11-18-2010, 10:36 AM
[quote name='pesitalia' timestamp='1290072721' post='4233']
Where is the error in my assumptions?
[/quote]
Somewhere in the Leica part <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
LW/PH is line widths per picture height, where PH is in pixels. So, to convert to L/mm, you need to divide by the physical height of the sensor.
For the Leica that results in 2658/13.5 ≈ 197 L/mm
Nikon, as you calculated: 166 L/mm.
So, the calculated resolution value is actually higher with the Leica lens.
However: you simply cannot compare resolutions that way. There are many parameters that can influence the MTF results, including the anti-alias filter of the camera as well as the RAW converter used. So, unless you have a really static and identical test setup (and with two different cameras obviously you don't) you cannot compare the measured and published results here directly (regardless of the unit used).
-- Markus
Where is the error in my assumptions?
[/quote]
Somewhere in the Leica part <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />LW/PH is line widths per picture height, where PH is in pixels. So, to convert to L/mm, you need to divide by the physical height of the sensor.
For the Leica that results in 2658/13.5 ≈ 197 L/mm
Nikon, as you calculated: 166 L/mm.
So, the calculated resolution value is actually higher with the Leica lens.
However: you simply cannot compare resolutions that way. There are many parameters that can influence the MTF results, including the anti-alias filter of the camera as well as the RAW converter used. So, unless you have a really static and identical test setup (and with two different cameras obviously you don't) you cannot compare the measured and published results here directly (regardless of the unit used).
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com