06-01-2017, 07:00 PM
Are you sure you want only going in at 200%? Why stopping there, and not go to 400 or 1000%? 
Really, you're making something up not even Canon would deal better with. The same you're doing with all other samples? What and why do you want to look at files in 200%? If you need 200% to print or crop, you're already using the wrong system. No wonder I could not see noise - to me, 100% is what I max out. This pictures printed are 52 × 35 cm @300 dpi. Your screenshots would have double size and you're not thinking this comes without quality loss on a Bayer sensor?
I don't want to offend you, but I never ask a sensor to perform at more than 100%, I think that's entirely pointless.
Oh and of course the 35 mm has CA, it was the first ART lens 5 years ago. At that time there were no CA-free lenses around - it was just reduced pretty much.
Just look for yourself: http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/79...fx?start=1
0.8 pixel at all apertures. I suspect, the Foveon sensor does show it better than AA filters in front of Bayer pattern.
Really, you're making something up not even Canon would deal better with. The same you're doing with all other samples? What and why do you want to look at files in 200%? If you need 200% to print or crop, you're already using the wrong system. No wonder I could not see noise - to me, 100% is what I max out. This pictures printed are 52 × 35 cm @300 dpi. Your screenshots would have double size and you're not thinking this comes without quality loss on a Bayer sensor?
I don't want to offend you, but I never ask a sensor to perform at more than 100%, I think that's entirely pointless.
Oh and of course the 35 mm has CA, it was the first ART lens 5 years ago. At that time there were no CA-free lenses around - it was just reduced pretty much.
Just look for yourself: http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/79...fx?start=1
0.8 pixel at all apertures. I suspect, the Foveon sensor does show it better than AA filters in front of Bayer pattern.