Pixel Lust

At present, the cameras I use are 16mp and 24mp. They are more than adequate, even when cropping. For the last year or so, I've printed almost everything 6x9 inches on 8,5x11 inch paper. I would print larger but I take a lot of pictures and print a lot of them so I print smaller for economy. When I post something online in a forum(I would post here but the process is too cumbersome) the resized JPEG image is something like 500-800KB in size. In the past, I've cropped an 8mp APS-C image in half and printed it 13x19 inches and received compliments for the quality.

I'm sure there are those out there who need these monster megapixels. Somewhere. Me? I'm okay now. If I ever upgrade to higher megapixel cameras it will be because of the inclusion of some features I feel I need, not because of the pixels involved.

I want to add--Forget The Rules! You can print beyond what the rules tell you if the picture is good enough. Way beyond. You don't need a lot of crap to make good pictures. To rephrase Capa, "If your pictures aren't good enough it's because they're not good enough."
 
I don't suffer from "pixel lust" per se, but that said I'm very sensitive to how much resolution is required for a given subject and camera/lens combination used to capture quality images.

For instance, ultra wide field of view springs to life based on the exquisite capture of fine detail in the broad view context. This needs lots of resolution and tonal differentiation and is the premier domain for large sensor, large pixel captures.

Another example: Most long telephoto work has more resolution degradation from atmospheric and environmental factors than it does from anything in the image capture chain, so you generally need less resolution and tonal range for long long lenses than you do for normal and short lenses. The exception to this is photographing birds, generally small and highly detailed subject you cannot easily get close to, where exquisite detail of the plumage interacts with sensor resolution, given a very sharp lens and critical focus, such that you need more resolution to prevent moiré effects.

I shoot with a variety of cameras that produce from 8 to 50 Mpixel resolution nowadays. The higher resolution cameras give me more options to work with and have capabilities that I barely stress most of the time, but are needed every so often depending upon subject type and the intent of the photographs.

G
 
peterm1 said:
Bill, you mention the benefits of big megapixel counts for facilitating cropping.

Mainly because I have some difficulty focusing fully manually as in an M camera now that I am older, I recently bought a Leica Q with some reservations about one aspect of it - The ability to produce an image at full resolution or at 35mm equivalent or 50mm equivalent. I found that it is more beneficial than I thought as the native 28mm is a bit wide for my taste. But I also found that I did not really want to crop to 50mm as at 35mm the pixel count drops from 28mm at full res to almost 16 megapixels which is still perfectly fine - its the size of most of my other camera's sensors. By the time an image is cropped to 50mm equivalent I think only something like 6-8 megapixels are available (sorry - too lazy to get off my bum and check). This is a bit too much pixel loss for most of my purposes.

Then they brought out the Q2 which has almost a 50 megapixel sensor
Click to expand...

I've always used the Q for street shooting, cropping the 28mm frame not only because it is a little wide but because my framing on the street is often a little hasty and sometimes awful on those occasions when I shoot without raising the camera to my eye. So, of course, I've sold the Q and am in line for the Q2 and am cursing Leitz limited production abilities.
 
Sometimes the lager Mp from the sensor is not a goal, but just a byproduct.
I switched from Fujy X-T2 - 16-56mm F2.8 to a Sony A7R3 - 24-105 F4 nót because of the amount of megapixels but for IBIS and Eye-AF. 24 Mpix would have been good enough but the A73 was not available yet and this sensor really shines so I am quite content with this switch.
The only issue is that I have to by new USB drives for backup, since my 7 years old laptop can easily handle CAP1 with those 42 megabyte files.
Lots of good cameras around and choice is a good thing.
 
I'm strictly an amateur/hobbyist photographer and I mostly shoot film these days. I have two old DSLRs that I use occasionally: a 6MP Nikon D40 and a 16MP Nikon D7000 (although my wife has more or less appropriated the D7000 so I mostly use the D40 when I shoot digital now). I have a 16″ x 20″ print from the D40 hanging on my wall that looks great even up close, so I'm not entirely sure what I would need a super high res sensor for. (I'm not saying nobody needs one. I'm just saying I don't need one.)


I also have absolutely zero interest in huge full frame digital cameras or optically perfect but enormous lens like the Zeiss Otis, etc. If I was willing to carry around something that big, I'd get a Pentax 67.



To follow up on Bill initial question, I'm curious as to how big a darkroom print photographers make from 35mm negatives, and at what print size would they step up to medium format?
 
Bill Pierce said:
For openers, will that new, high pixel count reveal that your old lenses are not able to take full advantage of the new sensor? That’s a very real consideration. And if your lenses are good enough, are you good enough to take advantage of the advantages? Remember - no camera shake, no non optimum aperture, no misfocusing, no high ISO bailout.
Click to expand...

