Stewart, for the comparison to be meaningful you should repeat it with the same ISO setting and adjust only F-Stop and shutter speed. Otherwise we'll never know how the distance scale vanished.
And- I really like my Two EP2's.
And- I really like my Two EP2's.
Sparrow
Veteran
Ah .... I'll need a teenager to do that, she's out at the moment.
the first photo is the f22 version btw
I figured the first was the F22 version, and is also the one shot at ISO 400. Rather than declare "Look diffraction erased the distance scale", let's try to get the gain on the sensor out of the equation.
And the best way to determine the differences is to register the two images and do a frame-to-frame subtract.
And the best way to determine the differences is to register the two images and do a frame-to-frame subtract.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Just for giggles, another 4/3 to APS-C comparison:
Leica-Panasonic 45/2.8 macro on G1 vs. Nikon 50/1.8D on D300.
Spoiler: at f/22, both lenses deliver ~750 lp/ph (MTF-50) right out to the corners — just like the Olympus 50/2 and Canon 100/2.8 macros shown in the similar comparison above.
Conclusion: at apertures of f/11 and smaller, where diffraction is undeniably limiting, APS-C (1.4 or 1.5 crop) and 4/3 (or micro 4/3) sensors deliver effectively identical resolution and microcontrast, from center to corners. At wider apertures, where lens aberrations rather than diffraction are limiting, the results obtained depend on the specific lens used, and on the sensor density. The best results obtained with both systems are, again, nearly indistinguishable.
This is an even smaller difference than the already small difference predicted by theory. I don't know why this is the case, but one can compare many different lens/sensor combinations over at DP Review, and these general conclusions are remarkably robust.
With squarish aspect ratios (4:3, 5:4, square) there is in practice effectively no difference at all between APS-C and 4/3. With wider aspect ratios the APS-C systems should have a slight advantage (roughly 12.5% for 3:2 vs. 4:3) across the long edge of the frame.
It will be interesting to see how well these conclusions hold up at wider apertures (say, f/4), as pixels continue to shrink on cameras like the 18 megapixel Canon 7D and the projected 15 megapixel 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras that many of us expect will be released this year.
Leica-Panasonic 45/2.8 macro on G1 vs. Nikon 50/1.8D on D300.
Spoiler: at f/22, both lenses deliver ~750 lp/ph (MTF-50) right out to the corners — just like the Olympus 50/2 and Canon 100/2.8 macros shown in the similar comparison above.
Conclusion: at apertures of f/11 and smaller, where diffraction is undeniably limiting, APS-C (1.4 or 1.5 crop) and 4/3 (or micro 4/3) sensors deliver effectively identical resolution and microcontrast, from center to corners. At wider apertures, where lens aberrations rather than diffraction are limiting, the results obtained depend on the specific lens used, and on the sensor density. The best results obtained with both systems are, again, nearly indistinguishable.
This is an even smaller difference than the already small difference predicted by theory. I don't know why this is the case, but one can compare many different lens/sensor combinations over at DP Review, and these general conclusions are remarkably robust.
With squarish aspect ratios (4:3, 5:4, square) there is in practice effectively no difference at all between APS-C and 4/3. With wider aspect ratios the APS-C systems should have a slight advantage (roughly 12.5% for 3:2 vs. 4:3) across the long edge of the frame.
It will be interesting to see how well these conclusions hold up at wider apertures (say, f/4), as pixels continue to shrink on cameras like the 18 megapixel Canon 7D and the projected 15 megapixel 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras that many of us expect will be released this year.
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
I just see it
I just see it
I don't go intentionally looking for it, and I don't see it in all u4/3 images, or even most. But when I do, and someone is asking for feedback, I have mentioned it a couple of times.
I'm sorry that you don't or can't see it, or recognize it. Maybe that's a good thing for you?
I just see it
I don't go intentionally looking for it, and I don't see it in all u4/3 images, or even most. But when I do, and someone is asking for feedback, I have mentioned it a couple of times.
I'm sorry that you don't or can't see it, or recognize it. Maybe that's a good thing for you?
ampguy
Veteran
interesting link
interesting link
thanks for providing it.
On my monitor, it is clear that both systems are diffraction limited at (the default aperture at your link below) though the 4/3 looks worse on my monitor.
Here's where you can actually see the mtf lp/mm drop for the 4/3 by 30-40% vs the APS - change just the aperture on each to f4 or f5.6. The APS retains its resolution by a huge margin, while the 4/3 drops off like a cliff.
interesting link
thanks for providing it.
On my monitor, it is clear that both systems are diffraction limited at (the default aperture at your link below) though the 4/3 looks worse on my monitor.
