Shunda77 wrote: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.The current Nikon crop of 24mp sensors (D7100 vs D7000) already has a slight high ISO noise advantage over the last generation of 16mp sensors. Also a DR and color depth advantage at high ISO. All that with a relatively large increase in resolution. Resolution increase with no noise penalty in normal shooting situations. No banding issue in extreme pulls ether if you apply good NR or shoot equivalent shots. That said, I would rather they improve on the 24mp design than revisit the lower resolution 16MP design. I think they made the right move...in terms of selling cameras and keeping IQ at a premium.

As often, Ken is talking through his a--usIf you increase sensor resolution, file resolution goes up with every lens used on that body.If you increase lens resolution file resolution goes up on every body that lens is used on.If you increase sensor resolution and lens resolution at the same time file resolution goes up even more though you may need a good credit card limit to do both.

Mako2011 wrote:Shunda77 wrote: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.The current Nikon crop of 24mp sensors (D7100 vs D7000) already has a slight high ISO noise advantage over the last generation of 16mp sensors.So small as to be irrelevant.Also a DR and color depth advantage at high ISO.So small as to be irrelevant.All that with a relatively large increase in resolution.Only if you have good glass.Resolution increase with no noise penalty in normal shooting situations. No banding issue in extreme pulls ether if you apply good NR or shoot equivalent shots. That said, I would rather they improve on the 24mp design than revisit the lower resolution 16MP design. I think they made the right move...in terms of selling cameras and keeping IQ at a premium.The laws of physics dictate that a refined 16mp sensor will deliver a real advantage in high ISO performance, every manufacturer that has taken this approach has made huge gains in this regard.There is a reason that the D4s is still a 16mp camera.But I agree, if Nikon selling more cameras is the goal then 24mp looks better than 16 on the box.But you gotta wonder what could have been.

Shunda77 wrote:Mako2011 wrote:Shunda77 wrote: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.The current Nikon crop of 24mp sensors (D7100 vs D7000) already has a slight high ISO noise advantage over the last generation of 16mp sensors.So small as to be irrelevant.Correct...so since the dif is so small 24 beat 16 (all else being equal)Also a DR and color depth advantage at high ISO.So small as to be irrelevant.Agreed...so again 24 beats 16All that with a relatively large increase in resolution.Only if you have good glass.No...same lens is never worse on 24mp vs 16mp. Good glass is good glass...16mp sometimes can't take advantage of it though. So again, 24mp beats 16 (current gen...all else being equal) and by an obvious margin.Resolution increase with no noise penalty in normal shooting situations. No banding issue in extreme pulls ether if you apply good NR or shoot equivalent shots. That said, I would rather they improve on the 24mp design than revisit the lower resolution 16MP design. I think they made the right move...in terms of selling cameras and keeping IQ at a premium.The laws of physics dictate that a refined 16mp sensor will deliver a real advantage in high ISO performance, every manufacturer that has taken this approach has made huge gains in this regard.Testing and physics shows that a refined 24mp sensor will always outperform a refined 16mp sensor.There is a reason that the D4s is still a 16mp camera.Yes but it has nothing to do with 24 vs 16. Way more about using off the shelf parts to keep profit margin acceptable.But I agree, if Nikon selling more cameras is the goal then 24mp looks better than 16 on the box.But you gotta wonder what could have been.Or what will be.

Now you would think Ken would know this.He has been making stupid, and untrue, remarks since his site first went up. I feel he has done a great disservice to the photography community with these untrue remarks. Novices flock to his site for wisdom, experienced photographers avoid it like the plague.Leonard Shepherd wrote:As often, Ken is talking through his a--usIf you increase sensor resolution, file resolution goes up with every lens used on that body.If you increase lens resolution file resolution goes up on every body that lens is used on.If you increase sensor resolution and lens resolution at the same time file resolution goes up even more though you may need a good credit card limit to do both.

Mako2011 wrote:Testing and physics shows that a refined 24mp sensor will always outperform a refined 16mp sensor.Pixel size is one of the primary determining factors in image quality in all classes of digital camera.Larger pixels are always better.There is a reason that the D4s is still a 16mp camera.Yes but it has nothing to do with 24 vs 16. Way more about using off the shelf parts to keep profit margin acceptable.Nikon's own press release states "Newly designed 16mp sensor".But I agree, if Nikon selling more cameras is the goal then 24mp looks better than 16 on the box.But you gotta wonder what could have been.Or what will be.Some features are enthusiast friendly, some not so much.

