Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 171

Thread: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

  1. #51
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Houston TX USA
    Posts
    273
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    lovely discussion ..... as I generate most of my stuff for 8X10 blurb books it confirms my total lack of need for an A7(r), but when has need ever really played a part in what I buy?

    Where did guy get that HELMET?

    Dave
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #52
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Exactly Ron. Not for either of 'em!

    But which one should I get?
    Jono, have you decided yet on the A7 or A7R?
    I am leaning towards the A7.
    Though still undecided
    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by kuau View Post
    Jono, have you decided yet on the A7 or A7R?
    I am leaning towards the A7.
    Though still undecided
    Steven
    I'm thinking about an A7 also to use with my Leica R lenses. Seems like a better fit to me than the A7R, especially since I have never printed on any paper larger than 13x19 inches and my Epson 3880 will only go to 17" wide.

    Gary
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #54
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Decisions decisions and more decisions. I'm almost done with a transformation.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  5. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA & Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    77
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by vjbelle View Post
    ... I know what works and it sure ain't lightroom.
    Victor, I look to be enlightened. What do you use?

    Chris

  6. #56
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by kuau View Post
    Jono, have you decided yet on the A7 or A7R?
    I am leaning towards the A7.
    Though still undecided
    Steven
    Hi Steven
    No decision yet. But like Gary I'm leaning towards the A7 as well. When Matt was here with his I was looking at the results from the kit zoom, and they looked rather good. He has both cameras, so I'm interested in his verdict.

    Gary, I have the 3880 as well, but I do like to crop. On the other hand I can't see many situations when the difference between 24mp and 36mp is gonna make or break a photo.

    It's just this thing about accepting "second best".!

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #57
    Senior Member Ron Pfister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    I'm thinking about an A7 also to use with my Leica R lenses. Seems like a better fit to me than the A7R, especially since I have never printed on any paper larger than 13x19 inches and my Epson 3880 will only go to 17" wide.
    Gary, your prints would still benefit from the higher resolution files of the A7R (depending on subject matter, of course). At 13x19", you'd be comfortably above 360ppi, which is very nice.

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Eads, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,033
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by white.elephant View Post
    Victor, I look to be enlightened. What do you use?

    Chris
    I use years and years of experience.

    Victor
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #59
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,601
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by wuffstuff View Post
    Following much discussion on here (and, believe it or not, info from the super, awesome, hyperbolic Steve Huff) I have purchased the A7 rather than the A7r. I became concerned about the vibration issue, and in the end felt that the pixel differential versus ease of use clearly indicated that for a handholder like me, this camera was the way to go.

    The camera is much easier to use compared to my Leica M240 (just take exposure compensation as an example) and the image quality is very similar. I used a 50 Lux ASPH at f8 to take my comparison images.

    At 20 x 16 I am completely unable to tell the prints apart (Leica M v A7) at normal viewing distances. Even when magnified I have difficulty - though the M240 shadow detail is just slightly improved; maybe.

    I haven't printed any larger prints as I don't have access to a bigger printer - yet.

    I paid £5100 for my M240 and £1300 for the A7. I feel like a chump.

    Leica - are you listening?

    What happened to the A7 now that you are reporting on an A7R? Do you have both?

  10. #60
    Member wuffstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    I took my A7 back to the shop and changed it for the A7r. The images lacked the sharpness I have become used to from the Leica M240. This new camera is supremely sharp.
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #61
    Senior Member Ron Pfister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    661
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Don't know about diabolic, but certainly a bit hyperbolic...

  12. #62
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by wuffstuff View Post
    I took my A7 back to the shop and changed it for the A7r. The images lacked the sharpness I have become used to from the Leica M240. This new camera is supremely sharp.
    Steve, can you elaborate more on your comment about "lacked the sharpness"
    It seems to me that the A7R, forget about the "rumored and proven" shutter vibration issue, still needs to be shot on a tripod for maximum IQ which is not a bad thing let it's not what I am looking for. If I was, then I would probably go with the D800/E.

    I wonder if MaxMax is offering a way to remove the AA filter on the A7.
    I just them an email.

