pop511 wrote:Don't humble yourself Chuck;
I would love to see more postings like this on this forum.
Formulate, test and check findings.
I tried very hard to see any ghosting against sky through the tower and I can't see any.
A sure way to check your lens/camera abilities is to do precisely what you have done. Dark subject against sky
If you want to be more pedantic. Do the same again. Lens wide open/Mid/closed
" I've always reasoned that larger sensors have to be sharper simply by virtue of being, like hello, larger? "
It's not so much the sensor, but the lens. With a smaller chip, manufactures don't need to obtain quality to the edge. They can make the lens as good as for the larger chip at a cheaper price.
Thanks, Ed! I did not know that about lenses not being formulated specifically for smaller chips! I did notice some time ago (by shooting towers) that there seemed to be a small but discernible difference in relative sharpness between my Nikon P5000 and its several-generations-away P7000, but I put it down to the P5000 having a 1/2.3 chip and the P7000 a larger 1/1.7. The lenses on both cameras were pretty similar. Then I upgraded to the P7800 which has a 1/1.7 but a backlit CMOS rather than a CCD, and I swear I see a slight improvement in sharpness over the P7000.
You are 100% right that I need to get back out there (with a tripod) and repeat the experiment with a range of stops, and I think I also need to repeat the same series with my P7800 (at least). When I saw this picture (and indeed there is zero ghosting!) I was very pleased. Nikon lenses are no slouches, but I do tend to bow to the Zeiss name (just like the Leitz name). On the other hand, I heard many years ago that Japanese glass was so good that the Germans were buying it, so there's that.
And I recognize that no zoom, no matter how good, is ever as sharp at some focal lengths as a prime, but I am just too old to want to deal with a bagful of primes. Good enough is good enough.