This is a common misconception. If you take a look at DxO's "Perceptual Megapixel" resolution measurement, you'll see that ALL lenses benefit from higher megapixel cameras (higher sampling rate).

Sure, there are most likely "better" lenses out there that will give better results in terms of absolute resolution, but to misuse an aphorism, "A rising tide lifts all boats."
 
AAlfano said:
To follow up on Bill initial question, I'm curious as to how big a darkroom print photographers make from 35mm negatives, and at what print size would they step up to medium format?
Click to expand...


I remember one show of war pictures that traveled to a number of museums. It was not printed by the photographers, but the sponsors of the exhibit. I saw the exhibit when it came to NYC and my pictures were taller than me. They were color and that probably meant a fairly high speed color reversal material, not the “sharpest” film. But the pictures didn’t depend on sharpness for their effect.

After the show was over, the prints were returned to the photographers. I had no place big enough for storage. I know at least one other photographer had the same problem. I put mine on a NYC street on trash pick up day. Folks used to regularly sort through the trash and take items before they were picked up. I don’t know if that happened or photographic compost was the eventual end.

The point being that “sharpness” is not the only criterion for print size and, often, not even the important one. The size is usually determined by the use. Some exhibitions use very large prints. Nonetheless, collectors, public and private, tend to treasure prints that were made by or under the supervision of the photographer. As a rule, that means smaller prints. And not many people are putting up murals in their living rooms. Some of the best collections are the archives of publications that used photographs. Those are relatively small prints.

If your film work benefits from capturing small details or minimizing the effects of grain, you have a tendency to move up in format size without thinking about print size. The same picture can have lives in different sizes that are determined long after the picture is taken.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I remember one show of war pictures that traveled to a number of museums. It was not printed by the photographers, but the sponsors of the exhibit. I saw the exhibit when it came to NYC and my pictures were taller than me. They were color and that probably meant a fairly high speed color reversal material, not the “sharpest” film. But the pictures didn’t depend on sharpness for their effect.

After the show was over, the prints were returned to the photographers. I had no place big enough for storage. I know at least one other photographer had the same problem. I put mine on a NYC street on trash pick up day. Folks used to regularly sort through the trash and take items before they were picked up. I don’t know if that happened or photographic compost was the eventual end.

The point being that “sharpness” is not the only criterion for print size and, often, not even the important one. The size is usually determined by the use. Some exhibitions use very large prints. Nonetheless, collectors, public and private, tend to treasure prints that were made by or under the supervision of the photographer. As a rule, that means smaller prints. And not many people are putting up murals in their living rooms. Some of the best collections are the archives of publications that used photographs. Those are relatively small prints.

If your film work benefits from capturing small details or minimizing the effects of grain, you have a tendency to move up in format size without thinking about print size. The same picture can have lives in different sizes that are determined long after the picture is taken.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the reply Bill. I appreciate you putting things into context. What you are saying makes sense. I remember visiting an HCB exhibit at MOMA in New York about 10 years ago (when I was just getting into photography). I was a bit surprised that practically all of the prints were around 13″ by 19″ or smaller. Your post puts that into perspective.



I guess what I was asking, though, is whether there was a "rule of thumb" for how big of an enlargement you could make of a 35mm negative, similar to the 360/300/240 ppi guidelines you referenced in your initial post. For example, you can enlarge a 35mm Tri-X neg made with good light and a good lens to X by Y print size with good results.



To circle back to the original post, it seems the camera manufacturers are building super high rez cameras for a vanishingly small target market that really prints large enough to benefit from these sensors.
 
A big implication for these big saucy sensors is a reduced need for lenses. If you can crop the file in camera then you don't really need that big zoom or another prime. In the old days lenses made money. i guess now people (cough, not me) upgrade the body much more...
 
benlees said:
A big implication for these big saucy sensors is a reduced need for lenses. If you can crop the file in camera then you don't really need that big zoom or another prime. In the old days lenses made money. i guess now people (cough, not me) upgrade the body much more...
Click to expand...

Yes …. they save you carrying more lenses .
With a high mp camera and a 135 I needn`t carry the large 70-200/2.8.
For me that's a big plus.
 
Bill Pierce said:
I've always used the Q for street shooting, cropping the 28mm frame not only because it is a little wide but because my framing on the street is often a little hasty and sometimes awful on those occasions when I shoot without raising the camera to my eye. So, of course, I've sold the Q and am in line for the Q2 and am cursing Leitz limited production abilities.
Click to expand...

