Dose sensor resolution matter to anyone other than a photographer?
Mar 28, 2024 08:20:58 #
Those are beautiful images Paul and I join others in thanking you for your contribution to this thread.
I rarely enlarge beyond 12x18 inches. I had no issues using a Nikon D70 to achieve those sizes or when I used the D2H, 6.1 and 4.1 Mp. cameras. My Olympus Pen EP-L1 had 12 Mp., the Pen EP-5 had 17 and my EM-5 Mk III has 20. I never saw the difference using the same lens on the three of them.
Very soon I realized that so many pixels were not so necessary for a majority of applications.
The D800 was a great camera but it was not for me. My Nikon D610 has 24 Mp. and those are more pixels than I really need, most probably more Mp. than anybody needs. I agree that a good lens is what we need, if we know how to use it. I never failed to see results from a lens when I did my part.
I know my experience on this could be different from that of someone else but I do not need lots of pixels in my photography.
Manufacturers made lots of money during the so called megapixels race. I was able to understand that so many megapixels were not necessary and time has proven me right.
I rarely enlarge beyond 12x18 inches. I had no issues using a Nikon D70 to achieve those sizes or when I used the D2H, 6.1 and 4.1 Mp. cameras. My Olympus Pen EP-L1 had 12 Mp., the Pen EP-5 had 17 and my EM-5 Mk III has 20. I never saw the difference using the same lens on the three of them.
Very soon I realized that so many pixels were not so necessary for a majority of applications.
The D800 was a great camera but it was not for me. My Nikon D610 has 24 Mp. and those are more pixels than I really need, most probably more Mp. than anybody needs. I agree that a good lens is what we need, if we know how to use it. I never failed to see results from a lens when I did my part.
I know my experience on this could be different from that of someone else but I do not need lots of pixels in my photography.
Manufacturers made lots of money during the so called megapixels race. I was able to understand that so many megapixels were not necessary and time has proven me right.
Mar 28, 2024 09:01:24 #
Longshadow wrote:
In creating the final image, not viewing a print of it.
You can't one without the other.
Mar 28, 2024 09:09:16 #
Canisdirus wrote:
I didn't find it provocative at all...this should be common knowledge.
More MP's mean...more options...pretty simple to figure out.
More MP's mean...more options...pretty simple to figure out.
It's only simple if you are simple minded.
Canisdirus wrote:
You can't one without the other.
That illustrates my point.
Mar 28, 2024 09:09:29 #
Canisdirus wrote:
You can't one without the other.
True, but in viewing the final result, can one (other than maybe pixel peepers) tell what the pixel count was?
Without maybe using a magnifying glass?
Mar 28, 2024 09:26:58 #
jackpi
Loc: Southwest Ohio
CHG_CANON wrote:
For most everyone, pixel resolution at 20MP is mor... (show quote)
Regarding cropping: The key is not the number of pixels; it is pixels on the subject. This means you need to access the camera lens system, not just the camera.
Mar 28, 2024 09:30:45 #
DaveyDitzer
Loc: Western PA
selmslie wrote:
The only time I could tell them apart was at the full resolution pixel peeped at 100%. But the only way anyone can see that is on a monitor where the magnified image is way too big to fit the screen.
There is a message here and some of you aren't going to be happy with it.
The only time I could tell them apart was at the full resolution pixel peeped at 100%. But the only way anyone can see that is on a monitor where the magnified image is way too big to fit the screen.
There is a message here and some of you aren't going to be happy with it.
I am planning a specific landscape photo shoot which is 300 miles away (summer home location). I plan to capture a shot that I can have printed to a large final size (ca. 30x36). For this I'm taking my D850 and several lenses on a hike to make sure the resolution can work for this large print size. My other FF body is 16 mp. So the 46mp of the D850 seems to make sense for me in this situation.
Mar 28, 2024 09:39:36 #
therwol
Loc: USA
User ID wrote:
It depends.
Not joking.
But Im unwilling to rehash all the tiresome details of "it depends" for the zillionth time.
Ill only point out that viewing on a screen demands more resolution than a wall hanger print if the image is intriguingly full of small details. Its much more comfortable to zoom into a screen image than to stick your nose onto a wall hanger sized print. its verrrry much easier to "wander around" in a screen image than in a hard copy.
