Camera glass and megapixels: Ive read that lens products arent up to handling the really large megapixel cameras. If thats true I would like an opinion on the following question.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Ive read that lens products arent up to handling the really large megapixel cameras. If thats true I would like an opinion on the following question.

Suppose someone took a photo of a rectangular building with 20 windows with a 36 MP camera. In post processing one of the center windows was cropped out and enlarged to some large size on the computer screen.

Then using the same lens and camera settings using a 50MP camera, with exactly the same post processing, how would the cropped 36MP image compare with the cropped 50MP image?

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

travelwp wrote:

Ive read that lens products arent up to handling... (show quote)

I know that this doesn't answer your question- but unless you print to large dimensions (larger than 16 by 24 ) you can't tell the difference between 20-36- or 50 megapixels. (unless you agressively crop the lower megapixel image)

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

travelwp wrote:

Ive read that lens products arent up to handling... (show quote)

Where did you read that? You do realize you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

Lens image quality is a combination of contrast and acutance, and both values change with the fstop and distance to subject. There are no hard limits on acutance or contrast - some subjects have lots of both and others not. This is a pure guess, but I would imagine that even a 100mp full frame camera would do a good lens justice.

Now, there are lots of crappy lenses out there - my favorite crappy lens is the Nikon 28-300. On a D800 or comparable camera it is pretty awful - and the camera does expose and to a degree amplify it's flaws. That lens is ok on a 12 mp camera, but when I put each of 3 different copies on my D800, I thought they had all been dropped.

A lot of people love that lens - I can't understand that. Even Nikon cautions D800 owners that it will not produce the best images on that body, and as such have not included it on the list of recommended lenses for that camera.

Your question is not going to result in an answer - but you will get lots of great opinions.

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Theoretically, if the two images were the same size on the computer screen, the one from the 50 mp camera would be sharper, and if they were continually enlarged, the 36 mp image would pixellate first. But this actually means very little as image quality is dependent on much more than pixel density. Modern lenses vary greatly in their ability to exploit the theoretical capability of the sensor, but I would not agree that they cannot 'handle' large mega pixel sensors.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

travelwp wrote:

Ive read that lens products arent up to handling... (show quote)

To get a real comparison, use a Nikon D810 and a Canon 5dsr. One is a 36 megapixels the other a 50 megapixels. Lenses won't be same because of different mounts. Similar lenses would have to be used. Loved Times Square Photos. Black and White too.

Steve_m Loc: Southern California

Gene51 wrote:

Where did you read that? You do realize you can't ... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

SnappyHappy Loc: Chapin, SC “The Capitol of Lake Murray”

travelwp wrote:

Ive read that lens products arent up to handling the really large megapixel cameras. If thats true ...

I shoot a Canon 5Dsr and use multiple Canon and Zeiss lenses. I haven't yet thought that any of my lenses were unusable with the camera.

Bill_de Loc: US

mas24 wrote:

To get a real comparison, use a Nikon D810 and a Canon 5dsr. One is a 36 megapixels the other a 50 megapixels. Lenses won't be same because of different mounts. Similar lenses would have to be used. Loved Times Square Photos. Black and White too.

Considering that the OP is asking about lens quality compared to mp, to get e real comparison I think you would have to use the same lens. Doesn't Canon have 2 bodies that could be used for the comparison?

--

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Buying the biggest baddest most expensive consumer DSLR with the largest sensor and most pixels will not help your capture better photos. I see it all the time, all the best equipment and little knowledge equal average photos, Plan and Simple. Buy a medium of the line decent camera and Learn photography. Once you have learned the camera inside and out and how to capture any type of photo you want, then you'll know exactly which and what camera and lens to buy........

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Bill_de wrote:

Considering that the OP is asking about lens quality compared to mp, to get e real comparison I think you would have to use the same lens. Doesn't Canon have 2 bodies that could be used for the comparison?

--

Yes., it would be best to have 2 Canon bodies. But Canon does not have a 36 megapixels camera, full frame. Perhaps you could use the same lens with an adapter on the Canon to fit the F-mount lens on it. Odd perhaps for the comparison?

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

mas24 wrote:

Loved Times Square Photos. Black and White too.

Many thanks mas24 !!!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

travelwp wrote:

Ive read that lens products arent up to handling... (show quote)

T, the problem with all of that misinformation is that it's all based on the theoretical and in theory that's true. If you look at sites like DXO, which is as close as you can possibly get to the theoretical, they aren't wrong.
But we do photography in the real world. And in the real world, nobody that shoots with either 36 or 50 mps is gonna use the worst glass made or even kit lenses.
Any good lens looks like a million bucks behind very high mps!!
So are you contemplating one of these combinations or just mimicking what you've read, "someplace"!!
I'm gonna just guess that most debating/advising here have never even held a 50mp camera, let alone actually own one!! 36mp maybe, but 50 probably not!! ;-)
SS

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

SharpShooter wrote:

T, the problem with all of that misinformation is ... (show quote)

Amen to that statement!

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

SharpShooter wrote:

So are you contemplating one of these combinations or just mimicking what you've read, "someplace"!!

Here is why I asked the question.
I read this article:
Perceptual Megapixels, P-MPix for short, can be described as the equivalent number of megapixels when using a particular lens. Just as lenses offer different equivalent focal lengths when paired with different sensor sizes, sensors can have different equivalent megapixels when paired with lenses of various optical qualities.

For example, say youre shooting with a 24-megapixel camera, but are using a lens rated at 18 P-MPix. This means that the resulting photos are equal in sharpness to an 18-megapixel camera shooting with a optically perfect lens.

So after reading that I thought: where are the lenses that are rated at 50 megapixels and I couldnt find any, in fact most are much, much less.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

travelwp wrote:

Here is why I asked the question. br I read this... (show quote)

T, I'm sure you're absolutely right. My point was, just how sharp do we need to get? On paper we can get sharper and sharper, and yes, that's a good thing. But in the real world, just what is actually sharp enough?
I'm posting an approximately 100% crop of the eye portion of a portrait taken at 50 mp. This was taken with a $350 Canon 85mm non-L lens that's was released 15 years ago!! Could it be sharper...., I'm sure it could be!
Look at the veins on the white of the eye, that's one heck of a lot of detail. This shot is SOOC with all exif in tact. I did brighten it almost a stop because it was a bit underexposed. THAT in itself probably killed a bit of sharpness too!
All theory aside, what do YOU think?!

100% crop, shot at 50mp!

(Download)