How much does it matter? I'm pretty particular about results printing 12 x 18 or less. My main camera is an R5. Will I be satisfied with a 1/2.3 (which is less than 1/2 inch) or should I go with a 1 inch? I may know the answer, but someone might surprise me!
cptiger wrote:
How much does it matter? I'm pretty particular about results printing 12 x 18 or less. My main camera is an R5. Will I be satisfied with a 1/2.3 (which is less than 1/2 inch) or should I go with a 1 inch? I may know the answer, but someone might surprise me!
I have bought many sensor sizes on my way to APS-C which gives me a high quality 13 x 19" prints on select pictures. The camera, lens, and subject all add up to whether the picture will look good when printed for wall viewing.
I still have a Canon pocket design camera with 1/32 sensor. I used it for many years because it could be squeezed into a pocket, it was quiet, and it had real camera controls. Then I bought a similar Canon camera with a 1" sensor and stopped using the smaller one.
I have never seen an image from the 1/32 sensor that I would consider printing above 8x10 and expect the image quality to look good without being disguised by special effects, etc. I do not think the 1" images would hold up at 12x18" on a normal photo subject either.
BUT I have never used either camera on a Tripod - and that is a Gold standard for Quality.
Boris
cptiger wrote:
How much does it matter? I'm pretty particular about results printing 12 x 18 or less. My main camera is an R5. Will I be satisfied with a 1/2.3 (which is less than 1/2 inch) or should I go with a 1 inch? I may know the answer, but someone might surprise me!
4/3 is a widely recognized minimum for quality minded users. I suspect youre going to land there, especially as a Canon user.
If you consider APSC at all, then if its Canons shrunken APSC youre already waaaaay close to 4/3 at that point. (I use Canon APSC lenses on m4/3 cuz the crop factor is only 0.8.)
----------------------------------------------
Acoarst theres imagemeister and the 1 inch crew, while OTOH some see APSC as the limit for compromise. Given your concern about quality, I imagine youll shun the "Superzoom" cameras. A more modest zoom allows for a much bigger sensor.
All boils down to whether you want a tourists camera or a photographers camera. Cameras that try to be both end up being neither. But each has its purpose and its satisfied users.
Boris77 wrote:
I have bought many sensor sizes on my way to APS-C which gives me a high quality 13 x 19" prints on select pictures. The camera, lens, and subject all add up to whether the picture will look good when printed for wall viewing.
I still have a Canon pocket design camera with 1/32 sensor. I used it for many years because it could be squeezed into a pocket, it was quiet, and it had real camera controls. Then I bought a similar Canon camera with a 1" sensor and stopped using the smaller one.
I have never seen an image from the 1/32 sensor that I would consider printing above 8x10 and expect the image quality to look good without being disguised by special effects, etc. I do not think the 1" images would hold up at 12x18" on a normal photo subject either.
BUT I have never used either camera on a Tripod - and that is a Gold standard for Quality.
Boris
I have bought many sensor sizes on my way to APS-C... (
show quote)
Thank you for your comments
Thank for your cmts also.
User ID wrote:
4/3 is a widely recognized minimum for quality minded users. I suspect youre going to land there, especially as a Canon user.
If you consider APSC at all, then if its Canons shrunken APSC youre already waaaaay close to 4/3 at that point. (I use Canon APSC lenses on m4/3 cuz the crop factor is only 0.8.)
----------------------------------------------
Acoarst theres imagemeister and the 1 inch crew, while OTOH some see APSC as the limit for compromise. Given your concern about quality, I imagine youll shun the "Superzoom" cameras. A more modest zoom allows for a much bigger sensor.
All boils down to whether you want a tourists camera or a photographers camera. Cameras that try to be both end up being neither. But each has its purpose and its satisfied users.
4/3 is a widely recognized minimum for quality min... (
show quote)
"All boils down to whether you want a tourists camera or a photographers camera."
I consider the Sony RX100 VII to be both. My thinking is that bulky stuff gets in the way of both photographers and tourists.
