During my photographic reading, I stumbled upon these three charts. I found them interesting and thought some of you may as well.  |
| This chart represents the size of the photosites of a few current cameras. The different colors represent the different sensor sizes. For example, the new Fujifilm X-T5 has smaller pixels than the OM Systems OM-1 camera. The chart challenges the assertion that camera with smaller pixels can't possibly produce excellent photographs. Sensors and image processors have come a long way. Technologicial solutions can mitigate the laws of physics. For the pixel pitch of additional cameras, there is an extensive list here. |
 |
| This chart shows some current cameras' sensor readout speeds. The farther down on the chart you go the faster the readout speed and the less 'rolling shutter' is exhibited. Additionally, for mirrorless cameras, that also means shorter or potentially no viewfinder blackout. Notice all of the red bars represent the newest, latest and greatest 'stacked' sensors, which all have very, very fast readout speeds. Very expensive currently, as well. If we ever get a 'global shutter', the readout speeds are immediate. No rolling shutter. No blackout. |
 |
| The softening of the sharpness of an image due to diffraction* is often talked about. What some don't realize is the smaller the pixels, the lower the aperture that softening diffraction becomes an issue. For example, according to this chart, an APS-C sized sensor with 40mp, such as the new Fujifilm X-H2 or X-T5, will start to experience image degradation due to diffraction at about f/5.6. The same 40mp sensor, but 35mm or 'full frame' size (larger individual pixels), won't start to experience diffraction until about f/9-10. Does this mean you shouldn't use those smaller apertures? Heavens no! At these 'threshold' apertures the diffraction may not even be noticeable but the more you stop down, the softer your image can become. When that happens, you can add some sharpening to your image using your editing software or, alternatively, turn to Topaz Sharpen AI, Topaz Photo AI, DXO Deep Prime, On1 Perfectly Sharp, or other AI based sharpening programs that can take a slightly soft image and turn it into a tack sharp one. I would rather use a very small aperture and risk a bit of diffraction than to not get my photo or have one with insufficient depth of field and critical image components out of focus. |
I originally saw these charts on Lenstip.com. However, for easier understanding by an audience that may include very sophisticated as well as novice photographers, I slightly modified them.
I hope this information was interesting to you.
*As I understand it, diffraction is the loss of image sharpness at very small apertures (f/11, F16, f22, for example, depending upon the aperture and pixel size) due to the extreme bending of the light rays as they travel through the tiny opening of the aperture blades. Part of the laws of physics.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2022 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
Lens tests on the internet usually result in a lot of head scratching for me. Will this lens perform similarly in a real world scene as it did when tested with a chart at a short distance?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the numerical difference between values that is discernible in a 19" print? Is the numerical fall off at smaller apertures due to diffraction of the lens or the sensor?
Last century, one could purchase a set of print examples from Zone VI. If the testers at Photography Life or Lenstips would offer something similar, I would be a buyer.
My Z7+2470 is best for typical scenes at f5.6. An examination of the side areas consistently shows more detail at f5.6 than f8. Some scenes demand more DOF, so I bracket f5.6>f8>f11 exposures to give myself a choice later. If f5.6 has sufficient DOF, I always choose it.
I would add that the current 24-70 f4 is the 3rd such lens I have used. It is discernibly sharper than the others. My wife's Olympus 60 macro is better than mine. Hmmm.
When I was much younger, I used 8x10 for personal images. My lens was a brass barrel uncoated convertible Goerz Dagor that had visible bubbles in the lens element. That lens produced long scale prints that had all the necessary detail and a subjective "airiness" to the gray tones. That "airiness" was probably uncontrolled lens flare but it resembled the glow seen in the 1940's images by Adams and the Westons.
In comparison, I used a modern Nikon 300 f9 Apo for color. The Dagor was the clear choice over the Nikon for black and white prints.
Thank you for your comment and questions. I cut my (black and white) teeth on a 4X5 Calumet monorail camera. Back then I was a close follower of Fred Picker and his Zone VI Studios up in Pitney, VT. He advised us novices to buy a 90mm f/8 Schneider Super Angulon lens and, if I remember correctly and I may not, a 210mm f/5.6 Schneider Symmar-s lens. He was fully into accutance and sharp photos as I thought those lenses were exactly that, but had no real character as did your Dagor. I ‘graduated’ to a Zone VI cherry field camera and used that and the lenses, along with his books, newsletters and the books of others that predated my efforts to learn the Zone System. I knew it and practiced well but after a few years I tired of carrying around and using the 4X5 gear. I also didn’t fancy tray developing, one piece at at a time, the 4X5 Tri-X. I went to medium format and that is where I predominantly remained until digital arrived.
DeleteYou are absolutely right. We tend to put too much credence in test charts, brick walls and color charts and not enough into just looking at the final produce and judging from there.