How do lenses "resolve" higher megapixels? I keep hearing this on some YouTube videos.

[kinetic]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I keep hearing non-expert reviewers talk about how older lenses just don't "resolve" higher megapixels, which is why Leica came out with new lenses. I honestly don't understand what this "resolve" means, or is it just some kind of magic people use for the sake of not understanding how the newer lenses are improved?

This person uses it the most: @kaskoPhoto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2h-f7w6TN0&pp=ygUNNTBtbSBzdW1taWx1eA%3D%3D)

His videos are kind of hard to follow, so I'm not sure he's the best person to take advise from, but it's just an example of all this "resolving."

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[skahde]

What this usually means is, that the abberations of the lens don't become so obvious that they are clearly limiting the overall impression of sharpness delivered by a camera when viewing the final output under whatever the individual in question assumes to be adequate conditions or his personal demands. 

[Kwesi]

24 minutes ago, kinetic said:

I keep hearing non-expert reviewers talk about how older lenses just don't "resolve" higher megapixels, which is why Leica came out with new lenses. I honestly don't understand what this "resolve" means, or is it just some kind of magic people use for the sake of not understanding how the newer lenses are improved?

This person uses it the most: @kaskoPhoto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2h-f7w6TN0&pp=ygUNNTBtbSBzdW1taWx1eA%3D%3D)

His videos are kind of hard to follow, so I'm not sure he's the best person to take advise from, but it's just an example of all this "resolving."

I think one way to look at is that the more pixels you have in a given space or sensor size, the more capable that sensor is to show you a very detailed image of something that is very fine - like hair, for example.

Now if you take for example a 1950's Leica summicron M 50/2 and shoot it wide open on that very high resolution sensor the resulting image will be the absolute best that lens can produce.

Now if you shoot that same subject with a current Apo-Summicron M 50/2 lens wide open you will see a notable difference in sharpness. So I guess this is a very longwinded way of saying that the word resolve in this context really just means "maximum detail possible from a very high megapixel sensor"

[UliWer]

It has been quoted often in this forum, and it is still true:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/10/more-ultra-high-resolution-mtf-experiments/

See especially the „Appendix“ to this article: „Why Perceptual Megapixels are Stupid“.

To sum it up: „Resolution“ of your photos is always the sum of the sensor‘s and the lenses capabilities to resolve. With a „bad“ lens your sensor won‘t become „bad“, but show what can be resolved with this combination. Your sensor won‘t be „underresolved“. With a very good lens, your sensor - any sensor - won‘t become better, and certainly not „outresolved“. 

To quote Roger Ciala: „If you have a reasonably good lens and/or a reasonably good camera, upgrading either one upgrades your images. If you ask something like ‘is my camera going to out resolve this lens’ you sound silly.“

Best way is to avoid Youtube and look at this Forum‘s thread: „The view through older glass.“

[jimmielx]

Caveat - I have zero expertise. However, the way I think about it is this. In terms of light passing through it, the lens is entirely analogue - nothing digital about it at all. The digital sensor is simply going to record the result of the light hitting it - with more pixels, the digital record will become more accurate and allow the resulting picture to be presented at a larger size without the digital nature of the capture being apparent to the viewer. 

[Photoworks]

I think they are many old lenses that still deliver enough sharpness and micro-contrast that work fine on the M11

He mentioned that Leica came out with the new Summilux 50 because the previous one was no good to him.
I have commented to him that the new Summilux is not much different than v1 in sharpness, and if you shoot the LUX at 2.8 and above you get the same sharpness of the 50 APO from Voigtlander he was using. and if you use the Lux you get a little glow in the image.

Well he replied:

“The new Summilux-M exploits the full performance potential of new camera sensors” and them saying the glass now resolves at the 60mp potential… I think I have a little understanding of the update. And yes, the 1.4 is very sharp on the current lens and will be on the new version, it will just be resolving more of the 60mp lens that the current version cannot. In my 40+ years with Leica glass, I am happy to see the updates for the new sensors and will still use the older glass on 24mp and film."

I have been using both lenses for a few days and I don't think he knows what he is talking about!

just misinformation on youtube!

