High Count

[Bill Pierce]

I’ve been asked what I think about some of the digital cameras with very high pixel counts. The only one that I have any experience with is the Sony A7R IV, a 61 megapixel, full frame camera. It’s a versatile camera that will do well in a variety of situations. But the real question is what do you gain from having that many megapixels? If you allow a little camera shake or a slight misfocus to take the edge off the image, you really won’t gain anything. This camera doesn’t have the technical limitations that might conceal your weaknesses.

Not only will it be quite demanding of you, it will be equally demanding of your lenses. It will show an improvement in image quality with each stop as a lens is stopped down towards its optimum aperture. In other words, to take full advantage of the sensor, you are probably going to end up shooting at f/5.6 or 8. The hidden blessing to this is that many slower and thus less expensive primes are just as good as their expensive super-speed brothers when stopped down to the optimum aperture.

In other words, you have a camera that can do what your other cameras do, but if you want to take the time and effort to fully exploit its capabilities, it can do a little more. To me that’s worthwhile in any form of photography that benefits from clean, sharp images. But, as said, to produce those clean, sharp images, you have to use the camera well.

There’s another form of photography where technical excellence has never been the highest of priorities, street photography. But, using the high megapixel camera with the 1/500 at f/11 grab and gun philosophy, the ability to crop the image without a major quality loss is sometimes pay dirt.

So, that’s what I know about high megapixel counts in cameras. They can pay off when you use them carefully and in a way that optimizes their quality. They can pay off when you grab and gun and crop. Outside of that, they’re pretty much like our other digital cameras.

Any thoughts?

 

[xayraa33]

I remember when 12 megapixel cameras were top of the pops.

This reminds me of many modern cars with 600 plus HP and 0 to 60 in 3 seconds but you can only drive at 65 mph on most freeways.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

If you sell large prints like I do, then you'll see the value of a high resolution sensor.

 

[Timmyjoe]

My biggest issue with High Count cameras is the size of the data. My main work computer is very long in the tooth, and any file size above about 24 megapixels just stalls it out. Not to mention the storage needed for the image files. I've got an older processor computer, linked to four large hard drives, and still 24 megapixels fills them up too quickly. I couldn't see myself trying to work with 61 megapixel files.

Best,
-Tim

 

[jsrockit]

The things is... sometimes there isn't as big of a difference as people think when printing at 300dpi. Of course viewing distance comes into play once you go lower than about 200dpi.

This chart is semi accurate regarding the digital parts... the film parts looks a little bit optimistic, especially 35mm.

A 24mp sensor makes a max 300 dpi print of about 13x20" and a 40mp sensor a max 300 dpi print of about 16x24." Are those 3" really going to show how horrible your technique is that a 13x20" won't? Will it really make your lens unusable?

If you can photograph with a 24mp sensor, you can photograph with a 40mp sensor. If you tend to have camera shake in your photos... it will show in a 24mp sensor too. The 40mp will actually hide some of the shake if you print it similarly in size to the 100%, 300dpi 24mp file since it will not be full size.

I think what it really comes down to is 35mm film grain and small print sizes hid camera shake and missed focus very well. Large prints from digital cameras, no matter which MP sensor you use, do not.

Storage is cheap, computers aren't meant to be used for 10 years when doing digital photography, etc.

 

[kbb]

The 40mp will actually hide some of the shake if you print it similarly in size to the 100%, 300dpi 24mp file since it will not be full size.

I'd have to see a demo of this to believe it.

 

[maddoc]

I think what it really comes down to is 35mm film grain and small print sizes hid camera shake and missed focus very well. Large prints from digital cameras, no matter which MP sensor you use, do not.

Absolutely agree and I learned that the hard way when trying to print some of my photos that had looked good on the screen from scanned negatives but horrible when printed 11 x 14.

On the other hand, I still don't get the trick behind the billboard-sized print of an iPhone 11 Pro shot used by Apple as an advertisement that was mounted on the roof top on a building in the neighborhood, ~ 5 x 20 meters.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Absolutely agree and I learned that the hard way when trying to print some of my photos that had looked good on the screen from scanned negatives but horrible when printed 11 x 14.

On the other hand, I still don't get the trick behind the billboard-sized print of an iPhone 11 Pro shot used by Apple as an advertisement that was mounted on the roof top on a building in the neighborhood, ~ 5 x 20 meters.

When viewed from very far away, fine detail resolution in an image cannot be seen. So if the image lacks it, you won't notice it!

 

[RichC]

When viewed from very far away, fine detail resolution in an image cannot be seen. So if the image lacks it, you won't notice it!

No one's mentioned viewing distance and resolution much in this thread - which as Chris says boils down to the further away a photo is seen from, the less resolution it needs to appear sharp.

This is often used as an argument why no one needs high-MP cameras. In fact, it's said that anything over 12 MP is pointless!

