The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Shopping advice: try to look past sensor size and megapixels

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sorry for repeating myself, but I feel that my posting at an ongoing discussion at the Fuji forum is relevant to this discussion as well:

During film days, the difference between a 35mm image (36 x 24mm) and a 6 x 7 image (70 x 56 mm) was a factor of 4.5 (film area). That's the same as the difference between an 8 and a 36 MP sensor. It's a huge difference, and many photographers appreciated that and used it to their advantage. In addition, the lenses for the 6 x 7 cameras were much larger, enabling that increased resolution potential to become reality.

The difference between 16 and 24 MP is a factor of 1.5, and given that it's the same sensor size, this becomes a challenge for many lenses. Also, while the grain size of most films was constant regardless of format, that is not the case when you cram more pixels into the same digital format, with possible (and mostly real) consequences for noise, DR and colour fidelity.

While the film example gives more than 100% increase in linear size, the digital increase in this example only represents 23%. I could make countless examples that illustrate this (a 24 MP crop sensor vs. a 26 MP 35mm sensor for example), but the only ones that would show a really big difference would be between digital MF vs. any other format. However, while even that difference has become much smaller, the price difference has increased in most cases.

Digital cameras have decreased the quality difference between formats and resolutions to a point where I believe most photographers 30 years ago would say that it's insignificant. And while the 135 and 120 formats totally dominated the world then, they are reduced to tiny niches nowadays. Some obviously need every little bit of resolution they can get, but the curve that shows the reality of diminishing returns has become very, very steep.
 

turtle

New member
We all have different sensibilities, but to my eyes, having more resolution in a same sized sensor is like using a finer grained film. If you don't push the enlargement factor, it matters not, but when you do, the difference can be seen and felt. In essence, this is how I interpret the OP and agree wholeheartedly.

I also believe that subtle differences can be important. With a 16x12" print, there is no difference (that I can see) between 5x4 FP4+ and 5x7, but at 20x16 and 20x24 there is. Equally, 5x4 FP4+ and Delta 100 also look very different at 20x16 and 20x24! With certain subjects these differences leap out at you, but with others remain concealed. These subtleties are what Jack was talking about.

Photographers often had distinct film preferences a few years ago (and still do now), so its no surprise that we are having the same debate regarding nuances in the digital era. As always, it just comes down to taste. We are also shooting different subjects and presenting them in different ways at different sizes, so that muddies the waters further.

While I think that formats are a less hard and fast guide to quality than they were, even within formats there are very real differences. Files from the 12MP X100 and 36 MP A7R look like they were from completely different formats, rather than near cousins. The problem is that there is an awful lot of technical stuff going on which I am not worried about fully understanding it. I'm much more worried about pictures and so happy to let my eyes and tastes guide me. While some differences might be quantified as 'small' it does not always feel this way when looking at a print.
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
Sorry for repeating myself, but I feel that my posting at an ongoing discussion at the Fuji forum is relevant to this discussion as well:

During film days, the difference between a 35mm image (36 x 24mm) and a 6 x 7 image (70 x 56 mm) was a factor of 4.5 (film area). That's the same as the difference between an 8 and a 36 MP sensor. It's a huge difference, and many photographers appreciated that and used it to their advantage. In addition, the lenses for the 6 x 7 cameras were much larger, enabling that increased resolution potential to become reality.

The difference between 16 and 24 MP is a factor of 1.5, and given that it's the same sensor size, this becomes a challenge for many lenses. Also, while the grain size of most films was constant regardless of format, that is not the case when you cram more pixels into the same digital format, with possible (and mostly real) consequences for noise, DR and colour fidelity.

While the film example gives more than 100% increase in linear size, the digital increase in this example only represents 23%. I could make countless examples that illustrate this (a 24 MP crop sensor vs. a 26 MP 35mm sensor for example), but the only ones that would show a really big difference would be between digital MF vs. any other format. However, while even that difference has become much smaller, the price difference has increased in most cases.

Digital cameras have decreased the quality difference between formats and resolutions to a point where I believe most photographers 30 years ago would say that it's insignificant. And while the 135 and 120 formats totally dominated the world then, they are reduced to tiny niches nowadays. Some obviously need every little bit of resolution they can get, but the curve that shows the reality of diminishing returns has become very, very steep.
It is a little confusing to talk about different resolutions with the same sensor size, and differences in appearance between the same resolution and different sized sensors.

Like others, I tend to trust my eyes when looking at prints (not the great equalizer: web presentations).

If a APSc sized sensor sporting 24 meg is compared to a FF sensor with 24 meg, the pixels have to be smaller in the crop frame, right? If the pixels are the same size as the FF 24 meg sensor, then the resolution of the APSc sensor is going to lower.

When I compare prints from my 37 meg S2P and those from my 36 meg A7R, the presence of the S print looks obviously better to my eye. For a while I tried a Sony NEX7 with 24 meg APSc sensor, and compared to prints from my A99 24 meg FF camera, the FF A99 prints look better than with the crop frame NEX7. I disagree that it requires massive enlargements to see any of this difference, even standard sized prints show different looks and feels between different formats.