    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  13. #63
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    Hi Steven
    No decision yet. But like Gary I'm leaning towards the A7 as well. When Matt was here with his I was looking at the results from the kit zoom, and they looked rather good. He has both cameras, so I'm interested in his verdict.

    Gary, I have the 3880 as well, but I do like to crop. On the other hand I can't see many situations when the difference between 24mp and 36mp is gonna make or break a photo.

    It's just this thing about accepting "second best".!
    Thanks Jono,
    I am in a holding pattern until you decide which one to get...
    Though, I spoke with Ashwin and he went with the A7 also. hmmmm
    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  14. #64
    Member wuffstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    240
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by kuau View Post
    Steve, can you elaborate more on your comment about "lacked the sharpness"
    Steven
    By comparison to the M240.

    Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.

    I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.

    Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.

  15. #65
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by wuffstuff View Post
    By comparison to the M240.

    Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.

    I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.

    Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.
    Thanks for your input Steve.

    I did rent an A7 and was quite pleased, though I had nothing to compare it to.
    I did own a D800/E a while ago with all manual focus Zeiss glass, it was a pain in the *** to use. Tripod, MLU, Live View for focusing with a loupe. I gave up. I found using my Sinar arTec with my 33mp Leaf Aptus back much more forgiving and in some ways easier to use.

    36mp with an excellent EVF is very tempting, though I think I may wait for Sony to release an A mount version which although will be bigger then the A7R, more inline with the A99 which I have right now seems to make more sense to me.

    I wish Sony would have offered the A7 without AA filter...
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  16. #66
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    With a Novoflex Leica R to Sony E mount adapter on the way, I'll need to make a decision re A7 or A7R soon.

    At this point, I am still leaning towards the A7. I expect to be using this camera primarily with my Leica R lenses. Still planning to get a D800 in the next few months (to replace the one I traded in on the Pentax 645D), so that will handle any situations in which I need/want more than 24 megapixels of resolution in a 35mm sensor body.

    Gary

  17. #67
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Michiel Schierbeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Amsterdam/Normandy
    Posts
    4,055
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    762

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    With a Novoflex Leica R to Sony E mount adapter on the way, I'll need to make a decision re A7 or A7R soon.

    At this point, I am still leaning towards the A7. I expect to be using this camera primarily with my Leica R lenses. Still planning to get a D800 in the next few months (to replace the one I traded in on the Pentax 645D), so that will handle any situations in which I need/want more than 24 megapixels of resolution in a 35mm sensor body.

    Gary
    If you buy a A7r you could probably do without the D800. Saves money and weight. It will be perfect with your R glass.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #68
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by wuffstuff View Post
    By comparison to the M240.

    Side by side, with roughly ( I mean roughly) the same shot with similar speed/aperture, the A7 was not as sharp as the M240. That's all. I felt there was no point having a less sharp image producer when, for a few dollars more, a higher resolution camera is available.

    I was right. The A7r is much sharper. Yes, it's more difficult to use, but if you buy the A7 you will always wonder about the quality of the A7r. Maybe.

    Try both and you will quickly see the difference. The images from theA7r are a joy to behold.
    You will quickly see the difference - at 100% pixel view. If you really need to print or view that large or crop that much, then yes - you will need the extra resolution.

    Just be sure to do your comparisons at the resolution you really need before jumping to the next level of cost and shutter movement. However, if cost is no concern and you don't mind the loss of the electronic first shutter, then you have no worries. Just enjoy.

    In fact, if you just want it for the sake of wanting it, that is reason enough as well.

    Sony was diabolical. In actual resolution terms, if both sensors were without AA filter, there would be few reasons to spring for the extra MP, the difference would not be all that much at the pixel level.

    Best regards,
    DGM
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #69
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Michiel Schierbeek View Post
    If you buy a A7r you could probably do without the D800. Saves money and weight. It will be perfect with your R glass.
    I may be one of the few who here who still prefers the size and weight of a traditional DSLR over the smaller mirrorless cameras. If I could mount my Leica R lenses on a Nikon DSLR, without having to do a Leitax type conversion of the Leica lens mount, I would have been quite happy to stick with Nikon DSLRs and wouldn't even be looking at the A7/A7R.

    But yes, I am hoping that the A7 (or A7R) will indeed be perfect for my R glass. I will probably need to get the vertical battery grip, just to make the camera feel more comfortable in my hands.