Shunda77 wrote:Mako2011 wrote:Testing and physics shows that a refined 24mp sensor will always outperform a refined 16mp sensor.Pixel size is one of the primary determining factors in image quality in all classes of digital camera.Larger pixels are always better.Just not the case. Bit of a myth in many ways.  QE is also important and larger pixels do not always mean better. If that was the case then the larger D7000 pixels would be better than the smaller D7100 pixels...but they are not. Smaller is not always better either.James says it best: http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#8"...While smaller pixels,individually, will be more noisy (for a given exposure and sensor efficiency) because they record less light, there are more pixels. That is, the noise in a photo is not determined by a single pixel, but the combined effect of all the pixels where a greater number of smaller pixels will capture the same total amount of light as a fewer number of larger pixels, and thus have the same photon noise, so long as the QE (Quantum Efficiency -- the proportion of light falling on the sensor that is recorded) is not adversely affected by pixel size, which is the case for sensors of a given generation""...However, the other primary source of noise in a photo is the read noise...the read noise per pixel also tends to be about the same, regardless of the pixel size (although, as stated, there is tremendous variation, even for sensors of the same generation)""Thus, for fully equivalent images, where both the DOF and shutter speeds are the same, all systems will collect the same amount of light,regardless of the pixel size. The system that will have the lesser amount of noise will be the system that has the more efficient sensor and/or the system that resolves "enough" more detail since that additional detail can be traded, via NR, for less noise.There is a reason that the D4s is still a 16mp camera.Yes but it has nothing to do with 24 vs 16. Way more about using off the shelf parts to keep profit margin acceptable.Nikon's own press release states "Newly designed 16mp sensor".Yep...they say that. At the pixel level it seem to be the same. Likely different supporting software/hardware.But I agree, if Nikon selling more cameras is the goal then 24mp looks better than 16 on the box.But you gotta wonder what could have been.Or what will be.Some features are enthusiast friendly, some not so much.Very true

mosswings wrote in part: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.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.For the D7100 with its 6000 x 4000 pixel sensor the theoretical maximum vertical resolution is 4000 lines per picture height, LPH. However, as illustrated in the following table in which the Vertical LPH values were obtained from DPR Camera Reviews, the maximum value which is likely to be achieved in practice may be estimated fairly accurately by dividing the number of pixels in the height of the sensor by 1.5.For the D7100 sensor that corresponds to a resolution of 4000/1.5 = 2667 LPH which for a sensor height of 15.6 mm corresponds to a resolution of 2667/(2x15.6) = 85 line pairs/mm.Consequently to take full advantage of the resolution of the 24 MP sensor of the D7100 the attached lens should have a resolution of at least 85 line pairs per mm.Unfortunately while trying to decide on which lenses I should buy for my D7100 I found that information on their resolution in line pairs/mm and its variation with focal length and aperture is not readily available and most certainly not provided by a single "perceptual megapixel" score.Jimmy

