Godfrey
somewhat colored
I have one of those too ... very low serial number Nikon F plain prism (built Fall '61, I believe). The body was given to me by a friend who re-discovered it sitting in a box in his basement without a lens on it sometime in the '00s. I had it overhauled, left the cosmetic blemishes on it for sake of 'showing its patina', have both a Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 and a Nikkor 28/2 for it, and put my favorite E screen in it. Works perfectly, a superb brick of a camera.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
It's a balancing act, for sure. More pixels is not without its cost in computing requirements, but in general—for shooting and editing—having more is a good situation. Not so much if you are trying to capture and send finished work directly out of camera, in some circumstances, but most cameras allow the in-camera JPEG engine to be scaled to less than 100% output resolution.
Two of my favorite exhibition winners were made with the 5Mpixel Olympus E-1 and printed to 20x24" image area after upscaling to double resolution. They're perfectly sharp and several copies sold at the gallery.
Not to sound callous, but I don't worry much about what other people do with their money or lack of it. Doing photography is never a life essential, it's an artistic pastime or a business that you garner a living from. If a pastime, it's up to an individual to manage their luxury expenditures for themself; if a business, well, you better figure out how to make whatever angle you're approaching it from profitable.
I never had one of those printers. I did all my exhibition and for sale printing for years and years on an Epson 2400, and replaced that after 11 years with an Epson P600. They did/do excellent work.
One of the early Olympus Visionary pros (can't recall his name just at the moment... sheesh, a sure sign I'm getting to be ancient!) demonstrated some of his rendering/printing techniques at a workshop I attended in 2005-2006, using the 5Mpixel images out of the Olympus E-1 to make HUGE 48 inch and larger prints for exhibition. Brilliant work! I've used those techniques myself ever since, although I'm generally not inclined to making such large prints.
Way, way back in the day, somewhere in the fantasy world of 2001-2002, I wrote down what would be a great digital camera. At the time, I still had my favorite Nikon F3/FM2n kit and its lenses, and I had a Leica M6TTL and its lenses. Given the quality that I like in my prints and the sizes I print, I figured that a camera the size and weight of the Nikon F3, with 4000x6000 pixels resolution on a 24x36mm format, enough storage to capture 2000 full resolution images, and enough battery on board to make 1000 exposures before needed a recharge or swap batteries would be just right.
What I found as the years progressed is that the quality of what I could get on an APS-C format with 6-12 Mpixels easily exceeded what I was getting out of 24x36 film, and storage became insanely dense and ridiculously cheap, and enough battery in one charge for 500-600 exposures was well more than enough. Everything beyond that has been gravy since, a useful if not entirely essential excess. Shooting today with 24Mpixel APS-C and my Leica M lenses in something as small as the Leica CL is just amazing for what it can do. Shooting today with my old Hasselblad 500CM fitted with the CFVII 50c back nets quality—both pixel resolution and dynamic range—absolutely unattainable by anything I had in 2001.
Expectations scale to assume whatever you have is what ought to be, at least. I don't need more, but then I work with something that gives more and can't find any reason to complain about it.
G
I think it also depends on the photo. Photos with a lot of depth of field and sharp focus do better at small MPs. The photo they wanted had slim depth of field with a lot of layers of reflections and glass. The out of focus areas were a huge part of the photo... and pixelization in the out of focus areas in a large print, they truly didn't look good. As a small print...even 12x18", it looks cool. But they were set on this size and it being 2020, and cameras being a lot higher resolution, they had their hearts set on bigger prints that can be viewed close up. One funny thing was they wondered why I used such a low MP camera. I said it was what was available when I made the photo. I guess people think we only care about photos made yesterday. Social media has trained people to think everything posted was made recently.
JeffS7444
Well-known
IIRC, the only way to get lower-resolution .ARW images from Sony A7 is to shoot APS-C.
Maybe smaller and lighter autofocus lenses for Canon RF will become available in the future, and maybe they won't: Meanwhile, Canon's RF 35/1.8 lens weighs 305 g, which is a lot more than Sony SEL35F28Z at 120 g, but is the 185 g weight savings worth the hassle of switching systems?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree ... individual photographs do look best sized for their content ... and pixelation is always ugly.
That said, 12x18 inch is hardly "small" in my book!
I mostly ignore social media, although I have plenty of accounts on various of the sites, and really couldn't care less what gallery owners want anymore. I basically take the attitude of "If you want what I have, good on you. If not, sorry but I ain't making what I feel is wrong for my photo to satisfy you..."
It's so nice to be a retired person sometimes.
G
JeffS7444
Well-known
True, but it seems that the OP already owns a 26 mp Canon RP, but really only wants 16 mp, and is considering replacing it with an older 24 mp camera, apparently to save a couple hundred grams of extra mass. And that seems like a lot of hassle for not a lot of benefit.
