leerob wrote:I agree that lens is very important. Wish I could justify buying Leica.But you don't have a Zeiss lens to appreciate the extra mp.  As was pointed out most lenses will show improved results over a lesser mp camera.  It may not realize as high of percentage of the sensor potential but it will be better unless it is a reallycr@plens which there are a few.

mosswings wrote:Cool, JC. Have you published your "marching bar trio" test pattern update yet? It might be fun to try it on my D90 and D7100 to see what happens.I appreciate the subtlety with which you have constructed your test target. Your correspondents in the other threads were right to be impressed.Cheers-Thanks mosswings, your complimentary remarks are very much appreciated.I would be very happy to have you evaluate my "marching bar trio" update using your D90 and D7100.Unfortunately although the size of the file is less than 10 MB the overall dimensions exceed the current limit for uploading to my DPR gallery. As I'm not yet ready to submit it in a post about its use I've sent you a copy as an e-mail attachment.Jimmy

leerob wrote:Good to know all these.Thank you!Adam,Please accept my apologies for the lengthy intrusion in your thread.I'm very pleased to hear that you found my exchanges with mosswings useful.Jimmy

Often Ken Rockwell does not appear to know much about what he is talking aboutIf you increase sensor resolution you get more image resolution with every lens used on that body - including the 18-200 VR.Similarly if you get a higher resolving lens you get more image resolution with every body you attach it to, including several years old 6 MP bodies.I do not think anybody doubts you get the best image detail with the best lenses combined with the best bodies - but that is not what Ken appears to be saying.

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.It is total nonsense, for anyone who like real, natural, virtually-analog capture.It is total nonsense for anyone who wants rugged data that doesn't depend on luck of alignment of pixels and subject transients, and survives geometrical processing like CA, distortion, and perspective correction, rotation, and arbitrary resampling in practically lossless manner.For someone who doesn't care about imaging quality, I guess it can be sufficient.

Kens remark is total nonsense

RedFox88 wrote:So a 24 MP camera only gets 15 MP recorded? Yes it's more than from the what, 16 MP d7000 but it isn't recording 24 MP of resolution if you believe DXO's numbers.Their numbers have only relative meaning. If one lens gives more perceptual MP with the same sensor than another lens, it is probably sharper over most of the frame, but the absolute implications of their numbers are very deceptive; a lens that gives 15 P-MP on a 24 MP sensor may very well need a 200MP sensor to be fully resolved, for all intents and purposes, and it certainly doesn't "waste" 9 million sensor pixels.

which sigma torppapa?10-20?  because then you are comparing 20mm sigma  to 24mm nikon ?i was seriously considering the nikon 10-24 but havent heard much positive news about it. So now thinking of the tokina 11-16 or sigma 10-20. either will be a good complement to my 16-85 which is by no means perfect but i d like its flexibility.And the plan is to buy the upcoming d300s replacement so i do need the resolution.Bretttorppapa 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.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.

torppapa wrote:Same time, same camera settings, different lenses.For better experience see in original size.If the camera settings are the same, how come the info at top left of each original size image shows that shutter speeds, aperture, ISO, and focal length differ between the two images?  I agree that the right image looks better but it was taken with a slightly faster shutter speed and lower ISO.  Would that have made a difference?

If the camera settings are the same, how come the info at top left of each original size image shows that shutter speeds, aperture, ISO, and focal length differ between the two images? I agree that the right image looks better but it was taken with a slightly faster shutter speed and lower ISO. Would that have made a difference?How would a 1/200s shutter ever affect blur of a 24-26mm lens?

I found a difference between even 16mp and 24mp DX cameras in regards to noise and grain in high ISO RAW files.http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3661023?page=1D5100 (ISO 3200)D5200 (ISO 3200)

What I am beginning to appreciate is the DXO mark score for lens and camera combinations. I find that it gives a good sense of IQ for a variety of setups and am more confident it is fairly indicative of what one can expect.

mike geier wrote:Kens (sic) remark is total nonsenseWell, that's final then.