    Gary

  20. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    123
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    I may be one of the few who here who still prefers the size and weight of a traditional DSLR over the smaller mirrorless cameras.
    Gary
    I don't think anyone awards additional points for producing images with minimal equipment. My a7r is a fantastic camera to use in many circumstances, but I don't intend to sell my full size OVF full frame, or my cropped frame high FPS body anytime soon.

    Cameras are just tools. Use the one the job calls for.

    Graham
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    65
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    I am happy I got the A7r. Course, I have a 44" printer (Canon IPF 8300) so that makes it an easier call. Having said this, even for smaller prints, if you are shooting handheld and the image is a touch soft due to focus or what have you, you are more likely to have a useable image with 36 than 24 due to the joys of downsampling. I think of it as adding margin for error sometimes. My wife took a pic of me with a Leica 90/2 APO (a simply marvelous lens on the A7r!) and it was a bit out of focus. Still, it was a nice image, and downsampled to web size, it works quite nicely.

    Getting back to the upsampling discussion, I just finished reading Schewe's book on Digital printing and I am pretty sure his recommendation is to upsample prior to sending it to the printer as, if memory serves, the printers usually just use nearest neighbor and the routines in LR and PS are better, in his view. I don't have an opinion having not done a comparison.

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    No CA
    Posts
    795
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Sorry to loop so far back in the conversation, but …

    Tim, if you use a Canon 6300, why not use the Photoshop plug-in that bypasses the printer-driver entirely and lets you use 600 ppi resolution right out of PS?

    Please advise – is there really a better way?

    Kirk

  23. #73
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Hard to believe that we ever managed to make decent prints from 8, 12, 16 or 20 megapixel images. Now it seems that nothing less than 36 will do....not even 24.

    Guess I should just throw most of my cameras away....and all the prints I ever made from them.

    Gary
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #74
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Hard to believe that we ever managed to make decent prints from 8, 12, 16 or 20 megapixel images. Now it seems that nothing less than 36 will do....not even 24.

    Guess I should just throw most of my cameras away....and all the prints I ever made from them.

    Gary
    Yes, toss them all Gary ... it is cathartic.

    Better yet, hop into the "DeLorean Time machine" ... go back and un-buy all of it except one, because none of the others made any difference either ... think of how much money you'd have now

    (Scary thought actually )

    - Marc

  25. #75
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.

    My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.

    I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.

    Gary

  26. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    We did produce great images from fewer megapixels, but the truth is that things have moved on. its not that you cannot produce a great image from 12 or 16 MP, but that you can do more with a 36 MP image. At 40" a 12 MP native mage of a detailed scene will look quite miserable next to a 36 MP capture. In my experience, it will already be looking quite weak at A2, compared to a 20 MP capture, where very fine detail is present (grass etc).

    The last camera I bought is hardly amazing in resolution (16mp GM-1) and as an overall 'resolution package' (including lens, sensor etc) compared to my 5D III and A7R, but I bought it for its tiny size and the fact that it will go everywhere with me. Its important, however not to confuse the fact that we can do 'lots with a few MP' with the empirically factual benefits of having more resolution to play with. I expect to bag loads of portfolio and sellable images with the GM-1, but they wont be getting printed to huge sizes. As always there are pros and cons.... just as the Nikon DF users will be able to do lots in low light I cannot do with the GM-1, or A7R.
    Last edited by turtle; 30th December 2013 at 02:48.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #77
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.

    My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.

    I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.

    Gary
    Well, I suppose I could have stopped 5 years ago with the 24 meg Sony A900 for under $3,000

    Actually, a buddy and I were talking about this subject yesterday ... we both had Contax N Digital cameras 10 years ago!

    It employed a Full Frame 6 meg Phillips sensor previously used in the Jenoptik Medium Format Eyelike back. The "Fat Pixels" were quite delicious. My pal recently revisited some of his N Digital files, and with the newer software was able to produce stunning stuff from it. However, it is easy to forget that anything over ISO 100 was an unacceptable compromise in IQ ... and the thing gulped batteries by the doz.

