being said, their ranking of lenses for the D7100 are pretty much as one would expect...primes on the very top with the superb 35 f1.4 Sigma first, the Nikkor 85 f1.4 and f1.8 being the highest ranked Nikons, with the Nikon Trinity zooms (14-24, 24-70, 70-200) below that, and 3rd party DX and FX zooms sprinkled throughout.  The workhorse Nikon kit zooms are in the lower 3rd of the list...but what the heck, they're kit zooms. However, that list does point out an embarrasing truth - all the top quality Nikkor lenses are FX. The last truly "pro" quality DX zoom Nikon produced was its first one, the 17-55 f2.8, back around the turn of the century. It wasn't until Sigma started upping its game a couple of years ago that there were viable options to a Nikkor lens, however, and now it (and Tamron and Tokina) are stepping in to fill the hole Nikon has left gaping in its DX lineup with rather impressive products.  Still, many Nikonians who don't want to be bothered with 3rd party lens incompatibility annoyances stick with Nikkors, and when they step up from the kit lens they buy FX lenses. Because they have to.The general rule for lenses is the faster the lens the better the optical quality.  This isn't a hard and fast rule, but is a typically observed characteristic.What DXO's score doesn't tell you is exactly where the lens is good or bad.  For example, some feel that the 85mm f1.8 is a better lens, or at least a better value lens, than the 85mm f1.4, and their reasons are not quantifiable in a single number.  Other lenses may be designed to reach their peak wide open, most others a stop or two closed down. There are so many characteristics of a lens that are not related to resolving power and CA/distortion correctibilty (what goes into the DXO lens score) - color rendition, global and microcontrast, bokeh, as well as build, AF speed, VR...  You have to not only look at a bunch of graphs, but review images and shoot with the lens yourself to determine it fitness for your purpose.  At least at the rarified levels of the top end lenses.Down in realityville, we have fewer choices, but the same logic applies.  You can start with DXO, but try the lens out.Now, as for Ken Rockwell...he loves to grab eyeballs with his pronouncements.  I don't completely agree with his statement about the D7100 being overkill because of lenses, but it could be overkill if you just want a good street shooter or travel camera. Indeed, any lens will give better results on a D7100 than on a D70 unless that lens is covered in Vaseline, but the best lenses extract the most out of a high resolution body.Of bigger worry with the D7100 is its shooting envelope - what the camera demands of the user to get steady enough captures to be able to actually see the resolution those superb lenses are capable of delivering.  The shooting envelope of a D7100 is smaller than that of a D70, so unless your camera is on a tripod or you have very steady hands, and you've been granted optimal lighting, and you're viewing at close to 100%, the difference between a 14 and a 16 on the DXO scale is probably academic.

leerob wrote:According to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses, 24MP is to much for DX format. Does this mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.24MP is no load to carry. All the Nikon DX range are now 24MP. If you prefer, specify one of the lower resolution modes, but there's nothing to be gained by doing that.I found some information on KR's site, but it didn't take much reading to discover inconsistencies and questionable opinions. Useful if you need to know lens dimensions or filter size, but I wouldn't donate to his "growing family (fortune)" just to learn that sort of stuff.

leerob wrote:I agree with you and that's why I asked here. Do you agree with lens recommendations by dxo mark? -- Adam KielczBasically you'll see no disadvantage from having 24 MP's just that you may not see as much advantage over say 16 MP's as you'd expect.Don't confuse it with the fuss around the Sony NEX 7 sensor, the problem there wasn't just sharpness but that the very small pixels created more of an issue with light angles hitting the sensor, DSLR's with there retrofocal designs don't have to deal with this.

jimoyer wrote:No, however it IS statements such as that that remind me why I very rarely agree with, or listen to Ken Rockwell.I find it slightly amusing that there is an Australian smallgoods company called KR; they supply preserved meats...

photoreddi wrote:leerob wrote:according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses. Does thids mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.I tested one of Fuji's 16mp cameras vs the D7100 with the 17-35mm (a good lens but not Nikon's best) about a week ago. Both have no AA filter over their sensors, and the D7100 clearly out-resolved the X-A1. I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon's latest kit lens (18-140mm) also did almost as well.The Fuji X-A1 does not have the X trans sensor, it has a run of the mill normal bayer 16mp sensor with an AA filter.If you used one of the other models your results may well have been very different, especially in jpeg.So it's not that lens development lags sensor development although that's occasionally true (compare the new 80-400mm vs the original Nikkor for example), it's that to get the best out of modern high resolution cameras, you need to use high quality, relatively expensive lenses.Or that sensors have excess capability that just doesn't really matter 99% of the time.Mega pixels = marketing advantage, plain and simple.

leerob wrote:according to Ken Rockwell, unless you have very good lenses. Does thids mean that lenses development lags behind sensor development. I'm talking about D7100 here.Sensor development has stagnated, all we have is higher resolution that occasionally offers a small advantage with the right glass.The key image quality parameters have not changed since the Sony 16mp sensor in the D7000, but your computer now gets clogged up with huge image files that offer little more for the space they occupy on your hard drive.If Nikon had have developed the 16mp sensor further, we would likely have seen much better results than we see now (and no shadow banding that requires even more post processing).The laws of physics will not be broken, but many that buy into the hype will continue to try.

Now I know why Leica and Zeiss don't make huge zooms. -- Adam Kielcz

Then I guess I consider myself lucky: I stepped up from 10MP D80 to 24MP D7100, so what would I know about 16MP sensors....I must say I'm very happy with D7100 pixels - all of them...

ZorSy wrote:Then I guess I consider myself lucky: I stepped up from 10MP D80 to 24MP D7100, so what would I know about 16MP sensors....I must say I'm very happy with D7100 pixels - all of them...Good for you, the current Nikon cameras compare well to other manufacturers, but it doesn't change the fact that a refined 16mp sensor could have given far greater usable image quality (particularly high ISO) than the sensors currently in use.Everything in this game is a compromise.