Shunda77 wrote: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.Possibly, but then the X-A1's sensor should produce results similar to the similar 16mp D7000 sensor which also has an AA filter, yet the resolution difference between the D7000 and the D7100 doesn't seem to be as great. If the X-A1 actually has an AA filter (Fuji seems to be silent on that), it may be that it has a stronger AA filter than the D7000. As DPR's Studio Scene images show, Fuji's X-Trans sensors don't delivery the same color richness as Bayer sensors, and that's particularly noticed in its reds, even at low ISOs. At higher ISOs the color fading is even more noticeable. This is from Thom Hogan's first look at the X-A1. As he notes, he's "very interested in seeing how the image quality thing plays out on the X-A1."...The choice Fujifilm made to move the X series downscale is interesting: basically the new camera is an X-M1, but with a Bayer sensor and some other slight tweaks. See the database page for the camera on this site for the full info. Note how similar the X-A1 and X-M1 are.What Fujifilm got right is the price. Assuming the X-A1 performs as expected, having a solid entry at this price point is going to be something that adds strength to Fujifilm's lineup. What I don't understand, however, is how the X-M1 is supposed to live in this new four-camera lineup. At US$200 more, the X-M1 doesn't really provide 25% "more" in terms of performance and features, so I don't see why anyone would buy one. This is more of the "we must have a full line of cameras" thinking that got camera makers into trouble in the compact realm. Undifferentiated products aren't worth producing, as far as I'm concerned.In fact, the X-A1 versus X-M1 introduces an interesting marketing problem for Fujifilm: is the X-Trans sensor really worth US$200 more? If so, where does that leave the X-A1? If not, what's all the fuss about the X-Trans? Fujifilm is citing basically the same dynamic range and ISO capabilities for the Bayer sensor X-A1 as they are for the X-Trans X-M1 ("rich tonal expression, increased dynamic range…"). I actually think that introducing a Bayer camera is a high risk for Fujifilm, as it might dilute the marketing message they were trying to make with X-Trans.Fujifilm doesn't specifically state whether the X-A1 has an AA filter or not (I suspect it does), which seems a strange omission if one is present and a damning possibility if it isn't. What do I mean? Well, one of the touted X-Trans advantages was that it didn't need an AA filter. As we've seen in practice, it mostly doesn't, but what we get in return for that is color smearing, usually well hidden, but sometimes it shows up in ways we don't want it to, just as the moire we were trying to avoid does. An AA filter on the X-A1's Bayer sensor would smear detail. So Fujifilm's between the rock and a hard place in terms of marketing message. Worse still, if the X-A1 doesn't have an AA filter but produces images as good as (or worse, better than) the X-M1, then the whole X-Trans hype would turn out to be just that, hype....http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/fujifilm-introduces-the-x.html.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.Well, if that's true, 99% of the time there's really isn't any reason that matters to prefer an X-Trans sensor over Fuji's Bayer sensor, and that's not even considering the drawbacks of the X-Trans sensor. When Fuji introduces higher resolution sensors into their X-camera line, and that's sure to happen, will you change your tune?

I stumbled on this looking something up on google, like "what's the best lens for D7100 is".

J C Brown wrote:mosswings wrote in part: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.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.For the D7100 with its 6000 x 4000 pixel sensor the theoretical maximum vertical resolution is 4000 lines per picture height, LPH. However, as illustrated in the following table in which the Vertical LPH values were obtained from DPR Camera Reviews, the maximum value which is likely to be achieved in practice may be estimated fairly accurately by dividing the number of pixels in the height of the sensor by 1.5.For the D7100 sensor that corresponds to a resolution of 4000/1.5 = 2667 LPH which for a sensor height of 15.6 mm corresponds to a resolution of 2667/(2x15.6) = 85 line pairs/mm.Consequently to take full advantage of the resolution of the 24 MP sensor of the D7100 the attached lens should have a resolution of at least 85 line pairs per mm.Unfortunately while trying to decide on which lenses I should buy for my D7100 I found that information on their resolution in line pairs/mm and its variation with focal length and aperture is not readily available and most certainly not provided by a single "perceptual megapixel" score.JimmyIt's well known that it takes a bit more than 2.4 pixels to resolve one line pair in a Bayer digital sensor owing to the Bayer Color Filter Array...only a panchromatic sensor would have the potential of reaching 2000 LP/PH, or 4000 LPH.  This is where 80% of that 1.5 factor comes from.As to 85lp/mm, it's interesting to note that the oft-criticized Nikon 18-200 yields 2600 LW/PH at 50mm, f5.6 when tested on a D7000, or 86 lp/mm, and that includes the resolution of the sensor!  All this says is that lenses are still quite good compared to the resolving capability of the sensors applied to them, and what we are seeing in the complaints department is mostly small things. Not night and day.

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.You only get occasional banding with D5200 and D7100. The D5300 does not show any banding whatsoever, no matter how far you push an underexposed picture.I find everything about the 24mp sensor in the D5300 and soon to be D7200 superb. The pictures blown up to full size are sharp with good amounts of detail when shot raw and processed. I even tried my friends 18-55 lens and was quite impressed with how well it performed.The cropping capability is great and I see a huge improvement over the 16 mp. The high iso is also another big improvement I notice and noise cleans up quickly. I now feel very comfortable shooting at iso3200The only downfall I have is the size of the files. They do take up more space and you will need an external hard drive if shooting raw.

Shunda77 wrote:Mako2011 wrote:Shunda77 wrote: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.The current Nikon crop of 24mp sensors (D7100 vs D7000) already has a slight high ISO noise advantage over the last generation of 16mp sensors.So small as to be irrelevant.Correct...so since the dif is so small 24 beat 16 (all else being equal)Also a DR and color depth advantage at high ISO.So small as to be irrelevant.Agreed...so again 24 beats 16All that with a relatively large increase in resolution.Only if you have good glass.No...same lens is never worse on 24mp vs 16mp. Good glass is good glass...16mp sometimes can't take advantage of it though. So again, 24mp beats 16 (current gen...all else being equal) and by an obvious margin.Resolution increase with no noise penalty in normal shooting situations. No banding issue in extreme pulls ether if you apply good NR or shoot equivalent shots. That said, I would rather they improve on the 24mp design than revisit the lower resolution 16MP design. I think they made the right move...in terms of selling cameras and keeping IQ at a premium.The laws of physics dictate that a refined 16mp sensor will deliver a real advantage in high ISO performance, every manufacturer that has taken this approach has made huge gains in this regard.Testing and physics shows that a refined 24mp sensor will always outperform a refined 16mp sensor.There is a reason that the D4s is still a 16mp camera.Yes but it has nothing to do with 24 vs 16. Way more about using off the shelf parts to keep profit margin acceptable.But I agree, if Nikon selling more cameras is the goal then 24mp looks better than 16 on the box.But you gotta wonder what could have been.Or what will be.I agree Mako!The 12/16 mp sensors do not take advantage of great glass like the 24 mp do. I use to think opposite, but that was just the nonsense I read online. In real world use, the 24 mp resolves more with standard lens and even more with good glass.

No...same lens is never worse on 24mp vs 16mp.This is only true till you reach the resolution of the given lens.After that with higher MP sensor you are only magnifying theblur.This is for example the case with the Nikon 10-24 mm @ 24 mm on the D7100. The camera with 24 MP magnifies only the "blur" of the lens, since this lens is sharp at 10mm but not as sharp at 24 mm.I'm not really satisfied with the results on the D7100 @24mm (other lenses deliver much sharper images at the same focal length.)Here is an example: same crop, two different lenses. Nikon on the left, Sigma on the right. The Nikon clearly isn't up to the resolution of the D7100. The Sigma delivers.Same time, same camera settings, different lenses.I can however imagine that the Nikon 10-24 is up to the resolution of the D90 without any complaints. But here you are only magnifying blur at 24 MP.This are only 100% crops, not the whole imagesFor better experience see in original size.

mosswings wrote:J C Brown wrote:mosswings wrote in part: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.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.For the D7100 with its 6000 x 4000 pixel sensor the theoretical maximum vertical resolution is 4000 lines per picture height, LPH. However, as illustrated in the following table in which the Vertical LPH values were obtained from DPR Camera Reviews, the maximum value which is likely to be achieved in practice may be estimated fairly accurately by dividing the number of pixels in the height of the sensor by 1.5.For the D7100 sensor that corresponds to a resolution of 4000/1.5 = 2667 LPH which for a sensor height of 15.6 mm corresponds to a resolution of 2667/(2x15.6) = 85 line pairs/mm.Consequently to take full advantage of the resolution of the 24 MP sensor of the D7100 the attached lens should have a resolution of at least 85 line pairs per mm.Unfortunately while trying to decide on which lenses I should buy for my D7100 I found that information on their resolution in line pairs/mm and its variation with focal length and aperture is not readily available and most certainly not provided by a single "perceptual megapixel" score.JimmyIt's well known that it takes a bit more than 2.4 pixels to resolve one line pair in a Bayer digital sensor owing to the Bayer Color Filter Array...only a panchromatic sensor would have the potential of reaching 2000 LP/PH, or 4000 LPH. This is where 80% of that 1.5 factor comes from.As to 85lp/mm, it's interesting to note that the oft-criticized Nikon 18-200 yields 2600 LW/PH at 50mm, f5.6 when tested on a D7000, or 86 lp/mm, and that includes the resolution of the sensor! All this says is that lenses are still quite good compared to the resolving capability of the sensors applied to them, and what we are seeing in the complaints department is mostly small things. Not night and day.My first digital camera was a 3 MP Olympus Camedia which my son left with me when he returned to the USA after our daughter's wedding in 2001. It was while I was trying to understand why its resolution as measured with a FUJIFILM test chart was only about 20 line pairs/mm, 2/3 of the value that I'd estimated from the 1500 pixel height of its sensor that I concluded from a graphical simulation that the limit of resolution for a monochromatic sensor would correspond to a value of about 1.5 pixels per line.When I subsequently noticed false colours in the pixels adjacent to the black lines in test images recorded with a 5 MP Bridge camera I concluded that these were due in part to the edges of the lines partially overlapping adjacent pixels and partly to the arrangement of the red, green and blue filters of the Bayer matrix.These discoveries and the difficulty I perceived in assessing the resolution from images of the tapered lines of the chart used in DPR reviews led me to develop a test chart with which I could assess the resolution in black and six colours.Further investigations with an FZ50 Bridge camera and Nikon afocal TCs led me to develop improved versions with which I could obtain more accurate measurements. If you are interested you will find further informationhere.Jimmy

