How big?

[David Hughes]

I think that there was a time when the camera designers told the computer people what they wanted and it was done but with digital the camera people lost out and the computer designers took over. So apart from a few classics like the Leica and Panasonic we (photographers) lost out.

With film cameras there was a sort of golden age about the mid 90's when the things worked and we liked them as saving us time and money but then it all went funny. You've only got to look at some of them from the mid 90's to love them; thinking Contax Tix, Leica R5, Minolta 7000i (at the limit), Olympus XA's and µ's and Pentax ME super and so on.

And then they go the other way, moaning about frame lines not being exact and printing 8 x 10's...

Regards, David

 

[BillBingham2]

It's an interesting question. When Samsung, Apple, and others put a 24MP sensor into a smart phone what happens the majority of the fixed lens digital cameras?

For the majority of folks I think we are there with respect to resolution. The challenge of the marketing people is how do you talk about aspect of the IQ that can't be put into a single number and convince the buyer that they care about it.

We've done that somewhat as we moved to include multi-core processors when we used to speak about GHz. I think there's additional items some people care about like Graphic Processing Units (for folks who game a lot) so it might not be that bleak.

I'm wonder if sensors will follow TVs in the bigger is better build and give manufacturers senors that cover 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 backs at a price where hobbiest can afford?

Years ago Kodak did a BIG enlargement from a Kodachrome 35mm side for their display at Grand Central Station in NYC that was stunning. I'm pretty sure we are there with respect to resolution, there there is so much more. The questions are do enough people care? if not, can we (the manufacturers) get them to care and still make money?

B2 (;->

 

[rlouzan]

I justo want an affordable, no frills, full-frame camera body.

 

[BillBingham2]

I justo want an affordable full-frame camera body.

+1

What do you think is affordable?

Keeping in mind that unless it's the same mount as your classic glass, you will need to spend $150-200 USD for a good adapter........

B2 (;->

 

[rlouzan]

Bill, Under $1000 for a dslr or mirrorless camera w/50mm f1.8. A plain manual exposure body with no AF, lcd screen, built in flash ...

 

[Archlich]

Bill, Under $1000 for a dslr or mirrorless camera w/50mm f1.8. A plain manual exposure body with no AF, lcd screen, built in flash ...

A D700 with a K3 screen could be ideal for you. Just use Manual mode, and cover the screen with tapes.

New, no manufacturer could justify making such a niche (within a niche) product, let alone pricing it under $1000...

This might have been repeated 1,000 times on RFF already, but I'd rather wish my favorite makers the best than asking them to die a tragic death with an unheard swan song.

 

[Archlich]

I have a feeling this is becoming another "since I'm good with my 6mp anything more than that must be evil" thread.

If technological advancement is too much, just leave it. Stay in the past. Or buy a Sony A7S.

There really is no logical connection between photographers being bad and newer cameras having ample resolutions (or whatever witchcraft they'd able to squeeze into the machines).

The "unhealthy and forensic look" has been present since the days artists use the camera obscura to aid the painting process. It was there in Caravaggio, in Vermeer, in Velázquez, in Degas. It's in everyone of us who had been trained to look through, and to look as if we had the machine's eyes. It is the natural of photography - the alien, analytic, mechanical look. The perfectly cold representation.

But true masters never balk. They would always seek the max potency of the medium and get over it.

 

[Dave Jenkins]

This is all pretty much just measurebating. Back around 2003-04, photographers on the Digital Wedding Forum were bragging about making great 30x40 prints from their 4-megapixel Nikon D2H cameras, and a few years before that Joe McNalley had shot a successful billboard in Times Square with a 3-megapixel Nikon Coolpix.

As the always iconoclastic (and often correct) Andrew Molitor has said: "Photographers, culturally, seem to have a terrible problem with looking for technical solutions to creative problems." http://photothunk.blogspot.com/

Around 2000, as I was beginning to close out my downtown studio, another local commercial photographer came to look at my space with a view to renting it. He was a dedicated user of medium format and 4x5, and held 35mm in low regard. Looking at the framed 16x 20 and 20x24 photographs hanging on my studio walls, he would point at one and then another, asking on what format they were shot. He was somewhat scandalized and almost unable to believe that most of them had been shot on 35mm film. Finally, as he was about to leave, he pointed at one 20x24 portrait and said, "Now you can't tell me that was shot on 35mm!"

"Yes, Doug," I said, as he threw up his hands and left.

So what's my point? My point is that reasonably good equipment, reasonably good technique, and a reasonably good idea of what you're trying to accomplish can add up to some pretty good photographs.

 

[jsrockit]

So what's my point? My point is that reasonably good equipment, reasonably good technique, and a reasonably good idea of what you're trying to accomplish can add up to some pretty good photographs.

Exactly...

 

[icebear]

.... However, all I could think about is that the photo was horrible in the first place and that it was mind boggling that anyone would even look at that minor detail in a throw away photo (no less obsess about it). He swore the Leica Q would have nailed it.

The only thing that this "review" revealed is that the "reviewer" had no clue, no clue at all.🙄

...

"Yes, Doug," I said, as he threw up his hands and left.

So what's my point? My point is that reasonably good equipment, reasonably good technique, and a reasonably good idea of what you're trying to accomplish can add up to some pretty good photographs.

Great anecdote, thanks for sharing.
Along that same line of thinking: good technique with "lower spec" equipment in manual mode will typically smoke sloppy technique with the latest and greatest camera with 295 unnecessary features.

 

[Axel]

... simply by looking at the image at 100% on our computer screen, we could see a significant difference in resolving power between the 24 megapixel images and the higher counts. At what point does that difference reveal itself in prints? Of course, the answer is - it depends...

