DavidBM wrote:
Possibly he means the resolution is such that, were you to have a higher resolution sensor, there would be an increase.
The problem with this definition is that there will always be an increase in in resolutions with a higher resolutions sensor. System resolution is a function of both lens and sensor resolution, and always increases if either increases (hens the absurdity of the idea that some lenses do worse on higher resolution sensors)
But there is a vague but maybe useful way of thinking of it. Some lenses are such that should the sensor resolutions increase, you get a huge increase in system resolution - in the limiting case of an infinity resolution lens, as much as the sensor resolution increase (ie in such a case system resolution would just be sensor resolution). Of course there is no infinite resolution lens, that's just to describe the limit. But for some lenses that's close. Weaker lenses show very little increase with increased sensor resolution.
So maybe "out resolving the sensor" means that the increase in system resolution with meaningful sensor resolution increase is very high. Of course it's a bit subjective: what does "very high" mean.
smpetty, the best article I know of about this topic is this one here at The Luminous Landscape website: https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/
Its behind a paywall, but annual subscription is only $12 - well worth it, when you consider the depth of articles available on the site. Hope this helps...
Petegh wrote:
smpetty, the best article I know of about this topic is this one here at The Luminous Landscape website: https://luminous-landscape.com/do-sensors-out-resolve-lenses/
Its behind a paywall, but annual subscription is only $12 - well worth it, when you consider the depth of articles available on the site. Hope this helps...
There are also the two Zeiss articles on MTF:
The discussion of out resolving sensors or lenses is in the second one.
"In one tutorial on the interesting internet page “The Luminous Landscape” one author asked “Do sensors "outresolve" lenses ?” One can answer this question with the words of a new popular saying
"Since you may be more used to this, here is what our excellent (left) and OK (right) lenses would look like if you took a Seimens Star chart image at 8k and 100% magnification. If you did it on a 1080p camera, they’d be nearly identical."
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/media/2017/10/stars.jpg
"Since you may be more used to this, here is what our excellent (left) and OK (right) lenses would look like if you took a Seimens Star chart image at 8k and 100% magnification. If you did it on a 1080p camera, they’d be nearly identical."
(Two) pictures are worth a thousand words. Thanks!
The discussion of out resolving sensors or lenses is in the second one.
That second article is a bit of a classic...
But a quote from it gives a bit of a clue as to the upshot (he talks about 12 and 24mp, but equally applies for 24 and 42, or whatever...)
1. Doubling the number of pixels improves the transfer function even if the sensor resolution is better than the resolution of the lens.
2. The curve for the poor lens on the 24 MP sensor is almost as good as the curve of the good lens with the 12 MP sensor.
3. We expect differences between 12 and 24 MP to be visible but we also see that they should not be overestimated (see Comparison 4). The differences are not as large as the numbers 12 and 24 may suggest
I've been considering the 35 & 50 APO, but after viewing images here, and seeing the magenta color drift towards the corners on the E mount in some images I have a few questions
1) Does it go away with lens correction profile ?
2) Will it not be evident stopped down ?
3) Does this happen on all the 50A E mount, or just some copies ?
4) Is this a lens flaw?
5) I am aware adding a Zeiss filter it helps some with the drift
Adding a L41 filter (Kenko orZeiss) will take care of the magenta issue.
It is not dependent on the camera or a camera profile.
Aside this, this is the best 50mm in the market for Sony.
IndyFab wrote:
I've been considering the 35 & 50 APO, but after viewing images here, and seeing the magenta color drift towards the corners on the E mount in some images I have a few questions
1) Does it go away with lens correction profile ?
2) Will it not be evident stopped down ?
3) Does this happen on all the 50A E mount, or just some copies ?
4) Is this a lens flaw?
5) I am aware adding a Zeiss filter it helps some with the drift
Not reliably since it is dependent on amount of ambient UV.
2) Will it not be evident stopped down ?
No, I've seen it stopped down and it is evident.
3) Does this happen on all the 50A E mount, or just some copies ?
I believe it's all copies. I preordered the 50 APO in E mount when it was released. I also see this behavior in the 35 APO in E mount, so I highly doubt you'd find some copies of the 50 APO E that don't exhibit this.
4) Is this a lens flaw?
No lens is perfect, as no lens design is perfect, but many lenses don't seem to exhibit this behavior.
5) I am aware adding a Zeiss filter it helps some with the drift.
The Kenko might do ever so slightly better than the Zeiss, but to me it's within such a small margin of error I would say both work effectively. They both do an excellent job, and Sony's "concentric color ring problem" probably accounts for most of any residual magenta you see.
-Tim
realVivek wrote:
Adding a L41 filter (Kenko orZeiss) will take care of the magenta issue.
It is not dependent on the camera or a camera profile.
Aside this, this is the best 50mm in the market for Sony.
realVivek wrote:
Adding a L41 filter (Kenko orZeiss) will take care of the magenta issue.
It is not dependent on the camera or a camera profile.
Aside this, this is the best 50mm in the market for Sony.
---------------------------------------------
tsdevine wrote:
I agree with Vivek 100%.
IMHO:
1) Does it go away with lens correction profile ?
Not reliably since it is dependent on amount of ambient UV.
2) Will it not be evident stopped down ?
No, I've seen it stopped down and it is evident.
3) Does this happen on all the 50A E mount, or just some copies ?
I believe it's all copies. I preordered the 50 APO in E mount when it was released. I also see this behavior in the 35 APO in E mount, so I highly doubt you'd find some copies of the 50 APO E that don't exhibit this.
4) Is this a lens flaw?
No lens is perfect, as no lens design is perfect, but many lenses don't seem to exhibit this behavior.
5) I am aware adding a Zeiss filter it helps some with the drift.
The Kenko might do ever so slightly better than the Zeiss, but to me it's within such a small margin of error I would say both work effectively. They both do an excellent job, and Sony's "concentric color ring problem" probably accounts for most of any residual magenta you see.
I picked up a Freewell magnetic filter system over the winter. I put the magnetic ring on the UV filter than then the Freewell filters snap on to the ring.
I usually just use CPLs or dark CPLs for the shooting I do.
tsdevine wrote:
I picked up a Freewell magnetic filter system over the winter. I put the magnetic ring on the UV filter than then the Freewell filters snap on to the ring.
I usually just use CPLs or dark CPLs for the shooting I do.
No, you might be able to stack filters. I’m using the Freewell for convenience. Not because of this.
The concentric ring problem is a different issue. That affects many lenses and that seems to be on Sony to resolve. All I was saying is that you may notice that issue even with the filter, depending on the exposure and subject. It can give a hint if magenta as well.
tsdevine wrote:
No, you might be able to stack filters. I’m using the Freewell for convenience. Not because of this.
The concentric ring problem is a different issue. That affects many lenses and that seems to be on Sony to resolve. All I was saying is that you may notice that issue even with the filter, depending on the exposure and subject. It can give a hint if magenta as well.
Just watched a quick video from Mark Galer using the Freewill system.
I wasn't aware of a concentric ring problem using Sony FF, nor do I even know what it is, as I never experienced any issues. However I get what your saying, about it not possibly resolving the color drift even with the Kenko or Zeiss filter added to the VC 50A
CV 50 APO on the R5 – IQ is not worth it for landscape. Against the RF 50 at f/5.6 and f/8, the RF out-resolves and has higher contrast than the CV. However, on the M10-R, the CV 50 APO beats the R5 + RF 50. The CV lenses, or at least this one, certainly seem optimized for the M sensor, almost to the level I would expect from a fixed-lens setup.
Adapter used: Kipon w/macro helicoid. The adapter allowed the lens to properly achieve infinity focus right before the hard stop. With the high-magnification of the R5 EVF, achieving perfect infinity focus was easy. I didn't find myself struggling going back and forth with the focus ring like I have to on the GFX with its not-as-good EVF.
Had to focus on the corners to get things equally sharp across the frame at both f/5.6 and f/8. Focusing center-bottom would leave the corners slightly soft. On the M10-R, I don't see this at all – focus is dead-on sharp across the frame at the infinity hard stop at any aperture.
Contrast and sharpness of the entire image is lower on the R5 + CV 50 APO than the R5 + RF50.
For this and other CV lenses used at close distance, the R5 works well. The CV 35 f/1.2 III and 75 f/1.5 are very sharp at close distances. The helicoid macro adapter also lets me get very close with either. But at the closer distances made possible by the adapter, sharpness was noticeably better in the central part of the frame.