Calculations indicate that even a large 30-inch print viewed from 3 feet needs only 8 MP. You can use this online print size vs resolution calculator to try out various combinations: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/minimum-resolution-calculator/

There is one humongous fly in this particular ointment, though...

The viewing distance argument is fine where close-up sharpness doesn't matter, such as bill posters or adverts in shop windows or at bus stops: these are always viewed from a few feet - no one deliberately looks at these from a few inches, and if they do, no one cares that they're fuzzy.

However, fine-art or gallery prints are different. If you watch people looking at a photo (or a painting for that matter) hung in a gallery, they'll always at some point go right up to the picture and stick their nose against it!

So, the viewing distance argument fails, and these photos need to be sharp at a "reading distance" of a few inches - which is where we get the oft-quoted figure of 300 dpi, which is the (very rough) approximate maximum resolution of the human eye - we can't see more detail.

What happens if we look at the previously mentioned 30 inch photo at 12 inches instead of 3 feet? We find that we need 70 MP, not 8 MP! How about closer, say 8 inches? The resolution needed shoots up to 160 MP!

This is why commercial and serious art photographers use digital cameras like the Phase One XF series with 100-150 MP.

I use a Sony A7R II camera with 42 MP, and find it barely adequate as I never print smaller than A2 size (24 inches), and often larger - below is one of my prints in an 8.5 foot gallery window. I'd love something like a Phase One XF, but $50,000 is a bit out of my price range!

So, do cameras have enough megapixels? No - keep them coming!

This 8.5 foot photo of mine looks sharp at about 5 feet or more, but at 2 feet I find it unpleasantly soft. It was taken with a Nikon D800E, with 36 MP. The resolution calculator I linked to above confirms my experience: at 5 feet it says the photo needs about 30 MP, but at 2 feet this increases to 150 MP.

 

[jsrockit]

I'd have to see a demo of this to believe it.

Don’t get me wrong it won’t be magical. However, if you are printing a 24mp file and at 300dpi at 100%, the 40mp file at the same print size will be printed at a lower percentage (in relation to the 40mp file) showing less artifacts. Unfortunately, camera shake and missed focus just show up really well in clean digital files regardless of megapixels.

 

[Dogman]

Everything is a compromise. My highest resolution camera is 36mp and I seldom use it. Oh, the files look great and I can crop tiny sections of them if I want to. But I don't print large and the files eat up storage at a rapid pace. Also, my type of photography is imprecise and casual, mostly candid people pictures, found objects often with blur, motion and soft focus and all the "wrong" things today's image quality junkies tell me not to do.

If I were shooting from a tripod, doing landscapes or studio setups, the high pixel cameras would be the way to go. Just like medium and large format is to film. Me, I'm perfectly fine with 24mp. Actually I'm more and more using older 12mp full frame Nikons because I like the look of the files.

 

[tbhv55]

Also, my type of photography is imprecise and casual, mostly candid people pictures, found objects often with blur, motion and soft focus and all the "wrong" things today's image quality junkies tell me not to do.

^^^ This. (and the description "image quality junkies" made me smile! 🙂)

 

[Bill Pierce]

While the ability to make large prints that hold fine detail is an important advantage to sensors with a high megapixel account, the photographer that introduced me to the A7R iv uses it because he can crop the images. And this is a photographer who has been exhibiting 40x60 prints since the early days of digital and whose last book, which was shot pre A7R iv, had images13 1/2 inches wide on a 15 inch page that you can press your nose against and they still look sharp. In other words, you don’t need a 60 megapixel sensor to make sharp pictures. Used properly, a camera with that big a sensor does have an edge in capturing fine detail, but both of us use the high megapixel camera in situations where cropping can improve the picture. He makes long lenses longer. I give street shots tighter frames.

Cropping got a bad name when film sizes dropped. 4x5 sheet film photographers cropped all the time. 35mm photographers avoided it when possible. In that case, image quality did drop when you cropped. That attitude has sort of stuck with us. Fill the frame; print full frame; maximize quality. It feels odd to crop, but that to me is the big advantage, even over any improvement in image quality, in using a digital camera with a high megapixel count. I may be reverting to my 4x5 Speed Graphic days.

 

[Dogman]

There's a video interview with the incredible Chinese photographer Fan Ho (somewhere online) that everyone who rails against cropping should try to locate and watch. During the interview he shows a photo he did that was cropped very narrow vertically. He said he didn't even see the main subject until he was printing the negative because he was concentrating on another section of the subject in the viewing screen. Walker Evans was reported to have cut his 4x5 negatives into the cropping he wanted to print while working at Fortune magazine. I'm nobody but I won a few spot news awards 30 years ago with images I cropped for better framing. I'm all for cropping if it improves the final photograph.

 

[jsrockit]

The thing with cropping is that if you are trying to save a badly framed image...it rarely works. However, if you are trying to improve an image that’s been framed in a way that works (like something at the edge or just getting closer or framing with the crop in mind), it can work. It’s personal. William Klein’s New York book is an awesome example of cropping working.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

I’ll crop when I feel it will enhance the total image.