Not joking.
But Im unwilling to rehash all the tiresome details of "it depends" for the zillionth time.
Ill only point out that viewing on a screen demands more resolution than a wall hanger print if the image is intriguingly full of small details. Its much more comfortable to zoom into a screen image than to stick your nose onto a wall hanger sized print. its verrrry much easier to "wander around" in a screen image than in a hard copy.
It's much easier to zoom in on a screen to view details in a picture, but a large print, such as found in public places and sometimes in a home, is for others to view, and when I encounter such pictures, say in a restaurant, I do "look around" for detail. Large format pictures from the 1800s and earlyl 1900s are particularly interesting to me. I like to see in detail what people were doing, what cars they were driving, what they were wearing, what businesses people shopped at etc. I don't own the original to view those pictures on a computer screen or possibly on a large TV. More pixels will make details in a large print easier for OTHERS to see details.
Mar 28, 2024 09:43:25 #
I myself have decided that my 6D has enough sensor capability and will start adding primes having the most micro contrast to my kit in the areas I think I may be concentrating MORE in the future... Like 85mm Art for instance or maybe a 35mm 1.4 L for a game changer. Isolation, pop and micro contrast are on my current priority list. My poor yard dogs are in for a lot of harassment !
Mar 28, 2024 09:48:06 #
The best camera will always be reduced to the quality of the lens attached. The experiment with quite comparable lenses was important for a "side by side" test. A studio would eliminate any environmental factors, such as heat shimmer, changes in ambient light, humidity, air quality, etc. Perhaps insignificant when the subject is close to the lens, however, highly important when using long lenses at far away subjects. I believe that there is also a difference in the microprocessors of the camera which "do their magic" in processing the analog to digital signals and tweaks that are particular to the make and model of the camera rather than the megapixels of the sensors alone.
When using a microscope to look at specimens that are undetectable by the human eye, the quality of the lens (objective) makes very important differences in resolution and chromatic aberrations.
When using a microscope to look at specimens that are undetectable by the human eye, the quality of the lens (objective) makes very important differences in resolution and chromatic aberrations.
Mar 28, 2024 09:58:17 #
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I am planning a specific landscape photo shoot which is 300 miles away (summer home location). I plan to capture a shot that I can have printed to a large final size (ca. 30x36). For this I'm taking my D850 and several lenses on a hike to make sure the resolution can work for this large print size. My other FF body is 16 mp. So the 46mp of the D850 seems to make sense for me in this situation.
Absolutely!!!
Mar 28, 2024 10:00:06 #
Longshadow wrote:
True, but in viewing the final result, can one (other than maybe pixel peepers) tell what the pixel count was?
Without maybe using a magnifying glass?
Without maybe using a magnifying glass?
The viewer could care less what the pixel count is.
A 50MP sensor can do anything a 24MP sensor can do.
And then it can do a whole lot more...options.
Bigger is better...
Mar 28, 2024 10:00:59 #
Mar 28, 2024 10:01:18 #
Canisdirus wrote:
The viewer could care less what the pixel count is.
A 50MP sensor can do anything a 24MP sensor can do.
And then it can do a whole lot more...options.
Bigger is better...
A 50MP sensor can do anything a 24MP sensor can do.
And then it can do a whole lot more...options.
Bigger is better...
That's why it matters to the photographer, not the viewer.
Mar 28, 2024 10:03:55 #
Longshadow wrote:
That's why it matters to the photographer, not the viewer.
That's why it matters to the photographer, not the viewer.
The viewer SEES the end result...no data is needed.
The larger sensor can produce better options across the board...
For the viewer...and for the photographer...the bigger the sensor...the more options there are...better chances of making that stellar image.
Mar 28, 2024 10:04:41 #
Longshadow wrote:
True, but in viewing the final result, can one (other than maybe pixel peepers) tell what the pixel count was?
I didn't pixel peep to develop either of these shots. This time I am showing only the 4k version of each because the sharpness is indistinguishable unless I pixel peep.
Their size is slightly different because I was a little closer for the Z7 shot.
Both were taken at f/5.6 - more DOF and more detail than for the initial example.
At f/5.6 the Sony lens is a little sharper in the center. The edges and corners are about the same.
A7 III
(Download)
Z7
(Download)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.