    The studio shots I used to do with my 555ELD and original Kodak Proback still look good ... any ISO as long as it was 100 Contax 645 and 16 meg Kodak ProBack 645C was fantastic, it could decently do a whopping ISO 200. Same for the 203FE and 16 meg Hasselblad back.

    I think the difference here is not just 24 or 36 megs of FF resolution ... but that the A7/A7R can do it in a package so small, and at ISOs and DR not thought possible 5 or 10 years ago. My A900 still produces images every bit as beautiful as day one, but runs out of gas at ISO 800, where the A7R hasn't even broke a sweat. The previous barriers that accompanied high resolution sensors are being broken down ... and for well under $3,000.

    I suspect the same for the DF appeal ... modern sensor performance in something other than a D4 brick. Not my cup of tea, but I understand the appeal.

    I gotta say, when it came to running out the door and grabbing a camera on the way ... I almost always opted for the Leica M9 over all my other big assed choices ... now it's the A7R.

    Everything in my gear vault is trembling in fear. Maybe not so much from this specific camera, but from what it represents in the near future. The handwriting is on the wall.

    Perhaps at some point I'll have to stand my ground and become Luddite

    But probably not ...

    Hi, I am Marc Williams, and I am a gear slut. It has been 3 days since I bought a new piece of photo gear.


    - Marc

  28. #78
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Yes Marc, we all could have saved a lot of money on camera gear over the past 10+ years if Sony, Nikon, Canon etc had offered 24-36 megapixel cameras for sale 10+ years ago for $3k or less, but they didn't.

    My Nikon D700 produced very good images when it was first released in 2008. Amazingly enough, it still produces good images.

    I guess if only 36 megapixels is good enough anymore, then there are quite a few folks here who just wasted $3k on a new Nikon Df.

    Gary
    If the DF had a Vertical grip I probably would have bought one and in hindsight I'm glad it didn't. I got the A7r from a friend on a whim since he was not fond of it and I seriously wanted one but was going to wait it out. The Sony came and after I saw the EVF and the focus peaking I jumped on it faster than a rabbit being chased by a dog. I sold everything Nikon and bought everything I could with the money. Seriously I got a better second body a extra lens that I did not have and maybe out of pocket was about 500 dollars and I feel already it was a crazy move but a smart one for me. I lose nothing in the deal I still have a D800e sensor and with the A7 I gained a Nikon D610 plus I can manual focus Soooooooooo much better. I'm pretty damn pleased and really close to having a complete kit right now.

    But my prints are the same if not better than my Nikon and I like the color, tonal range and DR better. The Nikon was great but it did not turn me on, this has some thrill to it for me.

    I'll be on the road for 3 weeks with it and I'll have a better final thoughts on it.i wish I just had enough money to grab the 55FE with me but that will have to wait. I really want to see how this 35FE is as I have yet to really shoot it much.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A bit north of Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    569

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    hhmm…Marc and Guy, you doesn’t make my life easier…
    thorkil
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #80
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    I know. It was not a easy decision for me outside the cameras itself . I have to think about rentals, repairs, durability, sales on where I can stuff in a hurry and stuff like that. Now the Sony is not as bad in certain ways. I can get rentals and actually rented a A 70-200 and sales are easy as well. Repair maybe more difficult but I think I'm okay. Native lenses play a role as well but on the other hand you can bolt just about anything to it. I say this buy one try it than see if it works out.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  31. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A bit north of Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    569

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    , yes I'll guess I'll have to try it. I like the colors and tones too(and fear of getting bored by Nikon Again). And if I got overloaded with 36mp files (like by the 800E) I guess I just could turn down resolution when not needed. But I'll perhaps wait for the FE 24-70 (but its slow), and then use a Nikon-Samyang 14 and the Nikkor 20/2.8D until they will come up with a FE 16-35 that they ought to.
    thorkil

  32. #82
    Subscriber Member mwalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    924
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    74