IMO, most of us don't need new cameras, and haven't needed them for a number of years. So camera manufacturers have turned to novelty features like retro styling or luxury branding in order to continue selling us the same products year after year with only minor incremental improvements. But because the average camera made in the last decade is already really good, meaningful technical advances aren't so common anymore.
Did I need 61 megapixels? Not really, but I get bored too, and the idea of replacing a good 24 megapixel camera with a newer one seemed kind of pointless. But with 61 mp, I can clearly see where my money went, at least on the computer screen.
This is my feeling after doing it their way a few times... I'd rather make books my way and forget the gallery unless I have to do it for some reason. If I can print my photos the sizes I want and hang them the way I want, then cool. If not, it just isn't that satisfying in the end. It's never enough $ for the compromise. Of course, there are certain galleries I'd make an exception for, but they aren't contacting me...
Dogman
Veteran
I agree ... individual photographs do look best sized for their content ... and pixelation is always ugly.
That said, 12x18 inch is hardly "small" in my book!
I mostly ignore social media, although I have plenty of accounts on various of the sites, and really couldn't care less what gallery owners want anymore. I basically take the attitude of "If you want what I have, good on you. If not, sorry but I ain't making what I feel is wrong for my photo to satisfy you..."
It's so nice to be a retired person sometimes.
G
I like your philosophy. Same here.
But my thoughts might change if I earned my daily bread with my pictures.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have multiple reasons from Sony to seat on Canon EF/RF fence.
Everything between oldie A7 and pricy A7C is close to be heavy just as Canon EF/RF.
Sony only figured out about hiding screen with A7C. But made miniature EVF.
Sony skin colors, WB are often odd for my taste.
So, Sony has tiny and not always expensive lenses selection, but this is it. It is huge factor to me, but still not too huge to step over Sony cons I have mentioned.
As for RP... I don't use its 26 MPs at all. My computer OS, hardware and software can't handle those freaking new Canon's RAWs. Even native Canon DPP can't handle them on my PC. It is old Win 7. I use it in JPEG1 and not on its maximum size. Funny thing, I don't really miss those new RAWs. I did them with Adobe DNG convertor once and no cigar.
I'm not heavy processor, but close to SOOC type. RP gives good exposed and else images in JPEG1. All of those "this sensor has low dynamic range" talks are hoax.
This thread is really helpful. I pulled out 5D MKII after I started reading replies here, mounted light, all plastic 22-55 AF EF on it and for first time after decade I'm enjoying it on the daily commute. I'm using neck strap as wrist strap, old trick. It is still not a solution for walking with dog, hiking with others, but on the streets before/after work it is not bad at all.
OVF is superior to EVF, menus and buttons, dual are just right. Quick to change, and easy to read.
Today I went with it out on lunch break. Miraculously at very first traffic light, another person with big Nikon and heathy zoom on it. Waiting for take out, two young ladies walked in... each with DSLR. I can't recall how many DSLRs I have seen during this week in Toronto. Mirrorless... none!
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
I have multiple reasons from Sony to seat on Canon EF/RF fence.
Everything between oldie A7 and pricy A7C is close to be heavy just as Canon EF/RF.
Sony only figured out about hiding screen with A7C. But made miniature EVF.
Sony skin colors, WB are often odd for my taste.
So, Sony has tiny and not always expensive lenses selection, but this is it. It is huge factor to me, but still not too huge to step over Sony cons I have mentioned.
As for RP... I don't use its 26 MPs at all. My computer OS, hardware and software can't handle those freaking new Canon's RAWs. Even native Canon DPP can't handle them on my PC. It is old Win 7. I use it in JPEG1 and not on its maximum size. Funny thing, I don't really miss those new RAWs. I did them with Adobe DNG convertor once and no cigar.
I'm not heavy processor, but close to SOOC type. RP gives good exposed and else images in JPEG1. All of those "this sensor has low dynamic range" talks are hoax.
This thread is really helpful. I pulled out 5D MKII after I started reading replies here, mounted light, all plastic 22-55 AF EF on it and for first time after decade I'm enjoying it on the daily commute. I'm using neck strap as wrist strap, old trick. It is still not a solution for walking with dog, hiking with others, but on the streets before/after work it is not bad at all.
OVF is superior to EVF, menus and buttons, dual are just right. Quick to change, and easy to read.
Today I went with it out on lunch break. Miraculously at very first traffic light, another person with big Nikon and heathy zoom on it. Waiting for take out, two young ladies walked in... each with DSLR. I can't recall how many DSLRs I have seen during this week in Toronto. Mirrorless... none!
I've long suspected that the move to mirrorless is not happening anywhere near as much as all of the "content creators" would have us believe. Lots of ordinary folks out there don't throw their camera out just because something new comes along!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I’m using my second time 5D MKII. This time it came from our daughter.
It was her choice over mirror less for paid photography.