Yes, it depends!
For me it depends on the simple question what is a photo taken for?

We have thousands of pictures - photos and paintings - of the past that affect people on a high level.
The point of resolution always was a small technical aspect that did not matter until, and that is the point, you want to see more
than the picture by microscoping parts of it!

So for me my decision was simple years ago and I´m happy with it. Some megapixels are enough for a good photo.
And the pixelcount of a print or a projection on a big wall doesn´t matter until you look at it as a whole.

Microscoping or pixelpeeping are nice other hobbies that my pictures are not
made for and so my simple answer is: always big enough 🙂

 

[pgk]

Since “How big?” is an “It depends.” situation, I would like very much to hear other folks opinions on this as it relates to the cameras they use and their photography.

There does appear to be an aversion to having equipment which is merely 'fit for purpose' as though having better will somehow enhance the resulting images (it doesn't). I suspect that if we were totally honest with ourselves, few photographers ever fully utilise the capabilities of their cameras and lenses except on very rare occasions. And sometimes small is beautiful - another concept which we fail to appreciate much of the time. I recently came across some 5" x 7" Cibachrome prints I'd forgotten about and they were great to find and to see images that I'd shot nearly 30 years ago, for a client (I do not have the transparencies). Larger prints would probably still be stacked in the attic to see light of day when?

FWIW my cameras are not the latest high MPixel models but they do produce great prints at nearly 30" x 20" which I do sell .....

 

[David Hughes]

I have a feeling this is becoming another "since I'm good with my 6mp anything more than that must be evil" thread.

If technological advancement is too much, just leave it. Stay in the past. Or buy a Sony A7S.

There really is no logical connection between photographers being bad and newer cameras having ample resolutions (or whatever witchcraft they'd able to squeeze into the machines).

The "unhealthy and forensic look" has been present since the days artists use the camera obscura to aid the painting process. It was there in Caravaggio, in Vermeer, in Velázquez, in Degas. It's in everyone of us who had been trained to look through, and to look as if we had the machine's eyes. It is the natural of photography - the alien, analytic, mechanical look. The perfectly cold representation.

But true masters never balk. They would always seek the max potency of the medium and get over it.

Hmmm, I guess I should be ashamed of my poor old low tech M9?

Presumably, when I get the latest and greatest, I should also delete at the M9 photo's as inadequate? Or perhaps I should delete everything smaller than the M9 pictures?

As for the old masters, there's not much difference between then and now in terms of materials used; ink, paints and brushes have up graded slowly - not always for the best in my opinion - and pencils and paper seem the same. Watercolours aren't mixed with honey any more and I guess acrylic paint are newish, ditto a few colours but most of the "new" colours are Victorian...

Regards, David

 

[Dave Jenkins]

Just sold a 20x30 print from this slide, made on Fujichrome RDP100 in 1994 with a Canon A2 and (probably) a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 lens. It was scanned at 13x19 inches in a Minolta DiMage 5400 and up-resed in Photoshop. Unfortunately, you can't tell much about it at this small file size.

 

[Ronald M]

Hmmm, I guess I should be ashamed of my poor old low tech M9?

Presumably, when I get the latest and greatest, I should also delete at the M9 photo's as inadequate? Or perhaps I should delete everything smaller than the M9 pictures?

As for the old masters, there's not much difference between then and now in terms of materials used; ink, paints and brushes have up graded slowly - not always for the best in my opinion - and pencils and paper seem the same. Watercolours aren't mixed with honey any more and I guess acrylic paint are newish, ditto a few colours but most of the "new" colours are Victorian...

Regards, David

I have some new made in France watercolor that claim to be made with honey. Dick Blick.com. They come in cake and tube form.

 

[ptpdprinter]

He swore the Leica Q would have nailed it.

Of course, with the fixed 28mm lens in the Q, the area in question would have appeared even smaller (or have been magnified more to get the same size) than the original area in question. The critics rarely think things through.

 

[NeonKnight]

I find the computer processing and storage demands for images from these larger sensors to be very burdensome and this was the main reason that I sold my M9! I now stick to 18mb film scans and my 12 megapixel Pen E-P1. I appreciate the flexibility offered in cropping and the reduced noise from the newer cameras, but, I have always been a purist when it comes to cropping and I feel noise gives the digital files some texture. Would really wish camera makers would concentrate on pixel quality over quantity, I think the Sony a7S II would be an example of this.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The 24MP APS-C sensor is 4000x6000 pixels, and at 300dpi, the maximum print size is 13.5x20, which works out nicely to a 12x18 on standard 13x19 inkjet paper. I print smaller, usually 9x13.5, and mat and frame my images at 16x20. I print full frame, with occasional minor cropping to level an horizon, so all my prints are downsized to 2700x4050. I have been satisfied with my Fuji, and prefer its size and haptics to the Canon, Nikon, and Sony. I might make a different choice if I printed larger.

 

[Lee Rust]

With images from my 6mp Epson R-D1, viewed on screen at 100%, I'm bothered by jagged edges on diagonal lines and strange pixellation on LED light sources like auto tail lights and traffic signals. Of course, these details are irrelevant in small to medium size prints, but I will admit to a bit of pixel peeping.

Somewhere around 12mp, these artifacts seem to disappear.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

I can remember, when 8 megapixels started to creep into cameras, that one or two of the big names started saying things like 5 was OK for A4 prints but 8 gives you A3 prints. I thought I'd kept the catalogues saying this but can't find them. Luckily it's not important.

My own experience is that the lens is more important than the sensor, some lenses don't seem as good as the sensor in samples I've seen from different makers. And the subject matter also can influence what size print you make. Portraits printed at 100 or so dpi seem OK to a lot of people... (That's portraits of people and flowers, FWIW.)

Regards, David