I shoot a lot of street photography and the opportune moments are fast and fleeting. There’s not a lot of time to frame the subject in the viewfinder and nail the focus. When I get home after a day of photography I go through my images and edit as I deem necessary. That usually entails straightening the image a degree or two, and a little cropping to eliminate an undesirable object or to better place the main subject in the frame.

All the best,
Mike

 

[Vince Lupo]

I’ve never really had an issue with high MP’s - I don’t feel that I have to be any more careful about how I use the camera than any other, lower MP-equipped camera I’ve ever used. My Nikon Z7 is 45.7mp and my computer can definitely handle opening 300+ RAW files at a time in ACR, which I do with a fair degree of frequency. Plus, I’ve never had any issue with vibration, focus, sharpness etc. Most of these cameras have IBIS working in conjunction with their lenses, and even the quality of the lenses themselves is amazing. I pretty much got rid of most of my Leica stuff in favour of this Nikon Z system. I think the f/1.8 Z-mount primes rival anything that Leica has out, particularly wide open, and at a fraction of the price. Has definitely opened up new opportunities - for both my personal and commercial work.

I never really think about cropping much with these large sensored cameras, except maybe when it comes to photographing birds (you’d think that a 500mm lens would be enough, but it almost never is). Other than that, I’m pretty much making use of the entire frame. The idea of getting a camera with this size sensor for cropping flexibility never entered my mind, but that’s just me.

One thing about these cameras is not only its ability with still photos, but also with video. It’s been great for me and my business, and if/when the 61mp Nikon Z8 comes out, I’ll likely replace my D4 with it. The other thing it’s great for is scanning - I can scan a 6x6cm neg and end up with a 90mb TIFF file, plus it makes the whole scanning process a cinch. My Plustek gathers dust.

I know I seems like there’s this constant chase for the next big thing, despite telling ourselves “okay this is it, no more”. Well, maybe I should just speak for myself 🙂

 

[Beemermark]

No one's mentioned viewing distance and resolution much in this thread - which as Chris says boils down to the further away a photo is seen from, the less resolution it needs to appear sharp.

This is often used as an argument why no one needs high-MP cameras. In fact, it's said that anything over 12 MP is pointless!

Calculations indicate that even a large 30-inch print viewed from 3 feet needs only 8 MP. You can use this online print size vs resolution calculator to try out various combinations: https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/minimum-resolution-calculator/

There is one humongous fly in this particular ointment, though...

The viewing distance argument is fine where close-up sharpness doesn't matter, such as bill posters or adverts in shop windows or at bus stops: these are always viewed from a few feet - no one deliberately looks at these from a few inches, and if they do, no one cares that they're fuzzy.

However, fine-art or gallery prints are different. If you watch people looking at a photo (or a painting for that matter) hung in a gallery, they'll always at some point go right up to the picture and stick their nose against it!

So, the viewing distance argument fails, and these photos need to be sharp at a "reading distance" of a few inches - which is where we get the oft-quoted figure of 300 dpi, which is the (very rough) approximate maximum resolution of the human eye - we can't see more detail.

Actually as jsrockit pointed out in his table 200 dpi is good enough if the final print is around 16x20. I felt your argument about fine-art or gallery prints was wrong but I couldn't figure out why. Then it came to me. If someone has to put their nose right up to your print they don't see your picture. It's like bringing a magnifying glass to a Reuben and saying the strokes are all wrong. I went to a friends show awhile ago and the photos covered a large period of work and the changes that happened over his life. The prints were large. Early pictures (in the 70's & 80's) were medium format film portraits and gorgeous, but if you looked close enough grain and resolution wasn't that good. Grain and resolution did not cancel out the fact that the prints were great. Later work was digital, macro, and abstract. They were just fantastic but if you stuck you nose in it the sharpness wasn't that great. But sticking my nose in it took away the whole beauty of the print. I have ~14 by 18 landscape prints made with a half frame D200. If I examine it within a magnifying glass the details dissolve into blurs. But no one that walks into my house and looks at that picture from a few feet can't but help commenting on what a beautiful picture.

 

[Rayt]

As a film shooter I don’t understand pixel count. Forgive me if I ask a stupid question.

Let’s say I print in a darkroom from a TriX negative. A 6x4.5 negative printed full frame on 8x10 paper will have richer tonality compared to a same size print from a 135 negative. I prefer to print small if I want richer more tonal prints. Or I make contact prints off LF negs. I can clearly see the benefits of “higher pixels” of 120 film over 135 format. But in this same example comparing the same files shot with a 12MP sensor vs 40MP sensor on A4 paper would it be akin to the above film example or would the extra data from the larger file wasted? So the higher MP is of benefit for large prints and cropping. Is that it?

 

[pyeh]

I think of higher res as like using finer grain film. Of course there are other sensor and processor traits, like "contrast curve" and "long toe" just like in different films.