Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 56 of 56

Thread: Take the highest MP count you can get....or

  1. #51
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Take the highest MP count you can get....or

    In camera processing at work?
    With best regards, K-H.

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    2,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Take the highest MP count you can get....or

    So where are we on this thread?

    If someone is in the market for a new FF 35mm camera, should they even consider a 24MP body versus something higher like 36 or 42?

    Sony touts the 42 and Leica has just decided to stick with 24. I frankly believe Leica is stuck in that range due to their flagship S at 37.5MP.

    Do I print? Yes. How large? Well, I am contemplating getting a 24" printer and I crop to whatever it takes to please me and that is sometimes a 50% crop. Do I stitch? Yes. Sometimes I merge 8-12 images together for landscape scenes.

    TIA for any solid comment.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Senior Member Lucille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Take the highest MP count you can get....or

    And to think some of us have to struggle with the wimpy 12mp from the Sony A7S.


    Last edited by Lucille; 6th November 2015 at 22:57.
    the HepKitty
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #54
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Take the highest MP count you can get....or

    I know, I know, Lucille, terrible, or the 12 MP of the Nikon D3! :-(

    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    598
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Take the highest MP count you can get....or

    Quote Originally Posted by algrove View Post
    So where are we on this thread?

    If someone is in the market for a new FF 35mm camera, should they even consider a 24MP body versus something higher like 36 or 42?
    For most uses, 24 MP is sufficient. From experience with the A900 and then the RX-1, I would even say it is a sweet spot, a good compromise between resolution, iso, lens abilities, camera shake, AF abilities and depth of field.


    Do I print? Yes. How large? Well, I am contemplating getting a 24" printer and I crop to whatever it takes to please me and that is sometimes a 50% crop.
    In that case, maybe a larger resolution like 36 or 42 would be advantageous for you.

  6. #56
    Senior Member ErikKaffehr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nyköping Sweden
    Posts
    1,194
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Take the highest MP count you can get....or

    Hi,

    I have made exhibition quality prints from 12MP APS-C in A2-size. Many of my best images were shot on 12 MP APS-C, and I have made many very good prints from those.

    At the time I went from 12MP APS-C to 24MP on full frame I was stunned to see how little difference there was between A2-prints from those formats.

    So, I feel that say 16-24 MP can be perfectly good for A2 size prints.

    Two and a half year ago I bought into medium format shooting 39MP, and I could not at that time see differences from 24MP to 39MP in A2 size prints. I did not make any print comparisons between my A7rII and my other cameras yet, but I have seen some issues with raw conversion on the A7rII using Lightroom 6.2. RawTherapee with the AMaZE algorithm did a much better job on this:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 08.16.11.jpg 
Views:	33 
Size:	21.6 KB 
ID:	113990
    Here is a link to a full size image.
    I had a discussion on this on LuLa as I feel Adobe needs to work on their raw conversion. On that thread Mark Segal pointed out that those artefacts are not visible in a 45" print. I did a print a crop of corresponding size and made some very interesting observation.

    Some facts: I am 60 years old (a couple of days not counting) and I am nearsighted. Have around 20/20 vision with corrective glasses.

    So, what I have found was that I could see those jagged lines viewing close (say 12" / 30 cm) without glasses. Moving away from the print I could no longer observe those jaggies. With progressive glasses I was not able to observe those jaggies at any distance. A young person with good accommodation of vision would probably be able to see them easily.

    That said, I still would prefer an image without those artefacts, but fact is that our vision is limited and can hide a lot weaknesses in rendition. Still I feel that good and correct rendition is a good thing, but once we are past the 12 MP on A2 (or so) we are entering the diminishing returns region. We still get benefits from increasing resolution but those benefits may be less obvious.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    And to think some of us have to struggle with the wimpy 12mp from the Sony A7S.

    Homepage: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
    Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/in.../photoarticles
    Portfolio: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

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