None of the local press, media photogs I see are with mirror less. DSLRs and huge zooms.
My young ex colleague went 6D mark 2 in 2020. He rejected all of my pro mirror less talks.
Another ex and young one showed me his 5d something kit before COVID.
DSLRs are not old people choice. I see young ladies often with DSLRs and zooms.
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
In the order of your question, Leica M240/246, DxO One, A7rii.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The key about that, when you're actually making a living at this stuff, is to make relationships with galleries and shoot for them, which means that if they want big big prints, go with high mpixel cameras, etc. I did that for a long time, and it was quite successful financially.
Nowadays I only shoot for my satisfaction so different rules apply.
G
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Yes, a Leica M10-P.
It's not only the most "advanced" digital camera I own and use - it's the only digital camera I own and use for taking pictures. I have a cellphone - but I don't use it for taking pictures. And to be fair, I also own a Nikon D5300, but I only use it for business purposes and for shooting items I sell on eBay.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Young people often seem to prefer recycled items.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Has a lot to do with the fact that young people often don't have huge financial resources and smartly buy older, higher end gear used because they can afford it.
G
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
I have one of those too ... Nikon F plain prism (built Fall '61, I believe).
G
We (Boston area) used to call it a "straight F."
Don't know how widely that term was used.
Armoured
Well-known
I'm more than a little confused about what your criteria are and whether you really are looking for something significantly different (and quite possibly your decision to pick up the existing camera from your daughter is the best solution).
You don't seem to want or need any more resolution; you haven't identified any particular 'advanced' sensor features you need; and no especially demanding robustness criteria either. You don't seem to have a strong desire to switch to mirrorless (or any obvious reason to do so).
In short, based on that, keep using what you have, or buy a used DSLR of whatever vintage turns your crank.
There are a few hints in your discussion you might want something smaller / more compact for carry-around purposes. The easiest would be something within the same camera-mount family, possibly an aps-c version.
If you wanted to experiment with something smaller and segment/differentiate your 'carry-around' photography from 'more serious' (better phrased as 'requiring more/larger equipment'), you could supplement your DSLR with anything from a compact camera to something like the micro four-thirds and a couple small primes.
My answer to your original question is I'm quite happy with robustness and features and handling of my Nikon d750, and any number of Nikon DSLRs of similar/more recent vintage would be fine, too (adjust to taste). I suspect even the cameras of a photocopier or television manufacturer would serve well enough, too.
I also use an Olympus m4/3 camera for fun/carry around/don't want to carry the larger camera purposes. It does not feel as tank-like as the Nikon but that doesn't mean it's actually fragile.
Lots of variations on these themes (different manufacturers) would likely fit your needs pretty well, at least until some compelling 'advanced' feature is identified.
Or put differently, sounds like you might be over-thinking it a bit; what you have is probably working pretty well.
willie_901
Veteran
...
More pixels mean more informative data.
There are several advantages to more informative data besides increasing maximum print size. For example. many common post-production rendering algorithms average pixels in some way. More pixels are mathematically useful. While the advantage is greatest for raw files, in-camera JPEGs are rendered with pixel-averaging, mathematical-filters as well.
I prefer to avoid cropping to achieve composition but those who do obviously benefit from more pixels.
To your point, printing can not reproduce all this pixels. But as explained here, the printer firmware algorithms that converts pixels to DPI benefit from higher information content (more pixels).
This is true. A superb lens, optimal exposure and spot on focusing are much more important to maximize data information content than increased pixel density. And adding more pixels to the mix can insure those advantages are fully utilized.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
Most used since I got it is easily the M246
Most robust is the Canon 5dsr. I tend to use this on a tripod or faster action (seriously amazing deal now if you have canon glass)
Most advanced = EOS R. I love the body ergonomics, but HATE the bazooka sized lenses. Makes no sense to me to have a tiny body to hold onto but gigantic lenses. I prefer DSLR weight distribution much better.
I’ll throw another category in- the camera I can’t bring myself to sell. That’s the Xpro2 for me. I actually got it years ago because I didn’t want to commit to spending $ on a leica digital, but I had leica glass that I wanted to try digitally. It’s not the best in ANY category, but it is often my grab n go camera because it does so many things very well.
Most robust is the Canon 5dsr. I tend to use this on a tripod or faster action (seriously amazing deal now if you have canon glass)
Most advanced = EOS R. I love the body ergonomics, but HATE the bazooka sized lenses. Makes no sense to me to have a tiny body to hold onto but gigantic lenses. I prefer DSLR weight distribution much better.
I’ll throw another category in- the camera I can’t bring myself to sell. That’s the Xpro2 for me. I actually got it years ago because I didn’t want to commit to spending $ on a leica digital, but I had leica glass that I wanted to try digitally. It’s not the best in ANY category, but it is often my grab n go camera because it does so many things very well.