Zeiss Otus wow

Indeed. really impressive, interesting to me (for those who remember my fascination with resolution early on) is that ISO chart difference between the full frame and the APC.

If this work of optical art outperforms all comers, the sensors are still offer more resolution than even this resolution monster. I think that until there is some sort of optical magic happening, 20 +/- 3 mp this is the "sweet spot" of resolution. (what ever that pixel size is on FF) And it take the very best gear AND technique to get this resolution.

Thoughts?

I think we really have to wait and see what the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art has to offer. If word through the grapevine is correct, then it'll be a contender with "Otus" caliber IQ. If those reports are correct, it will also carry a price tag that'll be higher than you'd expect for a Sigma lens in that category but certainly lower than that of the Otus's.

Only time will tell how much incremental value the Otus's IQ and build quality have. Right now, though, it's in a class of its own.

First of all, it seems to be a very impressive lens. If, someday, I am sitting around with piles of money, I'll definitely trade a pile for an Otus lens. Hopefully by then, they have a wide angle Otus, as that is where I see the MF being less of an issue.

In terms of pure resolution, it definitely seems to be the king of the 50 mm lens, but overall, I'd still put my money on the 300 f/2.8 II or maybe the 200 f/2 as the best overall optics. But the Otus seems to be in that company of the very best of lenses.

Regarding the question of which is the limiting factor in overall resolving power, the lens or the sensor, it does seem that the lens is still limiting somewhere between 21 MP and 46 MP. Based on the images I've seen, there is still something to be gained with good lenses up to the 36 MP of the D800/a7R. Not that I would consider that to be the ideal sensor size. Too many other factors go into that. But, with good lenses, they do seem to be able to resolve more detail.

Also, in terms of how Bryan runs his tests, I believe there is also a slight issue in comparing APS-C and FF. Because he fills the frame with the ISO 12233 chart, the crop sensor camera is actually physically further away from the chart than a FF camera. So, a 46 MP FF camera positioned the same distance as a 21 MP FF camera would likely resolve more detail than the 46 MP FF equivalent 18 MP 60D that Bryan used in his tests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Also, in terms of how Bryan runs his tests, I believe there is also a slight issue in comparing APS-C and FF. Because he fills the frame with the ISO 12233 chart, the crop sensor camera is actually physically further away from the chart than a FF camera. So, a 46 MP FF camera positioned the same distance as a 21 MP FF camera would likely resolve more detail than the 46 MP FF equivalent 18 MP 60D that Bryan used in his tests.

---

I was thinking about that on my way to work. How far down would the d800e etc go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Also, in terms of how Bryan runs his tests, I believe there is also a slight issue in comparing APS-C and FF. Because he fills the frame with the ISO 12233 chart, the crop sensor camera is actually physically further away from the chart than a FF camera. So, a 46 MP FF camera positioned the same distance as a 21 MP FF camera would likely resolve more detail than the 46 MP FF equivalent 18 MP 60D that Bryan used in his tests.

---

But that reflects real-world usage - you compensate for the crop-factor. What you are suggesting is interesting, too, but given that it's more of theoretical interest I'd say Bryan is doing the right thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin500

But that reflects real-world usage - you compensate for the crop-factor. What you are suggesting is interesting, too, but given that it's more of theoretical interest I'd say Bryan is doing the right thing.

---

Hi Colin. I agree, I like Bryan's tests. They do give you a more real world flavor. But one of the things that Bryan does that is great is gives us the ISO 12233 charts with the same camera, usually the 1DIIIs or 60D, and then multiple cameras (every camera body can be compared with the EF 200 f/2.0). Generally it is not recommended to compare lenses based upon shots taken with different camera systems. It is a great tool to compare camera bodies based on the same lens.

In discussing the resolving power of a lens vs a sensor and comparing a crop sensor and FF sensor there is a second factor to consider in addtion to pixel density when assessing Byran's charts, and that is distance from the subject. The combination of pixel density and the distance from the subject are what determine how many pixels are "on target" or how many pixels are used to define each inch of a subject. The way Bryan does his tests, the full 21 MP of the 1DIIIs and the 18 MP of the 60D are being used to define the subject, which is a more "real world" comparison. While the 60D has a higher pixel density, it is not 100 percent comparable because the 60D is actually using less pixels on target than the 1DIIIs.

That said, I do think that Busted/Mike is on to something. I don't think the difference seen in the comparison is exclusively due to the 3 MP difference in resolving power. I suspect there are some limitations in the resolution due to the lens. Which does indicate that there will be diminishing returns in higher MP due to the resolving power of even the best of lenses. I say diminishing returns because the counter to this point that I've read essentially amounts to even if you are better defining lens blur, it is still better definition. But, needless to say, it is diminishing returns on the higher and higher MP you have.

Somewhat on the same topic, I ran a poll a while ago asking the ideal number of MPs would be in a body. At least for those of us here at TDP, ~77 percent said 20-30 MP.