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    I know. It was not a easy decision for me outside the cameras itself . I have to think about rentals, repairs, durability, sales on where I can stuff in a hurry and stuff like that. Now the Sony is not as bad in certain ways. I can get rentals and actually rented a A 70-200 and sales are easy as well. Repair maybe more difficult but I think I'm okay. Native lenses play a role as well but on the other hand you can bolt just about anything to it. I say this buy one try it than see if it works out.
    My pondering….In this world if you are a pro like most / some on this forum, you have to stay on the competitive edge. Buying the newest technology that keeps the cash flow going is a must. The days of buying a single kit for life are over. Amateurs / hobbyist maybe not so much but what makes the Sony nice for them (and pros) aside from the quality of the technology is the flexibility to experiment. Thats what was appealing to me about MF.
    Mike

    website under construction

  33. #83
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorkil View Post
    , yes I'll guess I'll have to try it. I like the colors and tones too(and fear of getting bored by Nikon Again). And if I got overloaded with 36mp files (like by the 800E) I guess I just could turn down resolution when not needed. But I'll perhaps wait for the FE 24-70 (but its slow), and then use a Nikon-Samyang 14 and the Nikkor 20/2.8D until they will come up with a FE 16-35 that they ought to.
    thorkil
    HI There
    I DID try it out . . . but that was when I thought it would be good for M lenses (too many compromises for my purposes, and I'd rather stick with an M240).

    For me the 24-70 FE zoom is crucial, because if I get this camera it'll be a alternative/replacement for my µ43 kit, and I take 90% of that kind of shot with a mid range zoom - If I need telephoto, zoom then I can grab a 70-300 Sony G (nice lens, sensible price) with an adapter - I don't believe telephotos can be that much smaller for the FE mount anyway. In addition I have a number of R lenses, which I know are okay.

    My current feeling is that if that zoom is okay . . . . . . then I'll get another A7r and go with it . . . . if it's not, then I'm really not interested.

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  34. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    A bit north of Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,522
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    569

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Hi Jono, yes I got a M 90 and 50 cron, that would work but MF, and then perhaps a FE35, and the Nikkor 20D and Samyang seems to work with good results. BUT boy, that would be a hell of adapters and lenses spinning around. So you are right, the 24-70 in good quality could be making life easy with AF too....and perhaps I don't need longer zooms (perhaps just have to learn to stay rock steady (could be a mental problem though) and rely on resolution)
    thorkil

  35. #85
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Each of my non native lenses have there own adapter. This makes it very easy for me as all I need are the E rear lens caps. I never use front lens caps but buy cheap metal screw in hoods for all my lenses so the glass is always protected. Less crap to carry and I can work fast like this. Been doing this on every system for years.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #86
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    The 24-70 is certainly on my radar but until than when I bought my A7 for the extra 300 dollars I grabbed the kit lens which is pretty good. I will replace it with the 24-70 when it comes out. That kit lens got me in the system easier to make a complete switch over. As that will hold me over for a month or so.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  37. #87
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    The 24-70 is certainly on my radar but until than when I bought my A7 for the extra 300 dollars I grabbed the kit lens which is pretty good. I will replace it with the 24-70 when it comes out. That kit lens got me in the system easier to make a complete switch over. As that will hold me over for a month or so.
    Hi Guy
    I might go that way (with the kit lens). But in the UK you can only get it with the A7, and not the A7r, and I don't think I want to go that way.
    All the best

    Just this guy you know

  38. #88
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Yea only the A7 here. You should get the A7r as that will be the big file camera over your Leica stuff
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  39. #89
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI There
    I did this just to satisfy my own curiosity, but it might be of interest to anyone trying to decide which camera to get. (Apologies for those who saw the other post, but it was buried in a different thread.)

    Of course - we all want to print as big as possible, but in comparing sensor pixel sizes, we think in terms of area, and when thinking in terms of printing we talk in linear terms.

    I'd been thinking - 24:36 that means that if the
    A7 is good for a 24" print then
    A7r is good for a 36" print - but of course this isn't the case - actually

    A7 is good for a 24" print
    A7r will be good for 29.5" print

    Easier to see it in graphic form.



    Of course, this doesn't take into account the lack of an AA filter in the A7r (or the bigger pixels in the A7). They will have some effect, but it's not so clear what it will be.