 

[dpitt]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

I think they are many old lenses that still deliver enough sharpness and micro-contrast that work fine on the M11

He mentioned that Leica came out with the new Summilux 50 because the previous one was no good to him.
I have commented to him that the new Summilux is not much different than v1 in sharpness, and if you shoot the LUX at 2.8 and above you get the same sharpness of the 50 APO from Voigtlander he was using. and if you use the Lux you get a little glow in the image.

Well he replied:

“The new Summilux-M exploits the full performance potential of new camera sensors” and them saying the glass now resolves at the 60mp potential… I think I have a little understanding of the update. And yes, the 1.4 is very sharp on the current lens and will be on the new version, it will just be resolving more of the 60mp lens that the current version cannot. In my 40+ years with Leica glass, I am happy to see the updates for the new sensors and will still use the older glass on 24mp and film."

I have been using both lenses for a few days and I don't think he knows what he is talking about!

just misinformation on youtube!

 

I see it like this: if someday you can not see an improvement in detail when increasing the quality of your sensor, the lens is 'outresolved'. I have a lot of vintage Leica R and M lenses. And I have sensors ranging from 6 MP to 80MP equivalent in FF. Until now, I never saw any lens that limited the resolution. Maybe in the future when we have 50 MP MFT sensors ( = 200 MP in FF) that are able to reach 200 MP ( = 800 MP FF) with pixel shift mode, I will reach some limit...

And even then... Who would ever need this much detail? To print wall sized prints? Or to crop 10x and shoot wildlife like small birds with a 50mm lens?

[Photoworks]

8 minutes ago, dpitt said:

I see it like this: if someday you can not see an improvement in detail when increasing the quality of your sensor, the lens is 'outresolved'. I have a lot of vintage Leica R and M lenses. And I have sensors ranging from 6 MP to 80MP equivalent in FF. Until now, I never saw any lens that limited the resolution. Maybe in the future when we have 50 MP MFT sensors ( = 200 MP in FF) that are able to reach 200 MP ( = 800 MP FF) with pixel shift mode, I will reach some limit...

And even then... Who would ever need this much detail? To print wall sized prints? Or to crop 10x and shoot wildlife like small birds with a 50mm lens?

well the APO 50mm is already very good, and some people have the need for it.

this is an R lens 50 mm and the 50 Leica apo on SL2, you already can see a difference.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[pgk]

Its complicated! Resolution isn't as simple as just being about resolving contrasty detail. And the interaction between any lens and the sensor depends on many factors. So suggestng that an older lens are inadequate is a simplistic view based on one parameter - usually the resolution of high contrast detail. But there is far more to a lens than precsie reproduction of high contrast detail and there is more to pixels than simply reproducing this. I have very ld lenses (~1860s) which resolve very poorly in comparison with modern lenses however I use them on various digital cameras with low and high MPixels. The results are not clear cut in that the high Pixel sensors still reproduce the image 'better' despite its apparent (and actual) low or poor resolution. I'm not going to attempt to explain why because I am quite sure that there are a multitude of reasons and there is obviouls a lot which has to do with subject and lighting. So to answer the query; resolution is about the ability to record fine detail effectively, but resolution is only one parameter by which to measure a lens's performance and even resolution is complicated.

[kinetic]

2 hours ago, Photoworks said:

I think they are many old lenses that still deliver enough sharpness and micro-contrast that work fine on the M11

He mentioned that Leica came out with the new Summilux 50 because the previous one was no good to him.
I have commented to him that the new Summilux is not much different than v1 in sharpness, and if you shoot the LUX at 2.8 and above you get the same sharpness of the 50 APO from Voigtlander he was using. and if you use the Lux you get a little glow in the image.

Well he replied:

“The new Summilux-M exploits the full performance potential of new camera sensors” and them saying the glass now resolves at the 60mp potential… I think I have a little understanding of the update. And yes, the 1.4 is very sharp on the current lens and will be on the new version, it will just be resolving more of the 60mp lens that the current version cannot. In my 40+ years with Leica glass, I am happy to see the updates for the new sensors and will still use the older glass on 24mp and film."

