Nikon Z 50mm f1.8 unavilable.....

[Abitconfused]

I would post some but my website is under new management and I can't do any thing with it! I like the lens and it is very sharp in good light BUT I think the image quality diminishes a little faster as the light goes down than, say, my Sigma 24-35 f2. I am still experimenting. On a related note... Camera Raw 13.2 has a double your image size function (open Raw image, turn on filmstrip, right click image, select Enhance, Select Super Resolution, wait a few seconds, go to filmstrip, select it, open in Photoshop) that is FLAWLESS!!!!! So, to my buddy who said, "Your Z50 has a small sensor by today's standards." I say look at my 36 x 24 and tell me how much wall space you have??? Testing is ongoing.

[Abitconfused]

No url

[Manfred M]

No url

???

[Manfred M]

I like the lens and it is very sharp in good light BUT I think the image quality diminishes a little faster as the light goes down than, say, my Sigma 24-35 f2. I am still experimenting.

If you are holding the other variables constant; i.e. shutter speed, aperture and ISO, this statement does not make any inherent sense. The optics of the lens are not dependent on light levels for image quality. The other three variables can impact quality.

If anything, a f/1.8 50mm lens would normally be expected to out perform a zoom.

On a related note... Camera Raw 13.2 has a double your image size function (open Raw image, turn on filmstrip, right click image, select Enhance, Select Super Resolution, wait a few seconds, go to filmstrip, select it, open in Photoshop) that is FLAWLESS!!!!! So, to my buddy who said, "Your Z50 has a small sensor by today's standards." I say look at my 36 x 24 and tell me how much wall space you have??? Testing is ongoing.

I've done some testing with Super Resolution and print output. It appears to outperform the standard resizing algorithms in Photoshop, but only by a fairly small margin. My opinion is a larger sensor, good technique and high quality optics will outperform a smaller sensor.

[xpatUSA]

My opinion is a larger sensor, good technique and high quality optics will outperform a smaller sensor.

An interesting but not uncommon opinion, Manfred.

I have recently proved conclusively elsewhere that a particular m4/3 sensor beats a larger "APS-C" sensor quite handsomely with the same technique and exactly the same optics used for each one.

I realize that "perform" might need to be defined, of course.

[Manfred M]

An interesting but not uncommon opinion, Manfred.

I have recently proved conclusively elsewhere that a particular m4/3 sensor beats a larger "APS-C" sensor quite handsomely with the same technique and exactly the same optics used for each one.

I realize that "perform" might need to be defined, of course.

Ted - if you read the question / comments I was responding to, it dealt with making large prints (he mentions 24 x 36 inch size). The largest print I have made (including the mat) is 21" x 36", so up-sizing / up-rezing are part of that workflow.

The traditional approach for creating large prints is to shoot stitched panoramas to minimize the up-rezing, but that generally means that the subject has to be quite stationary while multiple exposures are taken. A multiple mFT or APS-C can be printed quite large.

Getting a strong up-rezing algorithm has always been on the wishlist of many print makers. My testing, using both 13" x 19" and 17" x 22" print sizes suggests that Adobe's SuperResolution performs somewhat better than the native Photoshop up-rezing algorithms. As this software is relatively new, I expect performance to increase as it undergoes further development.

That being said, when I test images made with a APS-C D7500 (20.9MP) versus the FF D810 (36MP)) using the same lens / subject/ tripod / framing and printed to the same size, the D810 produces a sharper image than the up-rezed D7500. The main variable is the focal length difference to get the framing on both cameras to be the same. The D7500 image gets up-rezed by SuperResolution and then down-rezed to get the same image size, so more manipulation of the data.

There has always been an issue with the mFT format and optical performance of non-mFT lenses due to the thickness of the optical stack, so I get a bit suspicious of any comments on sharpness with that particular format.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...oes-it-matter/


Most print makers will suggest that that a larger "native" image will result in a better print.

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA An interesting but not uncommon opinion, Manfred. I have recently proved conclusively elsewhere that a particular m4/3 sensor beats a larger "APS-C" sensor quite handsomely with the same technique and exactly the same optics used for each one.

Ted - if you read the question / comments I was responding to, it dealt with making large prints (he mentions 24 x 36 inch size). The largest print I have made (including the mat) is 21" x 36", so up-sizing / up-rezing are part of that workflow.

The traditional approach for creating large prints is to shoot stitched panoramas to minimize the up-rezing, but that generally means that the subject has to be quite stationary while multiple exposures are taken. A multiple mFT or APS-C can be printed quite large.

Getting a strong up-rezing algorithm has always been on the wishlist of many print makers. My testing, using both 13" x 19" and 17" x 22" print sizes suggests that Adobe's SuperResolution performs somewhat better than the native Photoshop up-rezing algorithms. As this software is relatively new, I expect performance to increase as it undergoes further development.

That being said, when I test images made with a APS-C D7500 (20.9MP) versus the FF D810 (36MP)) using the same lens / subject/ tripod / framing and printed to the same size, the D810 produces a sharper image than the up-rezed D7500. The main variable is the focal length difference to get the framing on both cameras to be the same. The D7500 image gets up-rezed by SuperResolution and then down-rezed to get the same image size, so more manipulation of the data.

Sorry, I did not realize that the comment about sensor size included post-processing and printing, Manfred. I thought it was a general comment of the kind often seen on the 'net.

There has always been an issue with the mFT format and optical performance of non-mFT lenses due to the thickness of the optical stack, so I get a bit suspicious of any comments on sharpness with that particular format.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/201...oes-it-matter/

Cicala certainly knows his stuff, I must agree.

My test pitted a Lumix DC-G9 20.3MP against a Sigma SD9 3.4MP (sic) using the same M42 Takumar 24mm lens and the images compared were raw, green channel only, so as to exclude conversion to RGB and any post-processing, my goal being to compare sensors only without obfuscation.

In terms of "sharpness" I compared the MTF50 and the MTF10 with units of lp/mm for the sensor capture. The G9 numbers were almost double i.e. much better than those of the SD9. This in spite of the SD9 pixel pitch being almost three times that of the G9.

Too much information, I know. I'll refrain from quoting numbers or posting MTF graphs - anathema to this Forum, eh?

Most print makers will suggest that that a larger "native" image will result in a better print.

OK.