I’ve taken apart several of the cigarette pack sized point and shoots. The sensor is approximately 3/8”x1/4”. Once I took one apart it was obvious why the image quickly deteriorates so quickly when you enlarge the images.
cptiger wrote:
How much does it matter? I'm pretty particular about results printing 12 x 18 or less. My main camera is an R5. Will I be satisfied with a 1/2.3 (which is less than 1/2 inch) or should I go with a 1 inch? I may know the answer, but someone might surprise me!
As much as I hate to admit it, size matters!
But, as a micro 43 user and a Sony RX100 user, I can attest that the sensors do pretty well. What has helped these little dynamos is the up-scaling capabilities of LR, PS and Topaz. Add AI to that and you have pretty good capabilities.
bsprague wrote:
"All boils down to whether you want a tourists camera or a photographers camera."
I consider the Sony RX100 VII to be both. My thinking is that bulky stuff gets in the way of both photographers and tourists.
Its definitely not bulky.
User ID wrote:
4/3 is a widely recognized minimum for quality minded users. I suspect youre going to land there, especially as a Canon user.
If you consider APSC at all, then if its Canons shrunken APSC youre already waaaaay close to 4/3 at that point. (I use Canon APSC lenses on m4/3 cuz the crop factor is only 0.8.)
----------------------------------------------
Acoarst theres imagemeister and the 1 inch crew, while OTOH some see APSC as the limit for compromise. Given your concern about quality, I imagine youll shun the "Superzoom" cameras. A more modest zoom allows for a much bigger sensor.
All boils down to whether you want a tourists camera or a photographers camera. Cameras that try to be both end up being neither. But each has its purpose and its satisfied users.
4/3 is a widely recognized minimum for quality min... (
show quote)
Micro 4/3 is the answer. I consider myself to be a photographer. MY current gear is a Leica P&S with 3x 1.7 zoom I'm done with all the toys now. I mostly print using A4 - because I rarely need larger. If I did I'd still choose M4/3.
bsprague wrote:
"All boils down to whether you want a tourists camera or a photographers camera."
I consider the Sony RX100 VII to be both. My thinking is that bulky stuff gets in the way of both photographers and tourists.
I have the Sony RX100 VII - no trouble taking 16 x 20 lovely photos
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
cptiger wrote:
How much does it matter? I'm pretty particular about results printing 12 x 18 or less. My main camera is an R5. Will I be satisfied with a 1/2.3 (which is less than 1/2 inch) or should I go with a 1 inch? I may know the answer, but someone might surprise me!
It does not matter if your a competent photographer. I shoot the Sony HX99, it can shot raw but does not have a large sensor. And yes, I have printed sharp 20X30 prints from it. You can to provided your skill level is up to it.
Take a card into a camera store, snap some photos with the card in a point & shoot camera, print.
I know several professional photographers that use the Sony RX100 series cameras with 1" sensors or OM Systems micro 4/3 cameras.
billnikon wrote:
It does not matter if your a competent photographer. I shoot the Sony HX99, it can shot raw but does not have a large sensor. And yes, I have printed sharp 20X30 prints from it. You can to provided your skill level is up to it.
The pic included in your reply is, I think, very pleasant and well exposed, however it is quite soft. I would not expect anything else from a 30x zoom, and personally I wouldn't go there. Having said that, I achieved a sharper and much more acceptable result in 30 seconds after using Easy Photo Unblur - but that's not the point - I am sure that with my M4/3 Leica, 14mp, 3x zoom, cropped to same view I wouldn't need EPU.
My conclusion is - larger sensor and don't crowd the pixels.
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Delderby wrote:
The pic included in your reply is, I think, very pleasant and well exposed, however it is quite soft. I would not expect anything else from a 30x zoom, and personally I wouldn't go there. Having said that, I achieved a sharper and much more acceptable result in 30 seconds after using Easy Photo Unblur - but that's not the point - I am sure that with my M4/3 Leica, 14mp, 3x zoom, cropped to same view I wouldn't need EPU.
My conclusion is - larger sensor and don't crowd the pixels.
The pic included in your reply is, I think, very p... (
show quote)
I have sold this print in a 20X30 5 times over to various clients. They believe it is extremely sharp. Sorry you do not agree.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.