It seems to feel "deeper" in both dimensional appearance and collective detail that renders to eye as realism … or perhaps better said, the image feels more convincing.

While I agree that it has become very expensive to make incremental gains with digital compared to film … the D800 and now this A7R camera have bucked that trend.

YMMV as usual.

- Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I'm more a full frame type shooter as I like the ability to throw things out of focus easier , these small formats sometimes just have to much DOF in them and images become sterile. I relate this to MF tech cams , loved shooting the big sensors but with a tech cam it got boring because every shot was at F8 or F11. Its tough to get a creative look to the image. I like the F2 of a 200 mm lens or a 50,85,135 and lenses like that which you can blow out the focus either front or rear of a subject.

On another reason and this maybe silly to some but after all this time as a Pro laziness sets in sometimes and worth comes into play. If I'm going to go shoot I want to shoot something that has a lot of mpx to it as if that image has any commercial value to me I can always go big with it. I have burned by this with my DMR and M8 not by the image but the ability to serve a bigger need when a client goes big on you and look like a fool. I got really soured by that as I was not able to pull it off as there just was no meat there.

So my time shooting must give me a big file and also the ability to have choices on what I am shooting. Tech cams and these small format cams pigeon hole you into a DOF pattern I do not like. Yes I have gotten amazing images with both but when shooting I did not have a lot of options to be creative in a different way. As much as I loved a tech cam I could not pull off a F2 OOF image.

Now everything else comes into play as well, feel, functionality, ease of use and all that but the part the really counts the deliverable than its about image look than I like either 35mm full frame or MF DSLR type cams to give me more creative choices and also give me extreme wides and teles as well.
 

turtle

New member
Totally agree, Guy.

A good example would be the Fuji 56mm f1.2, which renders the same sort of OOF you would see on an 85mm f1.8, because it is still a 56mm lens. However, its a rare lens and most optics are not this fast in APS-C land.

By the same token, however, the additional depth of field of the smaller formats can be mighty hand for street/hyperfocal work. All depends on application.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Actually, I just want a large sensor and a big camera to show off…

We have some competing variables here: format size, pixel resolution, and DR. These are independent variables that influence each other. They cannot substitute for each other.

DR has not been brought up, but a large DR has the downside of making flatter looking images. Some folks have noticed that the M9 has punchier files than the the M or the new Sony sensors. That is the difference with DR. Easy to match a lower DR sensor, but hard to go the other way.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Ah, but there are more variables: AA filter, different lenses (not only maximum aperture) etc. My 7 MP Panasonic L1 with the PanaLeica zoom delivers much better results than any 12 MP camera I have owned equipped with a "middle of the road" lens, also when it comes to resolution. Why? Because the L1 has a very weak AA filter and the lens is exceptionally good in every possible way.

The conclusion for me is that finding camera bodies and lenses that work well together is much, much more important than adding 50% more pixels.

I agree with Sashin about DR and flat looking files, but my experience with Fuji cameras (S3 and S5) is that it can mostly be solved during PP. It must be said though that for party shots, I've always preferred oversaturated colours and minimal DR from a point & shoot. That's how people remember fun parties :D
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I'm more a full frame type shooter as I like the ability to throw things out of focus easier , these small formats sometimes just have to much DOF in them and images become sterile. I relate this to MF tech cams , loved shooting the big sensors but with a tech cam it got boring because every shot was at F8 or F11. Its tough to get a creative look to the image. I like the F2 of a 200 mm lens or a 50,85,135 and lenses like that which you can blow out the focus either front or rear of a subject.

On another reason and this maybe silly to some but after all this time as a Pro laziness sets in sometimes and worth comes into play. If I'm going to go shoot I want to shoot something that has a lot of mpx to it as if that image has any commercial value to me I can always go big with it. I have burned by this with my DMR and M8 not by the image but the ability to serve a bigger need when a client goes big on you and look like a fool. I got really soured by that as I was not able to pull it off as there just was no meat there.

So my time shooting must give me a big file and also the ability to have choices on what I am shooting. Tech cams and these small format cams pigeon hole you into a DOF pattern I do not like. Yes I have gotten amazing images with both but when shooting I did not have a lot of options to be creative in a different way. As much as I loved a tech cam I could not pull off a F2 OOF image.

Now everything else comes into play as well, feel, functionality, ease of use and all that but the part the really counts the deliverable than its about image look than I like either 35mm full frame or MF DSLR type cams to give me more creative choices and also give me extreme wides and teles as well.
Guy, people that have more control over eventual use of an image may not relate to what you are saying, but I sure the Heck do! Been there, done that one too many times. Clients often down play usage when asking for a quote, but then when they see it, or when their media needs change, suddenly you get requests for super crops or enormous sized prints. :eek:

- Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Actually, I just want a large sensor and a big camera to show off…

We have some competing variables here: format size, pixel resolution, and DR. These are independent variables that influence each other. They cannot substitute for each other.

DR has not been brought up, but a large DR has the downside of making flatter looking images. Some folks have noticed that the M9 has punchier files than the the M or the new Sony sensors. That is the difference with DR. Easy to match a lower DR sensor, but hard to go the other way.
Boy ain't that the truth. Your example of the M9 and M240/A7 are exactly what come to my mind also.

However, if you mean that it is easy to match the M9 in normal lighting, I'm not so sure about that. I think it is really hard to get that punch back from flat files when working with color images.

- Marc
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Totally agree, Guy.

A good example would be the Fuji 56mm f1.2, which renders the same sort of OOF you would see on an 85mm f1.8, because it is still a 56mm lens. However, its a rare lens and most optics are not this fast in APS-C land.

By the same token, however, the additional depth of field of the smaller formats can be mighty hand for street/hyperfocal work. All depends on application.
Lenses like the Fuji 56/1.2 is an absolute necessity to bring smaller formats further, and it shows that Fuji takes these things seriously (as do Sigma with the f/1.8 zoom). Any camera manufacturer can make a camera body with a lot of pixels these days. Even my Nokia can match the A7r in that respect. Not so many deliver lenses to match.
 

Tim

Active member
DR has not been brought up, but a large DR has the downside of making flatter looking images.

Re-read my post above.

"I wish the Mpixel race would stop and they (the manufacturers) would fight over and wow us with better dynamic range."


I want/need more DR because where I live I have harsh direct sun which you can blow highlights or have issues with shadow detail.
So to a degree its importance I think it depends on where you live and the conditions you work under.
I sometimes lament selling my X100 as it handled DR better than my other current cameras.
 

turtle

New member
You can always add contrast and pop to an image with lots of DR with simple processing tweaks that take seconds. You can even add import presets. But you can't add dynamic range that isn't there. As a Canon user that now owns the A7 and A7R, I can only say 'thank you' for the wide DR of these cameras.

I totally agree re Fuji's fast lenses and hopefully they will add more f1.2s. A really fast 23mm would be interesting. They're certainly thinking like photographers here.

PS As excited and pleased as I am with the new Sony cameras, I was just as excited, if not more so, with the Panasonic GM-1. Picture taking dynamite that you can pack everywhere. Brilliant! I'm looking forward to using it a lot on the street as its so small, fast and quiet, with good IQ and lots of DOF for free (due to sensor size and focal length). The IQ will be good enough for what I will use it for, but there's no denying it won't be able to compete with the A7R for IQ. As usual, there are horses for course and compromises everywhere.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Re-read my post above.

"I wish the Mpixel race would stop and they (the manufacturers) would fight over and wow us with better dynamic range."


I want/need more DR because where I live I have harsh direct sun which you can blow highlights or have issues with shadow detail.
So to a degree its importance I think it depends on where you live and the conditions you work under.
I sometimes lament selling my X100 as it handled DR better than my other current cameras.
We are always going to have situations where DR is not enough. It would actually be very difficult to extend DR forever and really impractical. At some point images simply do not look real--just see HDR photography--and why have a file size that is mostly empty data. Naturally, we need to actually go to 16-bit cameras: the 14-bit camera is reaching its practical limit. So the next real step is to have a 16-bit camera, rather than DR per se.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
How does the camera feel in the hand?
How does the world look through the viewfinder?
Are the controls near where you expect them?
Do they do what you expect?
How effortless is it to raise it to the eye, focus, compose, and shoot?
Are you pleased with the files?
Does it have any bad habits that you despise?
Do you MF much or is AF what you do? How does your preferred mode work for you?
That is sort of my basic checklist.
Note that reasonable folks may evaluate the same set of cameras and come to different choices. That is just fine.
Lenses though are a whole other ballgame and sometimes is more visceral.
Sounds much like my own checklist, Bob.

The one thing I'd add is "Give it time." While I'm as good as anyone at recognizing what I like about a camera quickly, sometimes I don't see the warts for a while. And the converse is also true: sometimes what felt awkward and odd the first times I picked up a camera makes sense after a week or two worth of using it when the logic of the design has been revealed through use and my muscle memory has come to accommodate it. Evaluating a camera in less than a month or two worth of shooting has always seemed to produce a fairly questionable evaluation.

In the end, I know whether my evaluation of a camera is sound when I don't want to let go of it, when I choose it over other cameras to use, when the other cameras just linger in the closet.

G
 

Tim

Active member
We are always going to have situations where DR is not enough. It would actually be very difficult to extend DR forever and really impractical.
I'd be happy to have it extended to where scanned 35mm print film is now and stop. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, the harsh central Australian light is different to most other parts of the world and while DR is not on your list it seems, it is on mine. This is why I use a DP2m a lot of the time.
 
Top