Print Size Comparison - A7/A7r (andNikon DF)

[jonoslack]

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

 

[Ron Pfister]

Quite a difference between 16 and 36MP. Not that that's a surprise, but it's nice to see it this way. Many thanks, Jono!

 

[vjbelle]

You can never have too many pixels.:salute: Image quality is always maintained when downsampling and always degraded when upsampling.

Victor

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Jono I think I am in and maybe all the way. Testing this week

 

[jonoslack]

You can never have too many pixels.:salute: Image quality is always maintained when downsampling and always degraded when upsampling.

Victor

HI Victor
Of course you're right - other things being equal - but I was surprised at how small the relative print size was between the A7 and A7r - and of course, other things aren't equal as A7 has:

phase detect sensor
electronic first curtain
an AA filter (boo)
. . and it's a fair amount cheaper.

 

[Knorp]

just logic over sentiment ...

 

[Vivek]

just logic over sentiment ...

Logic dictates returning a camera after one day and sentiment wants it back or is the other way around?

 

[Knorp]

Logic dictates returning a camera after one day and sentiment wants it back or is the other way around?

Don't ask me ! Ask Mr. Spock !

:ROTFL:

 

[Vivek]

That was a serious question, Bart! :ROTFL:

 

[Thorkil]

HI Victor
Of course you're right - other things being equal - but I was surprised at how small the relative print size was between the A7 and A7r - and of course, other things aren't equal as A7 has:

phase detect sensor
electronic first curtain
an AA filter (boo)
. . and it's a fair amount cheaper.

+ more foregivnes (= more freedom (perhaps))

thorkil

 

[wuffstuff]

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?

 

[jonoslack]

Logic dictates returning a camera after one day and sentiment wants it back or is the other way around?

HI Vivek
That way round:
the logical decision was to take it back (I didn't have many lenses I wanted to shoot on it or any RAW processing software I wanted to use with it).
the sentimental decision would be to buy it again :loco:

I actually had it from Friday to Monday and took something like 1000 shots with different lenses.

. . . . . and I always said I'd review the situation in the light of the FE lenses (which are looking okay) - it also helps a bit that I now have something I like to process the RAW files in (Aperture does a good job) - I have never cancelled the order for the 24-70 f4.

 

[vjbelle]

HI Victor
Of course you're right - other things being equal - but I was surprised at how small the relative print size was between the A7 and A7r - and of course, other things aren't equal as A7 has:

phase detect sensor
electronic first curtain
an AA filter (boo)
. . and it's a fair amount cheaper.

At native (360ppi) the A7 is 16.66 long side and the A7r is 20.44 long side. That may not seem like much difference but it is when upsampling. My experience has shown that more pixels always makes for smoother upsampling and every image I choose to print needs to be upsampled (including 80mp). I'm not talking about upsampling to the same size but rather to the same percentage amount. Of course content is important but my rule of thumb is 1.5X native size. Again, content matters and some images can withstand close scrutiny at 2.0X native size.

Victor

 

[jonoslack]

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?

Oh, but personally I love using a rangefinder, and I love the quiet shutter on the M and the fact that I can use all the lenses without having to think. . . . and I hope the exposure compensation will be sorted.

. . . . but if I do go back into the water again I'm pretty sure I'll go for the A7 as well - this print size comparison really seals the deal

 

[jonoslack]

At native (360ppi) the A7 is 16.66 long side and the A7r is 20.44 long side. That may not seem like much difference but it is when upsampling. My experience has shown that more pixels always makes for smoother upsampling and every image I choose to print needs to be upsampled (including 80mp). I'm not talking about upsampling to the same size but rather to the same percentage amount. Of course content is important but my rule of thumb is 1.5X native size. Again, content matters and some images can withstand close scrutiny at 2.0X native size.

Victor

HI Victor
I understand it's a consideration - especially if you're going to use the camera to it's theoretical limit, with tripod etc. (not something I do very often).

 

[JoelM]

The lack of the AA filter was the reason for me to get the A7r over the A7. I think if the A7 did away with the AA filter as well, there would be more buyers for that camera.

There just is no perfect camera, but man, Sony hit a home run and got damn close.

Joel

 

[Vivek]

The lack of the AA filter was the reason for me to get the A7r over the A7. I think if the A7 did away with the AA filter as well, there would be more buyers for that camera.

There just is no perfect camera, but man, Sony hit a home run and got damn close.

Joel

Next year there will be another cam, a 32MP incorporating all the good stuff. Rumored to be a "pro" grade version.

BTW, the Sony chief in the US is fired.

 

[Vivek]

HI Vivek
That way round:
the logical decision was to take it back (I didn't have many lenses I wanted to shoot on it or any RAW processing software I wanted to use with it).
the sentimental decision would be to buy it again :loco:

I actually had it from Friday to Monday and took something like 1000 shots with different lenses.

. . . . . and I always said I'd review the situation in the light of the FE lenses (which are looking okay) - it also helps a bit that I now have something I like to process the RAW files in (Aperture does a good job) - I have never cancelled the order for the 24-70 f4.

Hi Jono,

1000 shots?:shocked:

I just got over that number after all this time! Perhaps the shutter lag is real after all! :ROTFL:

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

1000 shots?:shocked:

I just got over that number after all this time! Perhaps the shutter lag is real after all! :ROTFL:

I was trying it out Vivek - to see if I wanted to keep it (actually it was around 900). That meant trying it with lots of different lenses. The shutter lag is very real. (I didn't have much trouble with vibration though - but I agree with most that you need 2x FL for sharp shots)

 

[tashley]

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, jump. C1 shows that the files don't have to look 'reticulated' (not suggesting that you use it, just so's you know that it's down to decoding not hard-coding) and the 35 and 55 are both very good (if you can get a good copy).

The water's lovely, come on in!