Does size matter?

[jsrockit]

I guess I thought there could be more to it than pixel count, such as acuity, tonality, whites roll-off, other sensor rendering characteristics. But with the cameras I own, I'm not seeing it.

Of course, but they are all high quality cameras. My point was just that when you have a 16mp camera, at 300dpi, you get native 11x17." 12x18" just wouldn't be pushing these enough to see a difference in that regard. Print larger, and the story changes. Add in the AA filter vs. non AA and it changes again. However, this can be said about FF vs. FF too with regard to those differences.

 

[Calzone]

A question for those of you who print.

Excluding large prints, do you see qualitative differences in prints between APS-C and full frame? Or between one camera's print output and another's?

I do not. I think I see a different between prints from cameras with and without AA filters. But when comparing 12 x 18" prints from my GR, X-Pro1, and MM, nothing jumps out at me. It seems to me that the print is the great equalizer.

John

John,

You make a few good points. To me the images from my D3X would be of higher IQ without the AA filter. I wish it were not there, and I know there is a company in New Jersey that will strip out the AA filter, but I'm sure this might be costly.

I would agree with you that unless you print really-really big the percieved added details, perceived more deeper contrast goes unseen in prints, and percieved longer tonal variation. Anyways when I say big/large I mean prints from a large format printer like an Epson 7800/7880, 9800/9880 where you begin to print 24 inches or wider. The key here is all is the same, but the perception is different because you see somethings that otherwise you will not see in a smaller print due to the enlargement of print size.

What would be interesting to me is where those cameras line up at say 14x21. Would the IQ be so similar, or would some differences be indicated. Where is that line?

Cal

 

[esearing]

full frame matters when you shoot wide. a 35mm becomes a normal 52mm lens on APS-C. Expensive super wide lenses merely become wide lenses with less corner/edge effects that make them unique. A fish-eye lens becomes a rectangle with rounded corners (sometimes).

For long lenses you get extra cropping at the center , but for wide open shots there also seems to be more in focus and less interesting bokeh.

Film - Size matters - bigger output, higher costs, less portability.

 

[Calzone]

I guess I thought there might be more to print quality than pixel count, such as acuity, tonality, whites roll-off, and other sensor rendering characteristics. But with the cameras I own, I'm not seeing it in prints.

John,

Big prints don't lie.

The question is where is that line.

I can tell you that I can print a lot larger in the digital medium than in analog. The Monochrom can print bigger than my 6x9 120.

Kinda crazy how big you can print. I have no doubt that it is hard to see much difference in 12x18 prints. I don't mean to offend, but this is now a small print size for digital.

Cal

 

[cz23]

John,

....I don't mean to offend, but this is now a small print size for digital.

Cal

No offence taken. I've got a 13x19 printer and no desire to go bigger.

And thanks for your thoughts on my other points.

John

 

[Calzone]

No offence taken. I've got a 13x19 printer and no desire to go bigger.

And thanks for your thoughts on my other points.

John

John,

12x18 I find is a great print size, but be aware that dealers and collectors like wide borders (2 inch or more). The print to me seems to have it's own space and the presentation is better with large borders. On my 3880 I can fit 17x22, but the optimum print size is your 12x18 to have nice borders.

Also for framing the pro's like to have large borders to float a print to avoid dry mounting which is considered semi permanent (dry mounting can be undone but the job is a major headache). My friends at AI Friedman told me the bigger the border the flatter the print will lay under the mat and backing when performing museum framing (archival).

Cal

 

[Bill Pierce]

Here's recommended reading on sensor size. Within my experience, it is absolutely on target.

http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/

 

[raid]

So, do we switch to large format cameras next?

 

[Calzone]

So, do we switch to large format cameras next?

Raid,

Large format is kinda not needed or required. With great light, high shutter speed, good glass, and a highly detailed subject that displays broad tonality shot with a camera that lacks an anti alias filter you can get large format IQ, detail and tonality with small format hand held.

I'm not saying that this is easy but Salgado did it and displayed mammoth sized B&W prints in Genesis with prints that measured up to 4x5 feet in size. Understand that Salgado was using a color SLR and he was cropping small format to 4x5 throwing away data.

I'm finding that I'm not so far behind using a Monochrom and Piezography which is a different approach, and I don't have a the best custom lab in Paris at my disposal.

How big and detailed do you want to print? I could use a Epson 9800 or 9880, a 44 inch wide printer.

Joking around the technology has gotten so great that I consider an Epson 3880 (17 inch wide) my tiny printer, my Epson 7800 (24 inch wide) my small printer, and a 9800/9880 (a 44 inch wide) a large printer.

I can print what I can't see on my 27 inch EIZO dimmed down to 80 Lux (about the same light level of light reflected off ink and paper) in a darkened room. Basically I print what I can't see and the bigger I print the more detail I see.

Basically you don't need large format to get these results.

Cal

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Gotta say, I'm really debating myself about whether and where I'll use FF in the future.

In the film days, we tried APS and maybe even the Kodak disc camera. Size was nice, but the images were awful compared to 35mm film. I stayed with 35mm.

Also in the film days, after the smaller bodies appeared (e.g. Nikon FM & FE), I never shot again with the full sized F's.

Size matters. And, so does image quality.

Today, for most uses, 24MPx APS mirrorless is making the images I want to see in most settings. For birds and other tele work, I use an 24MPx APS-C dSLR. These are great all the way around, including the high-iso I need.

Smaller is better for carrying. Bigger is better for ultimate image quality. The sweet spot for me, right now, is 24MPx APS.

 

[Trius]

Indeed. But "those who want the best" don't have a monopoly on lusting after more. It's pretty much wired into our genes.

Which is why practice means so much.

 

[willie_901]

Willie,

True in the way you framed it, but sometimes it is the size of the pixel verses how many pixels. Sometimes it is tonal response that gives a high IQ.

No doubt that the M-246 has more dynamic range, better high ISO performance, smoother rolloff of the highlights, more shadow detail, and creates and records more data than a Monochrom, but the CCD sensor of the Monochrom with less megapixels has the midrange won and in many images this defines IQ.

Not sure which camera will print bigger, but that might be moot because I already can print crazy big with the original Monochrom. At this point why print bigger?

Cal

I agree. Most of us do not have to produce very large prints nor do we rely on cropping a our primary composition/framing tool.

This is how come I am completely contented with a 16 MP camera. Sensor-well size is important.

Eight years ago I used a APS-C camera for gigs. For this work one could choose between were several competent ultra wide-angle zooms lenses. Business was good and I upgraded to the D700 and ultra wide-angle zooms designed for 24 X 36 mm cameras. Guess what? The newer sensor technology delivered more dynamic range and shadow detail (i.e. signal-to-noise ratio). But the larger sensor area and extra pixels did absolutely nothing else for my work.

A few years down the road an APS-C system appeared with a high quality ultra-wide zoom lens. I discovered it outperformed the DR and SNR of the D700. The lens was better than both Nikkor ultra-wide zoom lenses. I no longer had to carry two rolling equipment bags for my gigs (one for lighting gear and one for the camera gear). I switched to a medium sized camera back pack because the APS-C gear was small and much lighter. Yet the IQ was better.

I believe 24 X 36 mm sensors are important tools because they deliver specific advantages. They also let one use a curated lens collection s it was intended to be used. The latter is not a trivial benefit.

I also contend todays data-stream improvements combined with high-quality lenses makes APS-C cameras a platform with many (but rather different) advantages.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I believe 24 X 36 mm sensors are important tools because they deliver specific advantages. They also let one use a curated lens collection s it was intended to be used. The latter is not a trivial benefit.

Willie - In many cases the steeply angled edge rays of a wide angle lens designed for for full frame film, rather than a sensor with greater separation in the color layers, may show almost prismatic color display at the edges of objects. They work well on film, but not on many sensors. That's why the Leica sensors are as thin as possible. and even they have not totally overcome the problem. (The cropping of APS C sensors eliminates those problem areas. Of course, since there is no free lunch, it also turns your wide angle lens into what is effectively a longer one.)

 

[raid]

Thank you for the detailed feedback, Cal. It is in the printer quality then. This is a good point.

 

[Calzone]

Thank you for the detailed feedback, Cal. It is in the printer quality then. This is a good point.

Raid,

Both camera and printing has advanced to the point where one can print really crazy big.

Digital Silver Imaging prints silver fiber wet prints from a digital file using a laser. Expensive, but within reach of guys like you and me. I have 24x36 inch prints from DSI printed on 30x40 paper. Wet prints...

Then there is Piezography, where I can print things I can't even see on a calibrated EIZO dimmed down to 85 Lux in a darkened room. I have an Epson 7800 that I call "the Jersey Barrier" but really it is my small printer because I really need a 9800/9880 that can print 44 inches wide.

BTW I think I can print bigger than DSI because IQ really scales up just revealing more detail. Realize that I'm using a Monochrom, no anti aliasing filter, and I am shooting just like a large format shooting maximizing image capture and minimizing post to keep the files clean. I use filters for contrast. I imagine a M-246 which has a bigger file size could/should print bigger than my Monochrom.

Cal