b top gun

Nothing like autumn in Alaska; and by then most all the bugs are gone too!!! Seeing the Alaska Range from near 100 miles away is amazing especially when THE mountain (Denali) is not hidden by weather. By the way, I used my Samsung S22+ regularly as well.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

tcthome Loc: NJ

Or Z with an adaptor!

Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC

The OP asked about upscaling a few responded to the question.
The majority of the posts gave examples of cameras with hi res.
Why???????

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

1. Display and Perception. On a 50"TV.... On Monitor... Printed... on a billboard. The fine points disappear. Human eye, can not perceive fine points that Pixel Pickers instrumentation sees.
2. My excellent 2001 Kodak DC 4800 with a fly speck sensor was the first to achieve 3.1 mp RAW... a copped JPEG was cleaned with Topaz and Sharpened, both AI. Then enlarged with Topaz Megapixel AI. The resulting image printed an 8x10 image beautifully... I was amazed.

I agree... as MJPerini said: "I have made absolutely gorgeous prints from 8MP & 12MP cameras "

BebuLamar

Really upscaling would make the file size larger so it's not a substitute for larger file size.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

TOPAZ GIGAPIXEL

SkyKing Loc: Thompson Ridge, NY

“As far as $$ goes, no one better than than the legendary John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard and leading proponent of index investing. Take a look at Bogleheads.com...his principles have been proven time and time again. He far eclipses any other figure in the financial world.”

…I drank the cool aid…I’m a Boglehead…!!!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thanks, glad to help!

Hopefully, you see the importance of <quote reply> for these types of posts...

neillaubenthal

Ken…in reality generally speaking mirrorless cameras will produce more good pictures than a DSLR for a given photographer’s capabilities…but that improvement is almost completely not due to the lack of a mirror. True…the lack of a mirror box allows shorter flange to sensor distance and a wider throat…and those combine with ever more sophisticated design software to allow better lens design, then adding in new/improved coatings and glass types…and current gen MILC lenses are better than their DSLR counterparts in addition to size and weight benefits. But…the vast majority…IMO…of improvements in MILC have little to do with a mirror or not…better sensors, faster processors, better AF algorithms and subject detection can’t help but more and better keepers on the card than slower FPS and AF in DSLRs…but it’s a matter of tech evolution and mirrorless just came along for the ride. Doesn’t mean that older gear can’t still produce great shots…it can…but you’ll get more great shots (based on same abilities)and have a greater chance of capturing the best wing position or facial expression or whatever. Despite the trolling of one person here…the lack of a mirror doesn’t make you a better photographer…its mostly the better tech that fewer mechanical parts abetted by the better sensors came along with.

therwol Loc: USA

Should every thread be a physics lecture? If so, then this forum would die quickly.

Some recommended software to try. Some shared their experiences with cameras they own. The OP did not initially mention already owning a D850. I suggested if one looks in that direction, a newer camera might be a better choice. Then you throw in a joke or two. This is how people interact with each other on this site. It makes the site more interesting. Some threads do deteriorate into stupidity. You have to take the bad with the good, and there is a lot of good here.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

About half of what separates a successful photographer from their peers is 30 megapixels.

ken_stern Loc: Yorba Linda, Ca

So the guy already owned an 850 --
The bottom line for me then is that all this was no more than a waste of my time & effort
But just the same --- A fun waste of my time

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

BEST is always better than you can afford. Always been that way. Always will.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The cheap/easy way for pixel enlargement is to use the Adobe based "Bicubic smoother" in steps of 10%. This can be done in JPEG or raw. It works quite well - most people stick their nose up at this because it is too cheap/easy !

The expensive/harder way to do pixel enlargement is to shoot only raw and use one of the stand alone/dedicated AI software like Gigapixel. The computer nerds like this way......

If you are a hardcore photographic perfectionist you will not like either of these options - BUT - if you are a normal if it looks good I like it type person, then pixel enlargement can work for you.

You do loose some image FIDELITY with any pixel enlargement - YOUR exact thresh hold for fidelity loss is what matters.

I use the Adobe Bicubic and the Sony Clear Image Zoom sparingly when needed and I live life happily everafter ...
.