Big MG

[Bill Pierce]

Over the years digital camera sensors have increased in megapixel count without losing in quality even though the pixel size decreased. Truth is, picture quality has gotten better. The biggest advantage of the higher pixel count is the ability to make large prints that can be closely examined snd not show a loss of sharpness. But megapixel count isn’t the only factor.

Obviously, you have to have a good lens. Probably the photography that has seen the greatest jump in pixel count is motion picture photography, and once hallowed zoom lenses are showing their age with new sensors. But so are some still lenses.

And then there is focusing accuracy. (1) Rangefinder cam and cam followers have tolerances. If your camera allows it, check the Live View and compare it to the rangefinder focus. As a rule, the Live View will be on target. (2) Your DSLR autofocusing through the viewfinder is phase detect. There is a risk of front or back focus and you need a wide aperture lens. Again, check it against Live View/contrast detection if available on the LCD screen on the back of the camera. (3) You’ve got a little mirrorless, it probably has contrast detection. It’s very accurate. You don’t need a large maximum aperture (good for some zooms). But, it’s slow, the subject has to have sufficient contrast and it’s not that good with fast moving objects. That’s right, in some ways that little fellow is better is better than the big boys. It’s just sort of pokey - unless it has HYBRID AUTOFOCUS. Phase detection autofocus quickly adjusts the focus and then contrast autofocus does the fine tuning. Because phase detection has done the heavy lifting, with the slower contrast autofocus just doing the fine tuning, the whole process is acceptably quick even with moving subjects. If it’s a relatively recent, somewhat upscale mirrorless, it probably has the hybrid system. Check the manual.

So, our little cameras are capable of big, sharp prints. Are we? I can tell you what my problem is. All these years and if I’m not careful I still can get sharpness destroying camera shake a slow shutter speeds. I’m sure there are a lot of us who can defeat the advances that have been made in our cameras. Your thoughts?

 

[Dan]

My thought: the more our equipment advances, the more appreciation I feel for the tremendous skills our photographic fore fathers had to maintain, and did.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Thanks for this. Current cameras are amazing. I am more able to make big prints than ever before. My list of killers:

1. Camera motion, but VR helps a lot
2. Subject motion, VR lulls us into using insufficient shutter speed
3. Wrong/stupid settings on camera

And, we do see occasional focusing problems, even with current AF cameras.

 

[Bill Clark]

I think camera mfgrs. are trying to come out with products with a different twist to entiice folks to buy. They are dealing with a market that has changed (declined for many) because of smart phones and tablet computers. For pros, I still think DSLR cameras are of choice by most. I believe that, in many cases, it makes them look like a pro with the eyes of clients.

 

[charjohncarter]

So, put your digital camera on a tripod, and then pray you have a photo that is a masterpiece. Oh, you could also do that with a film camera, but don't put it on auto. Independent choice of aperture, shutter speed (and tripod) give you the edge.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Little bit more of nothing but basic knowledge here for how to achieve sharp and in focus images without tripod:

AF constant tracking. I don't care is it is with mirror or less. The mode for constant tracking of selected AF point, array is a must.

And then you better have lens with IS.

I also assume what most of us know what shutter speed must correspond to object speed. And, yes, I know about panning.

Phase, schmaze and face detection is valid talk. But you need to have prime apertures of f1.8 and wider to start to worry about DoF and AF point selected.

BTW, some old zooms are very sharp, the rest they gives is awful. 🙂

 

[willie_901]

...
So, our little cameras are capable of big, sharp prints. Are we? I can tell you what my problem is. All these years and if I’m not careful I still can get sharpness destroying camera shake a slow shutter speeds. I’m sure there are a lot of us who can defeat the advances that have been made in our cameras. Your thoughts?

Me too.

Lenses or sensor assemblies with image stabilization effectively eliminate the problem. I own neither. My physical attributes require at least doubling the 1/focal length rule-of-thumb for selecting the minimum hand-held shutter time.

I suggest another area where we "defeat the advances that have been made in our cameras" involves unnecessary under exposure.

In digital imaging, the most important factor for image quality is the raw data signal-to-noise ratio. The S/N depends on the shutter time and aperture; in other words on the exposure. Any level of sensor underexposure unnecessarily limits the s/n and dynamic range. The most common cause of under exposure is inappropriate ISO levels. As ISO increases shutter times decrease and, or apertures narrow. Less light (signal) reaches the sensor. Often the reduction in exposure is unavoidable. But sometimes a lower ISO could have been possible.

The dominant noise source for the newest digital cameras is photon (a.k.a. quantum or shot) noise. Photon noise is beyond our control because it is inherent to light emission. It turns out photon noise increases as the light level decreases. So under exposure does more harm than just decreasing the signal level. It also increases the noise level. For the newest cameras, the limit for shadow region detail is the photon noise level.

It is easy to squander advances in sensor performance by not optimizing exposure.

 

[Gregm61]

Image stabilization is amazing. I have the Olympus E-M1 Mark II and 12-100mm f4 Zuiko and it is incredible how low a shutter speed one can handhold that combination, assuming the subject is still enough.

At the other end of the spectrum, I very much appreciate the lack of such technology in my Leica M262. 90-95% of the time, by the time the camera is pulled up to my eye, the exposure for the subject, knowing my handholding ability and depth of field needed, and focus is already set and I just have to frame and press the shutter release.

I get more enjoyment/sense of accomplishment shooting the Leica system, but there are times the Olympus system makes more sense.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

IS -- Handholding Nikkor 300 f/4 PF with image stabilization is pretty amazing.

But, then there's subject motion.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

A different wrinkle: Camera that exposes continuously, say 30 FPS, as long as you hold down the shutter button. Then camera logic picks the frame that's sharpest. Or, you can override.

Interesting, eh?

Happens right now with the iPhone. (And doesn't Nikon 1 do the same??)

 

[ptpdprinter]

Sorry for being dense, but what does "Big MG" mean?

 

[cz23]

Sorry for being dense, but what does "Big MG" mean?

I'm glad you asked. I read Bill's post a couple times looking for a clue, but no luck either.

In my 20's I drove an MG and loved it. But it was neither big nor photography-related. I had some nice flashbacks, though.

John

 

[Bill Pierce]

"Over the years digital camera sensors have increased in megapixel count," thus Big MG, slang for high megapixel count because Big MP means something else, especially to rowdy military on leave.

 

[Bill Clark]

One feature I tended to turn off, especially making the formal photographs, is auto focus. My experience was sometimes the electronic tool would focus on the wrong items! For me, that's a definite no-no! Didn't want to use a higher number f stop for greater dof.