I have been using both lenses for a few days and I don't think he knows what he is talking about!

just misinformation on youtube!

 

Yes, I think that's the part I feel like is hand-wavy voodoo. Everything else everyone has been commenting here makes sense.

The reason why I'm interested is I have the 50mm Summilux Black Chrome, and I'm considering the new FLE 2 version. I think it's clear that there's a difference in close focusing and aperture blades (though in practice not sure how much the extra 2 blades will matter), but the "resolving" claims that the new one has over the previous lux version just seems really based on nothing, especially for the M11. Not sure it will matter to me for making the decision to switch, but I was wondering if there was some huge thing I was missing here that should make it way more obvious to get the newer lens for whatever reason because of the M11 sensor. So far it doesn't seem like my black chrome is lacking enough in the "resolving" category to be a big factor to consider.

[frame-it]

4 hours ago, UliWer said:

Best way is to avoid Youtube and look at this Forum‘s thread: „The view through older glass.“

 

[frame-it]

4 hours ago, Kwesi said:

Now if you take for example a 1950's Leica summicron M 50/2 and shoot it wide open on that very high resolution sensor the resulting image will be the absolute best that lens can produce.

yeah but shoot both at f2.8-f5.6 and the results will be similar...to make their silly arguments [and convince people to buy new stuff] many youtubers keep the older lenses wide open, as if everyone shoots wide open 24 hrs a day

[Kwesi]

38 minutes ago, frame-it said:

yeah but shoot both at f2.8-f5.6 and the results will be similar...to make their silly arguments [and convince people to buy new stuff] many youtubers keep the older lenses wide open, as if everyone shoots wide open 24 hrs a day

I think you missed my point. Just trying to help someone wade through the jargon by citing an easy to visualise example. I could care less about YouTubers. 

[Jeff S]

I’d like 10 bucks for every similar question/comment, and every Roger Cicala link, on this issue, year after year. Just one of many recent discussions …

Jeff

[sometimesmaybe]

when my images suck, it's almost always caused by the lack of resolution and sharpness of my camera and lens.

it's not because:

1. i cant spot good light
2. i cant find interesting subject matters
3. i dont fully understand composition, exposure triangle and the limitation of my tools.

my camera and lens just cant resolve my TRUE artistic vision!

[pippy]

5 hours ago, kinetic said:

...non-expert reviewers talk about how older lenses just don't "resolve" higher megapixels...

That's because they are stupid.

Philip.

[Photoworks]

2 hours ago, sometimesmaybe said:

when my images suck, it's almost always caused by the lack of resolution and sharpness of my camera and lens.

it's not because:

1. i cant spot good light
2. i cant find interesting subject matters
3. i dont fully understand composition, exposure triangle and the limitation of my tools.

my camera and lens just cant resolve my TRUE artistic vision!

it is probably because you need a zoom

[hdmesa]

3 hours ago, kinetic said:

...So far it doesn't seem like my black chrome is lacking enough in the "resolving" category...

Because your 50 Lux BC isn't lacking. It's an incredible lens. But you WILL see a difference at high magnification across the frame comparing it stopped down against either the Leica or CV 50 APOs. The APOs are great for high-res landscape and commercial work; but if I'm shooting portraits of average people in candid situations, the APOs would not be my first choice.

Edited April 19, 2023 by hdmesa
grammar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Photoworks]

4 hours ago, kinetic said:

The reason why I'm interested is I have the 50mm Summilux Black Chrome, and I'm considering the new FLE 2 version. I think it's clear that there's a difference in close focusing and aperture blades (though in practice not sure how much the extra 2 blades will matter), but the "resolving" claims that the new one has over the previous lux version just seems really based on nothing, especially for the M11. Not sure it will matter to me for making the decision to switch, but I was wondering if there was some huge thing I was missing here that should make it way more obvious to get the newer lens for whatever reason because of the M11 sensor. So far it doesn't seem like my black chrome is lacking enough in the "resolving" category to be a big factor to consider.

No reason, no change in image quality.

[dpitt]

6 hours ago, Photoworks said:

it is probably because you need a zoom

Its because you need AF to focus properly