05-04-2011, 01:50 PM
[quote name='mousefire' timestamp='1304415085' post='8016']
I think the resolution measured is accurate there because their reviews on Canon or Nikon lens agree well with PZ, lenstip, etc.....
[/quote]
For FF lenses it could be, but APS-C and FT tests do not agree with other sites because they apply that stupid crop factor (I understood that they resize lens resolution to FF format, that is, they take measured resolution in lp/mm and divide it by the crop factor to extrapolate equivalent FF resolution or, in other words, they take into consideration the required enlargment ratio to get a given size print from all formats). Obviously, smaller the sensor worst the relative resolution, but this would also apply to FF when compared to medium format. Basically their measurements are NOT reflecting lens performance but system performance, which is questionable.
Really it would make sense if we only compare APS-C to FT as these two systems are competing each other. If so, considering that FT sensor height is 13mm and APS-C is about 15mm depending on manufacturer, we would have only 15% size advantage of APS-C over FT (15/13), which is in part balanced by the average higher performance of FT glass vs. Canikon and the rest of the APS-C band. According to DPReview Olympus E-5 raw resolution is around 2800LWPH, in line with Nikon D7000.
I think the resolution measured is accurate there because their reviews on Canon or Nikon lens agree well with PZ, lenstip, etc.....
[/quote]
For FF lenses it could be, but APS-C and FT tests do not agree with other sites because they apply that stupid crop factor (I understood that they resize lens resolution to FF format, that is, they take measured resolution in lp/mm and divide it by the crop factor to extrapolate equivalent FF resolution or, in other words, they take into consideration the required enlargment ratio to get a given size print from all formats). Obviously, smaller the sensor worst the relative resolution, but this would also apply to FF when compared to medium format. Basically their measurements are NOT reflecting lens performance but system performance, which is questionable.
Really it would make sense if we only compare APS-C to FT as these two systems are competing each other. If so, considering that FT sensor height is 13mm and APS-C is about 15mm depending on manufacturer, we would have only 15% size advantage of APS-C over FT (15/13), which is in part balanced by the average higher performance of FT glass vs. Canikon and the rest of the APS-C band. According to DPReview Olympus E-5 raw resolution is around 2800LWPH, in line with Nikon D7000.