Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

[Thorkil]

, 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

 

[mwalker]

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.

 

[jonoslack]

, 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.

 

[Thorkil]

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

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

 

[jonoslack]

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

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Yea only the A7 here. You should get the A7r as that will be the big file camera over your Leica stuff

 

[Jack]

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.

 

[jonoslack]

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.

 

[jonoslack]

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.

 

[Shashin]

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.

 

[Jack]

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...

 

[DigitalGreaseMonkey]

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

 

[tashley]

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.

 

[Dale Allyn]

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.

 

[turtle]

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.

 

[Deleted member 7792]

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. :ROTFL:

Joe

P.S. Per Jeff Schewe's recommendation, I uprez in LR or PS to 360ppi to print on the Epson 7900.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

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.

 

[fotografz]

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