    I'm still anguishing whether to jump back in again - especially in the light of the excellent write up by Roger at LensRentals.com

    This hasn't actually made the decision any easier!

    all the best

    Jono,

    Here's another way to look at relative print size that perhaps better compares the linear differences:



    Obviously they're the same sized rectangles in both comparisons, but IMHO the latter shows a more disparate difference between the sensors.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #90
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Mancuso View Post
    Yea only the A7 here. You should get the A7r as that will be the big file camera over your Leica stuff
    Exactly Guy. Except that I'm not ever likely to use it when I would use the Leica. Rather I'd use it as a replacement for the times I was using an SLR or micro 43.

    I've tried using the A7r with M lenses, and for my uses (where I often mind about the corners) the M does better. Added to which I like shooting with a rangefinder! This is why I took the camera back in the first instance.

    Which is why it's important that the zoom is better than the fantastic Zuiko 12-40 which is my current squeeze.

    Just this guy you know
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #91
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Jono,

    Here's another way to look at relative print size that perhaps better compares the linear differences:



    Obviously they're the same sized rectangles in both comparisons, but IMHO the latter shows a more disparate difference between the sensors.
    I quite agree the latter shows more difference Jack. But I think it shows it worse, not better. Which was exactly why I showed the former. this type of quarter diagram is always used to make MP differences look bigger..... And it does

    BUT

    I don't look at 1/4 pictures, I look at whole pictures!

    This was really the whole impetus for the thread, I think a lot of people have been mislead by looking at it this way. Which is certainly the intention of manufacturers who show diagrams like this.

    Just this guy you know

  42. #92
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Nice comparisons, except print size has nothing to do with linear resolution, but angular resolution. So, pixel resolution is not actually a limit to print size. Your image does not change because you make it bigger as viewing distance increases with size. A better way to think about pixel resolution is like grain--the more pixels is like the finer the grain.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  43. #93
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    I quite agree the latter shows more difference Jack. But I think it shows it worse, not better. Which was exactly why I showed the former. this type of quarter diagram is always used to make MP differences look bigger..... And it does

    BUT

    I don't look at 1/4 pictures, I look at whole pictures!

    This was really the whole impetus for the thread, I think a lot of people have been mislead by looking at it this way. Which is certainly the intention of manufacturers who show diagrams like this.
    I respectfully disagree Jono -- I believe the way I showed them is how we see relative print sizes in actuality. When I view a 12x18, it looks significantly smaller to me than a 16x24 overall, yet linearly it is only a 33% change, or 16% on a side. And when you view a large print up close, you have to take it in 'quarters' rather than all at once...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  44. #94
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Nice comparisons, except print size has nothing to do with linear resolution, but angular resolution. So, pixel resolution is not actually a limit to print size. Your image does not change because you make it bigger as viewing distance increases with size. A better way to think about pixel resolution is like grain--the more pixels is like the finer the grain.
    Agreed.

    Another thing to keep in mind; If you want to double the resolution of a sensor, you need four times the pixels.

    To double the resolution of a 24mp sensor, you would need a 96mp sensor. the actual resolution increase of a 36mp sensor is ridiculously small, which is why Sony purposely used an AA filter on the 24.

    I suspect they could also rationalize this by claiming that the higher mp sensor would be less prone to issues. There is some truth to that, but I think that marketing is king in this situation. I don't blame them. Everybody needs to stay in business and be profitable.

    Another thought: If you could find a way to charge an extra $600 for a camera that costs (most likely) exactly the same to build, why wouldn't you? There are some costs associated with having multiple versions of the same camera, and a few bits are made of different material (front plate and top knob), but how many cameras do you think they might sell world wide? It could be lots of money in profits. Smart.

    Best regards,
    DGM

  45. #95
    Subscriber Member tashley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South of England
    Posts
    3,295
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Nice comparisons, except print size has nothing to do with linear resolution, but angular resolution. So, pixel resolution is not actually a limit to print size. Your image does not change because you make it bigger as viewing distance increases with size. A better way to think about pixel resolution is like grain--the more pixels is like the finer the grain.
    Sorry. I don't agree: if people can get near a print they will, regardless of size. With the exception of prints that are large precisely because they will be viewed from distance, like a billboard, people will tend to stand at about the same viewing distances. At countless exhibitions, gallery shows and auctions with prints from 10x8" to a couple of metres wide or larger, I have seen people getting as close as the ropes allow. And there are usually no ropes.

    Sure, with a large print people might also step back back I see no signs of their not stepping close, too.