Bill, Yes I have grown, if not fond of the cropping feature, then at least happy with its usefulness. More useful than I had anticipated. (Though if truth be known, I would prefer perhaps a 35mm lens on my Q with ability to crop to 50mm and 75mm or even better a 50mm lens with ability to crop to 75mm and say 90mm. Though I imagine I am in the minority there). The biggest challenge I have is changing my street shooting style to take better advantage of the lens that is actually on the camera. I should say that it is a very, very good lens and in my estimation entirely up to making the best of the Q2s larger sensor and maybe even sensors with an even larger megapixel count. (Though I have not seen others iews in this specific regard).

I think you will enjoy the Q2. I got my Q at a good price in as new condition with some accessories (the grip and the Leica half case) because the owner was keen to get himself one of the first Q2s to come in. Good for him, good for me.
 
benlees said:
A big implication for these big saucy sensors is a reduced need for lenses. If you can crop the file in camera then you don't really need that big zoom or another prime. In the old days lenses made money. i guess now people (cough, not me) upgrade the body much more...
Click to expand...

For the reason you state I think camera makers will try to limit cropping sensor modes to certain parts of the market - e.g. for smaller "pocket" cameras with fixed lenses or it could destroy too much of their business model. And it makes sense - why have a cropping mode on a camera with interchangeable lenses where a longer or wider field of view is only a lens change away.
 
peterm1 said:
For the reason you state I think camera makers will try to limit cropping sensor modes to certain parts of the market - e.g. for smaller "pocket" cameras with fixed lenses or it could destroy too much of their business model. And it makes sense - why have a cropping mode on a camera with interchangeable lenses where a longer or wider field of view is only a lens change away.
Click to expand...




Yes, it does seem unlikely they will paint themselves into a corner.
 
benlees said:
Yes, it does seem unlikely they will paint themselves into a corner.
Click to expand...


I forgot to add too that another point which counts against a croppable sensor for cameras with interchangeable lenses is that when you change a lens for a closer or a wider shot you are still getting the full benefit of all those megapixels available to you on that nice big sensor. Unlike with a croppable sensor where the effective pixels falls each time you crop.
 
Could it be that the internet and related market aspects in the modern era have caused too many to be focused on numbers whereas in the "old days" the criteria was only "looks good to me".

Life was simpler back when visuals were evaluated on no more than how they looked.
 
Bob Michaels said:
Could it be that the internet and related market aspects in the modern era have caused too many to be focused on numbers whereas in the "old days" the criteria was only "looks good to me".

Life was simpler back when visuals were evaluated on no more than how they looked.
Click to expand...

Bob, I think that is a good point. We live in the time of "The Big Gulp" and the "Beef Double Cheeseburger" and the "All you can Eat Buffet Lunch". There is a kind of greed behind it all but in this instance I do not absolutely blame the camera companies who are driven to innovate in any way they think will work as once the public stop buying, the revenue stops rolling in, and the production lines cease rolling - most likely signalling the death of their companies.
 
My two cents.
I like to have more megapixels, although I am looking for the right plateau. It might be at about 60 megapixels. Bu I also want them in a nice camera and not too expensive
1- I like details
2- I like to crop
3- I like to print as large as I can afford
4- I don't buy the outresolve argument. A nice thing of transfer functions is that they multiply. There are excellent prime vintage lenses like Leica R, Zeiss F, Minolta Af etc. Now suppose that at a certain point in a certain direction at a certain spatial frequency the lens has a tf=0.7. A poor sensor with say a tf 0.6 wil give a product 0.42, not ideal. A sensor with lot of megapixels may have a tf close to 1, with the result that the product is approximately 0.7, meaning that it will squeeze from the lens its maximum possible performance. I remember that I Leitz engineer, asked what sense does it make to put a fast film in a Leica, answered similarly, but of course with the role of the lens and sensor exchanged
5- As to storage I have worked in PS with files close to 1 Gb. Also memories are cheap and, as an amateur, I have very few lucky days that I can devote to shooting and, in addition, I tend to shoot film style
Certainly a pro shooting machine gun style (I never shot a sequence in my life) all day long every day might need a good deal of storage...
Cheers
Paolo
 
Do I not remember these discussions being exactly the same back when cameras were moving from 6mp to 12mp? Does anyone think the discussion will change when cameras are moving from 250mp to 500mp at some time in the future?
 
Bob Michaels said:
Do I not remember these discussions being exactly the same back when cameras were moving from 6mp to 12mp? Does anyone think the discussion will change when cameras are moving from 250mp to 500mp at some time in the future?
Click to expand...

Ding ding ding... we have a winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom