Site Sponsors
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 171

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

  1. #101
    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 fotografz View Post
    I'm spoiled by the tonal gradations and color separation ...
    +1 -- IMHO this is the most significant difference that more pixels gives you. You can uprez to gain size, but you cannot create believable color or tonal separation where there was n0one originally.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #102
    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)

    Jono,

    Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:

    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

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

  3. #103
    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 Jack View Post
    Jono,

    Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:

    I want the white one
    Likes 11 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #104
    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,

    Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:
    HI Jack
    No arguments with that comparison - and thank you for refocusing the post - it was designed to start exactly this sort of discussion, and had wandered rather vaguely!

    I consciously didn't try and make any value judgements - simply that if you want to look at comparisons . . . and you're talking of print sizes in linear terms, you should understand what that means . . .

    Just this guy you know

  5. #105
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,342
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Jono,

    Just for the sake of this discussion, here's perhaps an even better way to compare them. However to my eyes, this makes the actual difference even more apparent than the corners overlap above:

    Agree that this is the way to show it. It's interesting to notice that only 16 to 36 MP show significant difference, 16 to 24 and 24 to 36 not so much. Still, I have a 16MP (GH2) photo of a factory interior that has been used as a back wall for exhibition booths at trade fairs sized 3 x 2 meters several times the last year, and people do go "ooooh" and "aaah" over it. Resolution is only one part of the equation, and although more is usually better, only having access to 16 Mp doesn't keep me awake at night. If anything does, my own inability to take photos that make a difference is it.

    How many painters became famous because of the size of their paintings?
    Things I sell: https://www.shutterstock.com/g/epixx?language=en
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  6. #106
    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)

    Jorgen, well said. As I said in my front page article a few weeks back, some of my best images were made with 8MP cams. End of day, content always wins out. But that doesn't alter the fact that more MP usually offers gains in not only size, but tonality. Combine that latter with content, and you've hit the grand slam.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  7. #107
    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)

    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. 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.
    Sorry, I don't agree. I have printed for and seen too many folks at exhibitions to know that the basic photo science around this just works.

    Naturally, you need some reference. To view the focus plane as sharp with a 24MP sensor, that would be 1/4 viewing distance. For a 4 foot print, you are about at 12". Most people have a hard time looking that close. The other problem with you hypothesis is the you are assuming a viewer will think that getting closer will not affect perceived quality--people don't think that way.

  8. #108
    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 jonoslack View Post
    HI Jack
    No arguments with that comparison - and thank you for refocusing the post - it was designed to start exactly this sort of discussion, and had wandered rather vaguely!

    I consciously didn't try and make any value judgements - simply that if you want to look at comparisons . . . and you're talking of print sizes in linear terms, you should understand what that means . . .
    It was me I went sideways in a good way. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

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

  9. #109
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by turtle View Post
    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.
    Viewing distance does affect not the the resolution of the original image, just like the size of the image does not change the image. Which is why this is not a linear resolution problem.

    Looking at a 40" print from a couple of feet is fine, if you understand the concepts of viewing distance. I doubt anyone came up to you and said the big prints were of less quality than the small ones. Nothing you have said actually contradicts the concept of viewing distance. Just sayin'.

  10. #110
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

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

    what i find, shooting urban landscapes, is that you can go deep into the details with 60mpx, for example. then when printed, say 24 x 30, i want to get right up close and examine that incredible detail. panoramas even more.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #111
    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 Shashin View Post
    Sorry, I don't agree. I have printed for and seen too many folks at exhibitions to know that the basic photo science around this just works.

    Naturally, you need some reference. To view the focus plane as sharp with a 24MP sensor, that would be 1/4 viewing distance. For a 4 foot print, you are about at 12". Most people have a hard time looking that close. The other problem with you hypothesis is the you are assuming a viewer will think that getting closer will not affect perceived quality--people don't think that way.
    I used to think this way. But about 12 years ago I went to a Burtynsky exhibit at MOMA. He prints BIG. And back then he shot LF film. Anyway, I digress -- point is his images have so much fine detail they scream at you to get in close and grab a magnifying glass. I never viewed (sic) the print-size/viewing-distance formulae the same after that exhibit, and in fact it's when I started printing larger myself.

    I currently have a pano print in my office, an 8-frame P65+ stitch from Glacier National park, printed out to 24"x96". I have a lighted print loupe under it and folks use it without suggestion on that print. I fall on the side of this debate that nowadays print detail matters -- if a person can get close and dive in, many will.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #112
    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 have my nose in prints if I can get close. But also photographers tend to do that and guess what we are all shooters. I know my wife would not do what I do. So coming from us folks its sort of a given we will peak up front and personal.
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com

  13. #113
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    I used to think this way. But about 12 years ago I went to a Burtynsky exhibit at MOMA. He prints BIG. And back then he shot LF film. Anyway, I digress -- point is his images have so much fine detail they scream at you to get in close and grab a magnifying glass. I never viewed (sic) the print-size/viewing-distance formulae the same after that exhibit, and in fact it's when I started printing larger myself.

    I currently have a pano print in my office, an 8-frame P65+ stitch from Glacier National park, printed out to 24"x96". I have a lighted print loupe under it and folks use it without suggestion on that print. I fall on the side of this debate that nowadays print detail matters -- if a person can get close and dive in, many will.
    Jack, you are mixing what you personally enjoy in a print and the underlying concept of viewing distance. You like a print with lots of detail and have the fun of looking into that. And because of the concepts behind viewing distance, you can achieve that. And if you really understand the concepts of viewing distance, you can really manipulate the viewers experience. Not all photographers are interested in that. To say what I like in a photography is X and then X is the only way photographs can be made is just going too far.

    BTW, I never said the detail is not important or irrelevant. This conversation always gets into a polarized points of view. Neither of which I am subscribing to--detail is everything or detail is irrelevant. My point is that image size does not change an image and print size is not limited to pixel resolution. That is it. I am not saying you should not have any particular number of pixels in an image. If you want to limit your print sizes, that is a personal choice. It is not a limit in photography.

  14. #114
    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)

    I just wanted to make two observations.
    First off, I did decide to go with the A7, and love it. I did a print today at 20X30 on my HP printer, looks great.

    Now the reality, I keep reading these statistics 99% of all photos are taken with an iPhone and out of those 99% of images taken only 1% ever get printed. I guess we are those dreaded 1 percenters I keep hearing about on the news.

    Its kind of sad to me, to be apart of this great online community and all of us get to share our best images only online and at the end of the day, we can all probably get by with 16mp and that's assuming we all eventually go to a 4K monitor.
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #115
    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 Shashin View Post
    My point is that image size does not change an image and print size is not limited to pixel resolution. That is it. I am not saying you should not have any particular number of pixels in an image. If you want to limit your print sizes, that is a personal choice. It is not a limit in photography.
    Shashin, I agree with you on this.

    But I also agree with Tim on this:

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    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.
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #116
    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
    I just wanted to make two observations.
    First off, I did decide to go with the A7, and love it. I did a print today at 20X30 on my HP printer, looks great.

    Now the reality, I keep reading these statistics 99% of all photos are taken with an iPhone and out of those 99% of images taken only 1% ever get printed. I guess we are those dreaded 1 percenters I keep hearing about on the news.

    Its kind of sad to me, to be apart of this great online community and all of us get to share our best images only online and at the end of the day, we can all probably get by with 16mp and that's assuming we all eventually go to a 4K monitor.
    I would be happy to coordinate a GetDPI print exchange, if anyone is truly interested.
    13x19 prints would be good.

    Unfortunately, if the past is any guide to the future, this offer will get few if any takers.

    Gary
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #117
    Subscriber Member Georg Baumann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    787
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    82

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

    In my world, being accustomed to the printsize of my 11880, content wins.

    In the real world, I came to think, there are more homes that do not have the space for a 64 inch wide print than homes that can display it.

    Whatever the size of your home, if you call one your own that is, wishing all of you folks a very happy and healthy new year.

    Pax tecum
    G

    Selected from 11,000 images shot in 158 countries and submitted by nearly 1,500 photographers, The Other Hundred celebrates those who will never find themselves on the world’s rich lists or celebrity websites.
    The Other Hundred | Home
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  18. #118
    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 Jorgen Udvang View Post
    Agree that this is the way to show it. It's interesting to notice that only 16 to 36 MP show significant difference, 16 to 24 and 24 to 36 not so much. Still, I have a 16MP (GH2) photo of a factory interior that has been used as a back wall for exhibition booths at trade fairs sized 3 x 2 meters several times the last year, and people do go "ooooh" and "aaah" over it. Resolution is only one part of the equation, and although more is usually better, only having access to 16 Mp doesn't keep me awake at night. If anything does, my own inability to take photos that make a difference is it.

    How many painters became famous because of the size of their paintings?
    Rubens.

    His models were big also

    -Marc
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #119
    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)

    If no one noticed ... the print comparison charts are empty.

    It is up to us to fill them with something worth looking at.

    Resolution means something different to different people depending on what the end use may be. As Guy mentioned, commercial clients can surprise you with some extended use beyond the original understanding of an assignment.

    The typical initial assignment starts with downplaying everything to minimize pricing during negotiations. You produce a killer shot. Suddenly, they say "Hey, let's put that in the lobby". It ends up 8' wide right where people get off the elevator 7' away. It is a dramatic industrial shot so every engineer walks right up to it and inspects it with a magnifying glass. That has happened to me more than once.

    I did a shoot for my Horse Riding weather gear client. They never once mentioned that the shots would be printed wall sized inside a trade booth where you can't step back 10' to view it. But I never assumed anything less. Been there done that.

    Did a high end Hindu/Sikh wedding where the groom was a techo-nerd and wanted ceremony files display printed large, AND to be to project on a movie theater sized screen at their reception the next evening. I shot almost everything MFD ... and guests came up to me and said it looked like a NatGeo event

    Granted, 18 to 24 meg is usually enough for most applications ... probably more than enough. Unless it isn't.

    - Marc
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  20. #120
    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
    Sorry, I don't agree. I have printed for and seen too many folks at exhibitions to know that the basic photo science around this just works.

    Naturally, you need some reference. To view the focus plane as sharp with a 24MP sensor, that would be 1/4 viewing distance. For a 4 foot print, you are about at 12". Most people have a hard time looking that close. The other problem with you hypothesis is the you are assuming a viewer will think that getting closer will not affect perceived quality--people don't think that way.
    It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation of how people actually behave. A hypothesis would be a theory as to why they behave in this way. And it assumes nothing about what a viewer will think.

    I spend a lot of time at my own and other people's shows and where the physical layout of the space allows, which it usually does, this is how I observe them behaving. I shoot and print accordingly.
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #121
    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 Shashin View Post
    Jack, you are mixing what you personally enjoy in a print and the underlying concept of viewing distance. You like a print with lots of detail and have the fun of looking into that. And because of the concepts behind viewing distance, you can achieve that. And if you really understand the concepts of viewing distance, you can really manipulate the viewers experience. Not all photographers are interested in that. To say what I like in a photography is X and then X is the only way photographs can be made is just going too far.

    BTW, I never said the detail is not important or irrelevant. This conversation always gets into a polarized points of view. Neither of which I am subscribing to--detail is everything or detail is irrelevant. My point is that image size does not change an image and print size is not limited to pixel resolution. That is it. I am not saying you should not have any particular number of pixels in an image. If you want to limit your print sizes, that is a personal choice. It is not a limit in photography.
    Personally, I can't disagree with what you are saying here because it is a wide open subject.

    I think the viewing distance can come into play, but need not be the over-arching determiner of print size ... however, that can heavily depend on the artist's intent.

    For example, Stieglitz printed his "Equivalents" gallery work quite small to force the viewer into a more intimate relationship with his art. Conversly, the show of Annie Leibovitz's work I saw at the International Center of Photography in NY featured huge prints from her RZ film shots, and people went right up to the ropes to view them, and so did I .... the effect was a "larger than life" psychological effect.

    Reality based photography seems to beg for as much detail as can be had ... not that a realistic landscape image needs to be viewed from 6 inches away, but that even at a distance we precieve such detail as part of the impression of "tonal reality." The details turn into tonal gradations at a distance, and our eye-brain knows it. After all, God ain't working in digital, His stuff is continuous tone all the way.

    As primarily a people shooter, I find a very similar thing happening with skin tones. While more resolution tends to be seen as too perfect for human skin ... that isn't necessarily true ... lighting is what makes that true. What more resolution gives you is smoother continuous tone transitions to mimic living skin that is lit well.

    - Marc
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  22. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I don't think that's quite true, because calculations for 'normal viewing distance' give a single distance for a given print size. The point I am making is that people do and will (always) walk in much closer than that for some of the viewing experience.... therefore the NVD 'rules' and 'calculations' that 'show' more resolution is not needed are only part of the story.

    Nobody did complain about the resolution of my large prints, but that's because I only make very large prints from images that can stand up to a closer look and still look reasonable. If I had enlarged many of my sharpest 35mm files to 40" I am sure some people would have commented about them not looking that sharp up close.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Viewing distance does affect not the the resolution of the original image, just like the size of the image does not change the image. Which is why this is not a linear resolution problem.

    Looking at a 40" print from a couple of feet is fine, if you understand the concepts of viewing distance. I doubt anyone came up to you and said the big prints were of less quality than the small ones. Nothing you have said actually contradicts the concept of viewing distance. Just sayin'.

  23. #123
    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)

    In my opinion, there are two fundamentally distinct aspects to consider when printing:

    - The psychological effect of image size (e.g. large images are awe-inspiring)
    - Whether one want's to achieve a hyper-realistic effect

    The latter requires extremely detailed images to be printed reasonably large. The larger the print, the more the image takes on a dual nature: you view it from a distance to enjoy the composition as a whole, and you enjoy particular areas of detail you can only see when viewing up-close (often from so close that you can't perceive the full composition at the same time). I personally am very fond of this aspect of hyper-realism, but it is an artistic choice and it certainly doesn't lend itself to every subject.

    On the other hand I fully agree with the sentiment that images don't need to be very detailed to be effective. Viewing a wall-sized Monet up-close gives you perhaps an insight into the artist's technique, but I think his intent was for these images to be viewed from a distance.

    What I love about the A7R is that it enables me to to create stitched panos that can be printed very large, yet the equipment I carry into the field is small and light-weight. Fun times, indeed!
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  24. #124
    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 turtle View Post
    I don't think that's quite true, because calculations for 'normal viewing distance' give a single distance for a given print size. The point I am making is that people do and will (always) walk in much closer than that for some of the viewing experience.... therefore the NVD 'rules' and 'calculations' that 'show' more resolution is not needed are only part of the story.
    I print pretty large (40 inches) from 80mp files and I can't begin to tell you how many people will put their noses into those prints..... 9 out of 10 for sure. Just saying........

    Victor

  25. #125
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    [QUOTE=tashley;558854]It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation of how people actually behave. A hypothesis would be a theory as to why they behave in this way. And it assumes nothing about what a viewer will think.

    QUOTE]

    Tim, I think I am beginning to understand why I enjoy your posts.

    I used to teach experimental design.

  26. #126
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    While I do agree with most what is said here, I must put some oil into the fire - I have seen stunning 40 - 50 inch prints which also look pretty damn good from close watching distance coming from 12MP.

    Sure, more MP are giving more flexibility and if used the right way also more IQ, but in many cases this is not the only healing med for large prints. It is far more important to have no AA filter and a great IS/IBIS or a solid tripod mount. Combined with that already 16MP can rock and result in stellar prints and images.

    If the A7 had no AA filter it would be the natural choice for me

  27. #127
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    523
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I think it depends on the type of image. Scenes with lots of very fine detail look awful from 12 MP at 50" IMHO. They can look clearly weak at half that linear size. If its a more graphic subject (and this can include urban images), its amazing what you can do with low resolution originals.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #128
    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 ptomsu View Post

    If the A7 had no AA filter it would be the natural choice for me
    Peter, though the A7 does have an AA filter it is very weak.
    I did some test shots the other day of a barn house which had some metal grid patterns and I see a moire pattern. So that tells me weak AA filter.
    I highly doubt this would be the limiting factor of the A7
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  29. #129
    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=cunim;558892]
    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation of how people actually behave. A hypothesis would be a theory as to why they behave in this way. And it assumes nothing about what a viewer will think.

    QUOTE]

    Tim, I think I am beginning to understand why I enjoy your posts.

    I used to teach experimental design.
    I'll take that as the last (and possibly first!) complement of the year
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  30. #130
    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)

    Quote Originally Posted by tashley View Post
    It's not a hypothesis, it's an observation of how people actually behave. A hypothesis would be a theory as to why they behave in this way. And it assumes nothing about what a viewer will think.

    I spend a lot of time at my own and other people's shows and where the physical layout of the space allows, which it usually does, this is how I observe them behaving. I shoot and print accordingly.
    So do I. I guess we are just not going to agree.

  31. #131
    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)

    Pheew. I'm glad we finally got that sorted out
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  32. #132
    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 Shashin View Post
    So do I. I guess we are just not going to agree.
    Maybe people are different in Maine and in Sussex?

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

  33. #133
    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)

    It is probably the snow and long winters...
    Will

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

  34. #134
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by kuau View Post
    Peter, though the A7 does have an AA filter it is very weak.
    I did some test shots the other day of a barn house which had some metal grid patterns and I see a moire pattern. So that tells me weak AA filter.
    I highly doubt this would be the limiting factor of the A7
    Yep, 24mp on FF just isn't enough pixel density to avoid artifacts and aliasing when removing the AA filter. In fact, 36mp is only marginally there, so I might prefer even the A7R to have some kind of high end AA filter.

    In order to pare down sensor toppings for dealing with oblique light rays, Leica and MFDB have been forced to eliminate AA filters for a while, but people tend to forget that AA filters are generally a good thing on cameras that don't have these issues with sensor edges (they're expensive, too.) I wouldn't trade my RX1 for an RX1R straight up, unless removing the RX1's AA filter allowed for more consistent resolution across the frame, which it doesn't.

    Sure, you're going to see more "detail" from an AA-less image, but much of that is false detail from artifacts, and, when sharpened appropriately for each, there isn't a resolution advantage to an AA-less camera. Now, as pixels get smaller and smaller, like with the D7100, it does make sense to remove the AA filter, but even the A7R and D800 aren't quite to that point, yet. Around 56mp FF is apparently the threshold, which will be here soon, I'd imagine.

    To get back on topic, I'd go A7 over A7R, even though I wouldn't mind the extra resolution of the A7R, simply because the electronic first curtain shutter drastically improves shutter feel, IMO. Shutter vibration issues aside, the feel and response of an electronic first curtain shutter would make it hard for me to go back to the more laggy, double "clack" variety of the A7R's shutter. EFCS was a major improvement in feel for me when going from my NEX-5 to the NEX-5N and NEX-7. The RX1's shutter has even less lag than the NEX-7, so I wouldn't want to go back to chitty chitty bang bang.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  35. #135
    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)

    Douglas.
    Thanks for your excellent explanation on this topic, and for me I am happy I went with the A7

    Steven
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #136
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,868
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Steven, Douglas,

    you make my decision not easier

  37. #137
    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 ptomsu View Post
    Steven, Douglas,
    you make my decision not easier
    And they confirmed my leanings and decision to go with the A7.

    Thanks guys!

    Gary
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  38. #138
    Senior Member doug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    708
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ptomsu View Post
    If the A7 had no AA filter it would be the natural choice for me
    The A7's EFC is very appealing, the AA filter not so much… but the AA filter can be removed and the EFC can't be added to the A7r.

  39. #139
    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 doug View Post
    The A7's EFC is very appealing, the AA filter not so much… but the AA filter can be removed
    If the AA filter on the A7 is as weak is some have reported it to be, maybe it's not even worth the trouble.

    Not all AA filters are created equally.

    Gary

  40. #140
    Senior Member douglasf13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    Posts
    1,965
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    If the AA filter on the A7 is as weak is some have reported it to be, maybe it's not even worth the trouble.

    Not all AA filters are created equally.

    Gary
    The only reason I can think of to remove the A7's AA filter is if it somehow reduces astigmatism, but I'm sure the clear cover glass that is put in its place would still cause similar issues, so I doubt it would be worthwhile.
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  41. #141
    Senior Member Taylor Sherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    390
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I'd be interested in removing it and *not* adding the cover glass, as long as adapted manual lenses can still focus to infinity.

  42. #142
    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 douglasf13 View Post
    The only reason I can think of to remove the A7's AA filter is if it somehow reduces astigmatism, but I'm sure the clear cover glass that is put in its place would still cause similar issues, so I doubt it would be worthwhile.
    I don't see a need to remove it and so I won't.

    Gary

  43. #143
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,672
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Just a few personal comments to this interesting thread even though I don't own/use either the A7 or A7r cameras......yet!

    With regards to Epson LF printers, I too would never let the printer up-rez to 360PPI. From the earliest days of the Image Print RIP, I've been extremely impressed with it's algorithms in order to up-rez a file. I have intensely compared it to virtually every alternative up-rezing method and have used most all available scaling programs past and present that I'm aware of. Both LR and PS have gotten so much better over the years and they have recently narrowed the differences significantly when compared to the RIP and other programs designed to scale up a file.

    Up until about 2 years ago I kept returning to investigate Fractals in particular, hearing good things about it, but like Tim, I too was disappointed what it did to files. I also occasionally send 180ppi files to the Espon when working with smaller files from lower resolution cameras as I feel they would be better off natively sending them as 180ppi as opposed to uprezing to 360ppi by any method. Files from higher resolution cameras, even thouse from 40MP or bigger sensors, are almost always sent at 360ppi to the printer.

    In the very early days when digital cameras were but 2.1 MP or smaller, I'd work with a variety of techniques on each file in order to print as large as possible without creating digital looking images. Printing very large these days from files that have to be uprezed, still benefits from how the file is handled and processed prior to uprezing

    Of course starting with quality fatter pixels like those for the Nikon Df, often times makes it much easier to scale up and print larger than from the native file itself as compared to a higher resolution/smaller pixel camera that too is uprezed the same proportionally. Pixel quality is just as important element as camera resolution, in my opinion.

    I feel like many, with all else being equal in terms of identical subject matter, that an increase from say 16MP to 24MP files, has a greater impact on subsequent print size chosen and the quality of details seen, than the math suggests. People tend to view prints at a similar distance whether it be a 16 x 24" or 24" x 35" for example. There are of course many variables to consider, so its hard to make quick and fast generalizations.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 31st December 2013 at 23:28.

  44. #144
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    261
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Just a few personal comments to this interesting thread even though I don't own/use either the A7 or A7r cameras......yet!

    With regards to Epson LF printers, I too would never let the printer up rez to 360PPI. From the earliest days of the Image Print RIP I've been extremely impressed with it's algorithms to up rez, having intensely compared it to virtually every alternative method and have used virtually all available scaling programs. Both LR and PS have gotten so much better over the years and they have recently narrowed the differences significantly when compared to the RIP.

    Up until about 2 years ago I kept returning to investigate Fractals but like Tim, I too was disappointed what it did to files. I also occasionally send 180ppi files to the Espon when working with smaller files from lower resolution cameras as I feel they would be better off natively sending them as 180ppi as opposed to uprezing to 360ppi by any method. Files from higher resolution cameras, even thouse from 40MP or bigger sensors, are almost always sent at 360ppi to the printer.

    In the very early days when digital cameras were but 2.1 MP or smaller, I'd work with a variety of techniques on each file in order to print as large as possible without creating digital looking images. Printing very large these days from files that have to be uprezed, still benefits from how the file is handled and processed prior to uprezing

    Of course starting with quality fatter pixels like those for the Nikon Df, often times makes it much easier to scale up and print larger than from the native file itself as compared to a higher resolution/smaller pixel camera that too is uprezed the same proportionally. Pixel quality is just as important element as camera resolution, in my opinion.

    I feel like many, with all else being equal in terms of identical subject matter, that an increase from say 16MP to 24MP files, has a greater impact on subsequent print size chosen and the quality of details seen, than the math suggests. People tend to view prints at a similar distance whether it be a 16 x 24" or 24" x 35" for example. There are of course many variables to consider, so its hard to make quick and fast generalizations.

    Dave (D&A)
    I couldn't agree more. The comparison posted above assumes that the pixels from these different cameras are of equal quality, which is not the case. A 16mp file from a large sensor camera with no AA will be able to achieve a higher resolution print than a 16mp file from a point and shoot. In the case of the A7 / A7R, one has an AA, one does not. This will have some bearing on print resolution/quality over and above the difference in resolution between the two.

  45. #145
    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)

    HI There Dave
    Interesting remarks most of which I agree with.

    However - this remark is exactly why I started this thread in the first place:

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    I feel like many, with all else being equal in terms of identical subject matter, that an increase from say 16MP to 24MP files, has a greater impact on subsequent print size chosen and the quality of details seen, than the math suggests. People tend to view prints at a similar distance whether it be a 16 x 24" or 24" x 35" for example. There are of course many variables to consider, so its hard to make quick and fast generalizations.
    You are converting what is in effect a measure of area (16mp / 24 mp) to a linear measurement (16" / 24") It's almost universally done, and it isn't right.

    if you're talking about a 16" x 24" print with 16mp, then the equivalent pixel density for 24mp will create a 19.6" x 29.5" print NOT 24" x 35"

    This is because the length relates directly to the number of pixels on the long side: i.e. 16*6000/4900 where 6000 is the number of pixels on the long side in a 24mp sensor and 4900 the number in a 16mp sensor.

    Of course, this is thoroughly relevant when considering which camera to get - and as you point out, (other things being equal - thanks Marc) you'll get a better class of pixel with less of them assuming the same size sensor.



    All the best
    Last edited by jonoslack; 1st January 2014 at 06:25.

    Just this guy you know

  46. #146
    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 lambert View Post
    In the case of the A7 / A7R, one has an AA, one does not. This will have some bearing on print resolution/quality over and above the difference in resolution between the two.
    Indeed, but theoretically the large pixels of the A7 should also have a bearing? Whether one cancels out the other is a moot point

    Just this guy you know

  47. #147
    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)

    Just FYI this is not easy to read hungover. Happy New Year everyone. I'm going back to sleep. LOL
    Photography is all about experimentation and without it you will never learn art.

    www.guymancusophotography.com
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #148
    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 jonoslack View Post



    Of course, this is thoroughly relevant when considering which camera to get - and as you point out, you'll get a better class of pixel with less of them assuming the same size sensor.



    All the best

    Jono, doesn't this assume that the pixel technology of the A7 is the same as that of the A7R? I have read that the 36meg sensor employs a new "gapless" pixel array, but have not seen that referenced regarding the A7. I cannot seem to locate the actual pixel size specifications for each version of the A7 cameras.

    I've also read comments referencing the 36 meg sensor as being the same as the D800 ... but I do not think that is true. Distance to sensor presented new challenges that required different engineering to accommodate the native FE FF lenses I think.

    Sony is on the forefront of sensor design and has breeched pixel size barriers using new ideas and designs ... like this sensor referenced below.

    New Sony sensor achieves industry smallest pixel size

    I don't think we have enough information to reach any conclusions yet. However, practical experience of users that will using both cameras (like Guy) may help shed more light as time goes on.

    - Marc
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #149
    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 jonoslack View Post
    HI There Dave
    Interesting remarks most of which I agree with.

    However - this remark is exactly why I started this thread in the first place:



    You are converting what is in effect a measure of area (16mp / 24 mp) to a linear measurement (16" / 24") It's almost universally done, and it isn't right.

    if you're talking about a 16" x 24" print with 16mp, then the equivalent pixel density for 24mp will create a 19.6" x 29.5" print NOT 24" x 35"

    This is because the length relates directly to the number of pixels on the long side: i.e. 16*6000/4900 where 6000 is the number of pixels on the long side in a 24mp sensor and 4900 the number in a 16mp sensor.

    Of course, this is thoroughly relevant when considering which camera to get - and as you point out, you'll get a better class of pixel with less of them assuming the same size sensor.



    All the best
    Exactly Jono. You [once again] have hit the nail on the head.

    Furthermore, when printing (using LR and/or PS) I frequently refer to an article written by Jeff Shewe in 2011 where he says:
    The bottom line is, if the image you're printing to a high-end inkjet printer has a native resolution at the print size of less than the printer resolution, upsample to the printer's dpi. In the case of Epson, that's 360 dpi, and it's 300 dpi with Canon and other printers with similar print heads. If the native resolution is above the resolution, upsample the image to the higher reported resolution of the printers (720 ppi for Epson and 600 ppi for Canon).

    Jeff is the acknowledged expert in printing with Epson printers using either LR or PS, having worked with the developers in both Adobe and Epson to "get it right". His book "The Digital Print" is worth reading and using as a guide if one prints his/her own images.

    And yes, pixel "quality" matters. Superior tonal gradations from so-called "fat pixels" usually make for better prints at any resolution. As Marc pointed out though, I haven't seen any evidence yet that suggests the pixels from the A7 lead to better prints than those from the A7R.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  50. #150
    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)

    Hi Marc
    Happy New Year
    You're quite right, - I should have said 'other things being equal' and now I have done so.

    Of course, there are lots of other variables which might also effect print size - but the basic principle stands - no good muddling up areas with linear measurements!

    Quote Originally Posted by fotografz View Post
    Jono, doesn't this assume that the pixel technology of the A7 is the same as that of the A7R? I have read that the 36meg sensor employs a new "gapless" pixel array, but have not seen that referenced regarding the A7. I cannot seem to locate the actual pixel size specifications for each version of the A7 cameras.

    Just this guy you know

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
  •