torppapa wrote:No...same lens is never worse on 24mp vs 16mp.This is only true till you reach the resolution of the given lens.After that with higher MP sensor you are only magnifying theblur.No, "blur" was always there you just could not see it as the lower rez sensor could not resolve it.This is for example the case with the Nikon 10-24 mm @ 24 mm on the D7100. The camera with 24 MP magnifies only the "blur" of the lens, since this lens is sharp at 10mm but not as sharp at 24 mm.Define your use of the word "blur" so we might be on the same sheet.I'm not really satisfied with the results on the D7100 @24mm (other lenses deliver much sharper images at the same focal length.)Here is an example: same crop, two different lenses. Nikon on the left, Sigma on the right. The Nikon clearly isn't up to the resolution of the D7100. The Sigma delivers.This is a very poor comparison as the two crops are at very different shutter speeds and settings.1/200 and f8 on the left and 1/320s f5.6 with the Sigma lens Try to compare same lens on the D7K vs the D7100 to get a comparison relevant to the topic. Best you're doing here is comparing one lens with another and not well as you're allowing things like diffraction, mirror slap, holding technique, and etc. ...to perhaps affect the results diffrently one lens to the other.Same time, same camera settings, different lenses.Not same settingsI can however imagine that the Nikon 10-24 is up to the resolution of the D90 without any complaints. But here you are only magnifying blur at 24 MP.No you are not as you would likely get much poorer result at those same settings with the D90 up-sized to the same resolution you see here. You would get near the same results (D90 vs D7100) if you shot both at the same settings (fstop and shutter speed) and downsized the D7100 to match rez.This are only 100% crops, not the whole imagesFor better experience see in original size.Again...all you're comparing here is two lenses at different apertures and shutter speeds. That's unrelated to the topic of 24mp vs 16mp (all else being equal)

J C Brown wrote:My first digital camera was a 3 MP Olympus Camedia which my son left with me when he returned to the USA after our daughter's wedding in 2001. It was while I was trying to understand why its resolution as measured with a FUJIFILM test chart was only about 20 line pairs/mm, 2/3 of the value that I'd estimated from the 1500 pixel height of its sensor that I concluded from a graphical simulation that the limit of resolution for a monochromatic sensor would correspond to a value of about 1.5 pixels per line.When I subsequently noticed false colours in the pixels adjacent to the black lines in test images recorded with a 5 MP Bridge camera I concluded that these were due in part to the edges of the lines partially overlapping adjacent pixels and partly to the arrangement of the red, green and blue filters of the Bayer matrix.These discoveries and the difficulty I perceived in assessing the resolution from images of the tapered lines of the chart used in DPR reviews led me to develop a test chart with which I could assess the resolution in black and six colours.Further investigations with an FZ50 Bridge camera and Nikon afocal TCs led me to develop improved versions with which I could obtain more accurate measurements. If you are interested you will find further informationhere.JimmyInteresting stuff, JC.