Here's where you can actually see the mtf lp/mm drop for the 4/3 by 30-40% vs the APS - change just the aperture on each to f4 or f5.6. The APS retains its resolution by a huge margin, while the 4/3 drops off like a cliff.
ampguy
Veteran
Stewart
Stewart
Maybe toss in some bright greens, reds, yellows - will be very easy to see.
Stewart
Maybe toss in some bright greens, reds, yellows - will be very easy to see.
ampguy
Veteran
Hi Stewart
Hi Stewart
There's a stop or two difference here, I am guessing that maybe the G1 has a max shutter exposure and it timed out? I think you'll want to do the tests outdoors or in brighter light so the f22 one doesn't timeout.
also, putting some greens, reds, and yellows in the photo will make it even easier to pick out.
Thanks.
Hi Stewart
There's a stop or two difference here, I am guessing that maybe the G1 has a max shutter exposure and it timed out? I think you'll want to do the tests outdoors or in brighter light so the f22 one doesn't timeout.
also, putting some greens, reds, and yellows in the photo will make it even easier to pick out.
Thanks.
Sparrow
Veteran
OK, both at 100 asa, ignore the motion blur Alice interpreted "keep still" as "burst out laughing"
f22
f5.6
click the pic for the original image, what do you see? I don't understand the registration thing Brian, sorry
f22
f5.6
click the pic for the original image, what do you see? I don't understand the registration thing Brian, sorry
ampguy
Veteran
I see it
I see it
the reduced contrast and resolution on your daughters face and hair (despite the motion blur) can be readily seen.
But to see it even easier, expose with a bit more light, and put some red, green, and yellow items in the frame.
I see it
the reduced contrast and resolution on your daughters face and hair (despite the motion blur) can be readily seen.
But to see it even easier, expose with a bit more light, and put some red, green, and yellow items in the frame.
In the 1980s I did a lot of image processing, "machine vision". Registering two images usually meant finding features in each, and using those features to "register" or line the images up. One image typically had to be shifted and be resampled to line-up within sub-pixel resolution. After that was done, just subtract one from the other and you get a new image that is the difference frame.
Cute pictures of your daughter, nice socks. Nikki has not hit the "sock phase" yet, but is big into multi-colored finger-nails.
Looking at Stewart's first set of shots, I wonder how many pictures taken stopped down also cause the ISO to be set higher by the camera's auto exposure system. This would certainly make the shots look noisier than those taken wide-open.
Cute pictures of your daughter, nice socks. Nikki has not hit the "sock phase" yet, but is big into multi-colored finger-nails.
Looking at Stewart's first set of shots, I wonder how many pictures taken stopped down also cause the ISO to be set higher by the camera's auto exposure system. This would certainly make the shots look noisier than those taken wide-open.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
You can readily see it in the blurred area?... sorry, I think you are talking rubbish
Sparrow
Veteran
I have an old application that will do that subtraction, but I'm not sure it will work with files this size, Ill look tomorrow
On simply a subjective inspection the f22 version of that one seems to have the better resolution but slightly reduced contrast to my eye, what do you think?
On the two photographs shown, one at F22 and the other at F5.6, rather than trying to fool anyone that I have super-vision and can readily tell one from another on the basis on contrast and resolution:
Stewart, your daughter is beautiful and these are very cute pictures.
Stewart, your daughter is beautiful and these are very cute pictures.
Sparrow
Veteran
Thanks Brian, she's getting all growed-up now tho, college in a few weeks, how time flies make the most of what you have left with your's it's soon gone
tlitody
Well-known
since we got onto digital sensors, can someone tell me if my thinking on this is correct. Taking n M9 which has 5212 pixels in the horizontal dimension. Then dividing by 36 (the mm width) we get 144. Therefore in the horizontal dimension we can only get 72lp/mm which is less than half that achievable with B+W film on 35mm when using a tripod. Is this correct ?
You also have to factor in the Bayer-pattern Mosaic filter on the M9, and the color of the lines. It can be as few as 36lp/mm. Other sensors have anti-aliasing filters which reduces the resolution to less than just the raw pixel count.
I have one camera that is monochrome and calculating resolution on it is 2pixels per line pair.
I have one camera that is monochrome and calculating resolution on it is 2pixels per line pair.
kossi008
Photon Counter
kossi008
Photon Counter
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Right, and it can be visible if you wet print from film and compare it to digital printing from M9... But if instead of wet printing you scan film and digitally print it, M9's printed files can be as good as scanned film printed files because there's quality loss when we scan... For real great tone and resolving power, wet print medium format...
Cheers,
Juan