My advice would be if you want to use a CV M-version lens on a non-M body and get close to M-level results at infinity, I would use the SL2/SL2-S or maybe the Z6/Z7 instead.
I believe you used the m version of the AL 50/2? This review is about the E version (at least it started out that way).
What makes you say that the M version has any chance of doing well on a Nikon Z or an L mount camera? May it will be out resolved there by the respective system 50s as well?
In other threads members who have adapted M mount lenses to various mirrorless systems have reported that results on Nikon Z appear to be the best of the stock sensors from the top three manufacturers. Leica's SL series cameras are somewhat optimized for adapting M mount lenses and based on tests and anecdotal feedback on the forums, technical image quality appears to be closer to those lenses used on Leica M cameras, compared to other unmodified mirrorless sensors.
highdesertmesa wrote:
CV 50 APO on the R5 – IQ is not worth it for landscape. Against the RF 50 at f/5.6 and f/8, the RF out-resolves and has higher contrast than the CV. However, on the M10-R, the CV 50 APO beats the R5 + RF 50. The CV lenses, or at least this one, certainly seem optimized for the M sensor, almost to the level I would expect from a fixed-lens setup.
Adapter used: Kipon w/macro helicoid. The adapter allowed the lens to properly achieve infinity focus right before the hard stop. With the high-magnification of the R5 EVF, achieving perfect infinity focus was easy. I didn't find myself struggling going back and forth with the focus ring like I have to on the GFX with its not-as-good EVF.
Had to focus on the corners to get things equally sharp across the frame at both f/5.6 and f/8. Focusing center-bottom would leave the corners slightly soft. On the M10-R, I don't see this at all – focus is dead-on sharp across the frame at the infinity hard stop at any aperture.
Contrast and sharpness of the entire image is lower on the R5 + CV 50 APO than the R5 + RF50.
For this and other CV lenses used at close distance, the R5 works well. The CV 35 f/1.2 III and 75 f/1.5 are very sharp at close distances. The helicoid macro adapter also lets me get very close with either. But at the closer distances made possible by the adapter, sharpness was noticeably better in the central part of the frame.
My advice would be if you want to use a CV M-version lens on a non-M body and get close to M-level results at infinity, I would use the SL2/SL2-S or maybe the Z6/Z7 instead. ...Show more →
Thanks! This is exactly the kind of info I'm looking for in consideration of my Leica and Canon systems. Unfortunately it's not what I was hoping for, but also isn't a surprise. Maybe, hopefully, Cosina will release an equivalent of the E-mount optimized version for Canon RF.
realVivek wrote:
highdesertmesa, thanks for the info.
I believe you used the m version of the AL 50/2? This review is about the E version (at least it started out that way).
What makes you say that the M version has any chance of doing well on a Nikon Z or an L mount camera? May it will be out resolved there by the respective system 50s as well?
My mistake. I got confused because there are announcement threads and review threads, sometimes with both versions, and I didn't look closely enough at this one. I just looked at the thread title, which doesn't say E-mount. I'll dig around and find a more appropriate thread.
rscheffler wrote:
...Thanks! This is exactly the kind of info I'm looking for in consideration of my Leica and Canon systems. Unfortunately it's not what I was hoping for, but also isn't a surprise. Maybe, hopefully, Cosina will release an equivalent of the E-mount optimized version for Canon RF.
I'll bet we get RF and Z mount versions of the Zeiss Milvus lenses before Voigtlander, but who knows
rscheffler wrote:
Yeah, perhaps. No need to reformulate anything with those. Though Zeiss seems to be very inactive lately.
BTW, this is the appropriate thread. It's cross-posted to Alt. No need to start another one. Not everyone shoots sony...
Oh, I also forgot to mention, I was surprised by how thick/big the R5 + M lens combo was compared to the thinness of the M10-R, especially considering the R5 flange distance is shorter. I guess Canon needs a lot more room for stuff behind their sensor (IBIS mechanism, flip-LCD, thicker circuit boards, cables, etc.) than Leica does on the M.
The M10 variants or A7 series seem to be the smallest solutions for landscape these days.