Do not confuse the quantity of information provided with the quality of information you get. Ken Rockwell is not at the same level as people like Lloyd Chambers or Bjørn Rørslett in the review of lenses with digital cameras.A consumer level lens will have notable shortcomings and the greater the resolution of the camera's sensor and processors the more apparent they will be in pictures. This includes lenses such as the 16-85mm, 18-55m, 18-200mm zoom lens. It does not include lenses like the pro zooms with moderate zoom ranges (14-24, 16-35, 18-35, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400) or the prime lenses introduced in the past 12 years.The D7100 has the same pixel density as the D800. If Ken Rockwell's comments as interpreted by the OP were correct then no lens would be good enough for the D800. How then to explain the many great images taken with the D800?I have both the D800e and the D7100 and neither camera presents any problems with image quality with any of my lenses. I avoid marginal lenses like the 24-85mm and 24-120mm and the closest I come to a borderline lens is the FX 28-300mm which does an excellent job with the D800e.If you want to become a better photographer there is nothing to be gained by spending time at websites like that of Ken Rockwell. For him it is an additional source of income for his family and that is great but do not think for a second that you get a wealth of information that will make you a better photographer. For that you need to go to the top tier photographers.

calson wrote:Do not confuse the quantity of information provided with the quality of information you get. Ken Rockwell is not at the same level as people like Lloyd Chambers or Bjørn Rørslett in the review of lenses with digital cameras.A consumer level lens will have notable shortcomings and the greater the resolution of the camera's sensor and processors the more apparent they will be in pictures. This includes lenses such as the 16-85mm, 18-55m, 18-200mm zoom lens. It does not include lenses like the pro zooms with moderate zoom ranges (14-24, 16-35, 18-35, 24-70, 70-200, 200-400) or the prime lenses introduced in the past 12 years.The D7100 has the same pixel density as the D800. If Ken Rockwell's comments as interpreted by the OP were correct then no lens would be good enough for the D800. How then to explain the many great images taken with the D800?I have both the D800e and the D7100 and neither camera presents any problems with image quality with any of my lenses. I avoid marginal lenses like the 24-85mm and 24-120mm and the closest I come to a borderline lens is the FX 28-300mm which does an excellent job with the D800e.If you want to become a better photographer there is nothing to be gained by spending time at websites like that of Ken Rockwell. For him it is an additional source of income for his family and that is great but do not think for a second that you get a wealth of information that will make you a better photographer. For that you need to go to the top tier photographers.Good points.  Point of order: The D7100 has higher pixel density than the D800. If scaled up to FX size at the same pixel pitch, it would have 54MP on tap.  It's the D7000 that's approximately equal to the D800 in pixel density.

mosswings wrote:It's well known that it takes a bit more than 2.4 pixels to resolve one line pair in a Bayer digital sensor owing to the Bayer Color Filter Array...only a panchromatic sensor would have the potential of reaching 2000 LP/PH, or 4000 LPH. This is where 80% of that 1.5 factor comes from.As to 85lp/mm, it's interesting to note that the oft-criticized Nikon 18-200 yields 2600 LW/PH at 50mm, f5.6 when tested on a D7000, or 86 lp/mm, and that includes the resolution of the sensor! All this says is that lenses are still quite good compared to the resolving capability of the sensors applied to them, and what we are seeing in the complaints department is mostly small things. Not night and day.From my reading of the specification in the DPR review the D7000 has 3264 pixels in a sensor height of 15.6 mm. If my calculations are correct that means that a resolution of 2600 LW/PH corresponds to a line width of 3264/2600 = 1.26 pixels and a resolution of 1300/15.6 = 83.3 lp/mm.As a digital image consists entirely of one pixel high squares it is clearly impossible for it to accurately represent a group of lines or spaces each of which has a width of 1.26 pixels. Only lines and spaces which are integer multiples of a pixel height can be represented accurately.If for a monochrome image it is assumed that the lines are parallel to the axes of the sensor then depending on its position in relation to the edges of a row of pixels a single 1.26 pixel wide black line may be recorded as a 2 pixel wide line in which one row of pixels is black and the adjacent row is 26% grey, a 2 pixel wide line in which the adjacent rows are of two different shades of grey or of a 2 pixel wide line in which both rows are of the same 63% shade of grey. Similar reasoning may be applied to the resulting nominally white spaces between the lines.That in my opinion is the main cause for the significant differences between the resolution values assessed from images of tapered line test charts, as discussed inhttp://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41438422.I agree fully with your views about the quality of lenses in relation to the resolution of digital sensors. With the exception of low quality lenses unless it is adversely affected by aberrations at large apertures, diffraction at small apertures, noise at high ISO and/or blurring due to camera shake the resolution of a digital camera is in my opinion dominated by the resolution of the sensor and the subsequent in camera processing rather than by the quality of the lens.Jimmy