High Count

[Michael Markey]

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.

Thank you for this explanation .
I`ve never been able to understand the prejudice against cropping .
It just never made any sense to me on any level.

I agree with Rich ,they need to keep this high MP cameras coming.
They provide more flexibility whether you take advantage of it or not .

 

[jsrockit]

So the higher MP is of benefit for large prints and cropping. Is that it?

No, your film analogy would work as well to a degree since with 12mp you'd be close to maximizing your print size at 300dpi. The larger MP sensor coupled with a small print would appear to be very clean. And in digital, high ISO noise that is visible at 100% (40mp) would not be as visible in smaller prints.

 

[retinax]

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.

The difference is though: Visible large grain can look good, visible pixels almost never.
Me, I haven't done digital in a while. Out of curiosity, I've downloaded some sample RAW files from a Sony A7R IV a little while ago. To my eye, they looked mushy as hell at 100%. So not usable at full magnification, not as much better than much older, lower resolution cameras as the numbers would suggest. The Ricoh GR I used to use made much much nicer-looking-at-100% files. But maybe it was just my RAW software (Darktable).

 

[jsrockit]

The difference is though: Visible large grain can look good, visible pixels almost never.
Me, I haven't done digital in a while. Out of curiosity, I've downloaded some sample RAW files from a Sony A7R IV a little while ago. To my eye, they looked mushy as hell at 100%. So not usable at full magnification, not as much better than much older, lower resolution cameras as the numbers would suggest. The Ricoh GR I used to use made much much nicer-looking-at-100% files. But maybe it was just my RAW software (Darktable).

Yeah I would think there is a problem on your end. I haven’t heard anything of the sort and I’m a Sony hater!

 

[RichC]

The difference is though: Visible large grain can look good, visible pixels almost never.
Me, I haven't done digital in a while. Out of curiosity, I've downloaded some sample RAW files from a Sony A7R IV a little while ago. To my eye, they looked mushy as hell at 100%. So not usable at full magnification, not as much better than much older, lower resolution cameras as the numbers would suggest. The Ricoh GR I used to use made much much nicer-looking-at-100% files. But maybe it was just my RAW software (Darktable).

Erm... a Sony A7R IV image is almost 10,000 pixels wide!

A computer screen has about 100 pixels/inch (ppi), so viewed at 100%, that's a 90 inch, 7.5 foot, 2.25 metre picture!

Photos are ideally printed at 300 ppi, but about 200 ppi suffices for large prints. So, looking at digital photos at 35-50% gives a realistic idea of how sharp it'll be when printed.

 

[retinax]

Yeah I would think there is a problem on your end. I haven’t heard anything of the sort and I’m a Sony hater!

I checked some jpegs. I think your right, it's nothing as bad as I remembered. Not great looking at 100% either though.

Erm... a Sony A7R IV image is almost 10,000 pixels wide!

A computer screen has about 100 pixels/inch (ppi), so viewed at 100%, that's a 90 inch, 7.5 foot, 2.25 metre picture!

Photos are ideally printed at 300 ppi, but about 200 ppi suffices for large prints. So, looking at digital photos at 35-50% gives a realistic idea of how sharp it'll be when printed.

You don't need to tell me that, it doesn't contradict my conclusion, which is only "not as much better than much older, lower resolution cameras as the numbers would suggest".

 

[JeffS7444]

Current A7 owner pondering upgrade to A7R3 or 4 here: I am expecting to use a tripod when I really want maximum image quality, but in situations where it's not possible to use such precision, then I expect effective resolution will be lower than 63 megapixels. Besides sheer number of pixels, I'd expect to benefit from improvements in IBIS, autofocus, battery life, and quieter operation.

I think the old rules of thumb about lenses performing their best at middle apertures are no longer necessarily true, at least not for today's flagship G and G Master or Zuiko Pro glass. But I do see the value in slower lenses because they are smaller, and many situations don't call for really shallow depth of field or razor-sharp corners.

Wish that Sony offered pixel-shift in the base model A7-3 as that would give me ~90 megapixels when shooting static subjects, and a still-generous 24 megapixels for all else.

I bought a fancy Canon photo printer the other year. So far I've printed nothing larger than 5x7 (inches!) but I like the look of small prints printed at the highest possible resolution. Nothing against big prints, but where to put them once all available wall space has been taken?

 

[Dogman]

More pixels in the sensor means more potential fine resolution in the image. That's a Good Thing. But don't forget, if you can't see it in the final image it doesn't really matter. How is the final image being used? Publication? You don't need a lot of megapixels for a double page reproduction in one of the few paper magazines still printing. Display? How big and where? Size matters but if the image is located at a distance where you can't see the fine details anyway, it doesn't matter. Art gallery? Anything goes. You can print an 25.5x33 ft size image from an out of focus shot done on a broken Canon Elf, blast out the highlights and drop all detail in the shadows and call it something vague and end up being a genius. Or you can do sunsets, flowers, kittens and scenic wonders for tourist shops in Moab and try to make a living selling prints. But if you can't see the fine resolution in the final image, it doesn't matter.

 

[BillBingham2]

If you can't make it good, make it big. Used to work for some folks.

I suspect that at some point higher in the race FF sensors will be able to (perhaps with a bit of help from the on-board computers) allow of use of older glass without digital-artifacts.

While I enjoy the MP race, I fear that the next wave to "Features" will make most camera menus untenable, but that's another thread.

I'm interested in a 20MP iPhone please.....

B2 (;->