    SO I think resolution and the print size of fine art print making go hand in hand and that there is a generally linear relationship between resolution and sensible print size. However, fat, well exposed pixels make better prints, ceteris paribus, than weedy, starved ones. So assuming good optics, I would make a larger print from a 20mp crop of an IQ180 than I would from an RX100 frame. I happily print 180dpi from the former but feel more comfortable well north of 200DPI for the latter.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  46. #96
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    California/Thailand
    Posts
    1,206
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    I respectfully disagree Jono -- I believe the way I showed them is how we see relative print sizes in actuality. When I view a 12x18, it looks significantly smaller to me than a 16x24 overall, yet linearly it is only a 33% change, or 16% on a side. And when you view a large print up close, you have to take it in 'quarters' rather than all at once...
    Exactly, Jack. Not that Jono is wrong for how he visualizes. It's his view and his brain processing it, but I was going to use that exact example: comparing a 12x18" print to a 16x24". There is an enormous difference on the wall… to me.

    Cheers.

  47. #97
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    I am firmly in agreement with those who think small linear increases for prints make substantial differences to how large the print 'feels' on the wall. A 20x24 print is, to me, considerably larger than a 16x20, when viewed in a frame. Its the relationship the framed image has with the space around it, as much as the numbers behind the 'print size'.

    At my last exhibition, which mixed print sizes, I grew frustrated that some people insisted on viewing my 40" prints from a couple of feet away and would often be the exact same distance as they had been for the 20x16s. I'd never had such size variation in a space before and I doubt I will do it again unless I can break them down into specific, homogenous and segregated zones.

    Unless you are Moriyama (or have a specific aesthetic that coexists with low res), the traditional concept of normal viewing distances is null and void. The notion that a print from the same file/neg can be made twice as big because people will view it from further away just isn't borne out by my experiences and never has been. Even experienced viewers/collectors etc will walk in and out of a print to get a feel for how it works at various levels. Now, the resolution does not always have to be there for people to love the image, but in some cases its essential.

  48. #98
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,910
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    Sorry. I don't agree: if people can get near a print they will, regardless of size. With the exception of prints that are large precisely because they will be viewed from distance, like a billboard, people will tend to stand at about the same viewing distances. At countless exhibitions, gallery shows and auctions with prints from 10x8" to a couple of metres wide or larger, I have seen people getting as close as the ropes allow. And there are usually no ropes.

    Sure, with a large print people might also step back back I see no signs of their not stepping close, too.

    SO I think resolution and the print size of fine art print making go hand in hand and that there is a generally linear relationship between resolution and sensible print size...
    Exactly. With the M 240, I can print 16x24" (~250ppi) acceptably. With the A7R and Leica S, 20x30" prints (~250ppi) are amazing. Both are viewed from the same viewing distance. There are no velvet ropes in my house.

    Joe

    P.S. Per Jeff Schewe's recommendation, I uprez in LR or PS to 360ppi to print on the Epson 7900.
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #99
    Administrator, Instructor Guy Mancuso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    23,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2555

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Go big or go home. Someone had to say it. At least for commerce you lose control from clients on size and cropping. You just don't know what they are going to do. I had a client make a mural the size of a 18 wheeler from a M8 file. I immediately sold the M8. It sucked and I was truly embarrassed and thought I could have lost a Big client.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  50. #100
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Royal Oak, MI and Palm Harbor, FL
    Posts
    8,498
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    44

    Re: Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

    Effective sensor resolution, has a great deal to do with what you may be doing in post, and how it will be presented.

    I've been using at least 24 meg full frame for 5 years now ... and that is the smallest I use. Why? Because I'm spoiled by the tonal gradations and color separation ... but more importantly, I'm a "chronic cropper" and "obsessive corrector of perspective and distortion" where the more data the better (to a point).

    I do not do many 40"+ prints, but the wedding albums I design often include 20" wide spread images that are cropped from the original file. These are viewed at normal reading distances of 16". One deluxe album I use needs a 24" wide print.

    Clients still order standard size prints ... 5X7, 8X10, 11X14, 16X20 ... these ratios lop off a fair amount of pixel power from 35mm frames ... so more is better.

    - Marc
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •