Can a lens hamper your cameras capability ?

[kane-rulez]

Hello Everyone.

I have heard and seen how the newer cameras (With its obscene Megapixels) are pushing the boundaries of what some lens old and new can do in terms of sharpness.

My question for debate is can a newer lens that is supposedly sharper than any old lens push the boundary of your old camera that it makes that camera buckle.

So far i have only come across examples that oh this lens is super on a FF D700 but the 12 megapixels a limiting factor. and if you want detail upgrade to a say d800. or anything with higher pixels.

Assuming certain factors to be a constant,if crop camera is used then compare with a crop camera, pictures taken with a tripod, best aperture,shutter combination for the shot, no in camera adjustments for saturation etc used.. Three types of scene, macro, potrait, landscape. would a FF camera with 12 to 16megapixels be any different than another FF camera with 24 to 36megapixels. Or it is just the convenience and technology improvements that rule and mega pixels are hogwash beyond 16megapixels.

 

[Rashkae]

Three types of scene, macro, potrait, landscape.

This makes you sound like a point and shoot camera user.

Yes, the higher megapixels make a difference, and have for a long time. Yes, you need good lenses to maximize the available details from the file. Just go to any review site and compare a D700 to a D800 and then you can tell for yourself if there's a difference.

 

[tecnica]

if the lens cannot resolve the details, then yes, it will become a bottleneck.

 

[kane-rulez]

let me rephrase.

if i take a 200 afd f4 nikkor lens and shoot a subject with a d700 then i take the same lens and mount it on a d800 and shoot the same subject. i know that just by looking at the images of both there is a quality difference. but at the same time the images on the d700 were much sharper than any other lens used on that camera before, so theoretically a good lens could improve performance of an old camera, whereas not always true the other way around that, some new 30+ megapixel cameras could actually show weakness with older lens

but what if the same is shot with a 16 or 24 megapixel camera will there be so much of a difference that one can spot easily ? assuming we are looking not at hoarding sized prints but looking at images on 27 " calibrated screens.

P.s @ Rashkae : you sure do amuse me

 

[dniwkh]

27" calibrated screens.... I think 5MP cams are enough for that...

I just bought an A3+ printer so I am printing quite a few A3+ prints. I am trying to judge if the 36MP will bring improvements by comparing 12MP A3+ prints vs 12MP A4 size prints.

The A4 size prints looks a tad sharper but not all the time. I don't think there is much of an improvement

 

[kane-rulez]

27" calibrated screens.... I think 5MP cams are enough for that...

I just bought an A3+ printer so I am printing quite a few A3+ prints. I am trying to judge if the 36MP will bring improvements by comparing 12MP A3+ prints vs 12MP A4 size prints.

The A4 size prints looks a tad sharper but not all the time. I don't think there is much of an improvement

so in effect it doesn't really bring too much to the table. except in maybe a few places ? while searching the internet i found something interesting for a read and know how. How many pixels are enough?

and also realized for hoarding sized prints the required megapixel count is much lower as the image is viewed from far, though the higher count does help. Another keyword that popped up was pixel density. which is a topic by itself