It seems that photographers have trained camera companies to make cameras at different megapixel levels. We tell them, "Numbers sell". They ask, "High ISO numbers? We say, "Yes!" They ask, "Dynamic range values?" We say, "15EV, NOW!" They ask, "Is 45mp okay?" So many whine, "61mp! 61mp! 61mp!!!" even though it is only a 15% improvement in resolution. Consumers have trained manufacturers what to market to us. The manufacturers, for their part, have decided how to market to us: buying social media influencers, including yt imaging channels. The JL effect, best accomplished with the left hand in the jeans pocket. The reason 45mp Nikon has become somewhat a "new standard" is 8K. The A7RV has a crop for 8K because it has too many mp. When comparing two different mp sensors, use the ratio of the mp for file sizes but take the square root of the ratio for resolution. The easiest way to see this is to consider the sensors needed for video: * 1080p: 3mp * 4K: 11mp * 6K: 24mp * 8K: 45mp Going from 11mp to 24mp, the mp more than doubles, but the resolution only increases by 50%. For the jump from the D800/D810 to the D850, the resolution change was too small for any Nikon lens to be okay with the D810 but inadequate with the D850. But people are good at convincing themselves that things matter, so it was a good opportunity to be pushed to upgrade lenses...
And with the advent of some pretty amazing AI upscaling software, you can take a lower megapixel image that’s already good to begin with, and make it that much larger, especially if you hit the focus accurately for the shot.
Really wish Sony would have used the a7riii sensor in the new a7cr. I think the 61MP is overkill, and while I could occasionally see real detail, I found the a7riv a liability and routinely captured better images with the a7riii. Thinking of honestly picking up the a7riii again it produced such consistent images.
Great voice/eye contact! 2 Questions; What is pixel peeping? Can anyone really see a pixel? And, What is a panorama photo?...is it a setting on the camera? or a video of and landscape?
Thank you for the common sense analysis. Re: Dynamic range, I had thought (for a given sensor “age”) that a lower pixel-count had higher dynamic range because the pixels were physically larger, enabling it to collect more light. Eg: Nikon Z6ii vs Z7ii, both full-frame but 24.5 MP VS 45 MP. BUT, per DXOMARK, dynamic range is 14.4 eV vs 14.7 eV respectively, so it is indeed higher for the higher pixel-count sensor. Live and learn! Thank you for pointing that out.
Between the 24MP Nikon (I stick to full frame here) and the 45MP we lost "ceteris paribus" and are not comparing pure photosite size - a sensor has analogie photocells with an analogue circuit to measure exposure so there are no PICture ELements there (pixels). The difference is that the 45MP has no OLPF and the 24MP has an OLPF. Nikon has one camera where we can deduce "ceteris paribus" what the impact is. In 2012 Nikon released the D800E version that Eliminates the OLPF from the D800. Go to DxO Mark and find the sharpest F-mount lens. Now compare that same lens in the following comparisons on cameras as follows: D800 (36MP, OLPF) to D800E(36MP, no OLPF) - we deduce the impact of the OLPF - shockingly surprising. D750 (24MP with OLPF) to D800 (36MP with OLPF) - we deduce the impact of more MP - disappointing. D800E (36MP no OLPF) to D850 (45MP no OLPF) - we deduce the impact of more MP - disappointing. The OLPF (also called anti-aliasing (AA) filter) was introduced to make the guessing of colours missing in the Bayer raw file easier, and at the same time deal with jagged edges/lines. I call the OLPF "fuzzy filter). It make life easier for the Mudbricks in programming their camera-raw programs and up to a resolution point we don't really notice, but above that the cons exceed the pros. As the OLPF disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] so a fraction hits the direct neighbours, it: - reduces (contour) sharpness; - reduces low light sensitivity; - reduces dynamic range (DR); - reduces contrast envelope (DR available in a single shot); - reduces colour space; - and messes with vignetting. If we bring in the comparison between Nikon's APS-C and full frame and e.g. compare a D500 (20MP) to a D750 or Z 6ii (24MP), and conclude that the D500 is very good, then we have to be aware that the D500 has no OLPF as its photosite density compares to that of the 45MP full frame camera.
Interesting thoughts. I am curious, when you ran a studio, what percentage of your sales were bigger than say 16x20 or 18x24? Secondly, most photo printers print at 2400x1200 ppi which is 2.88 mega pixels. Not sure if you are printing your work the extra megapixels makes all that much difference. What am I missing here?
My most common sizes were 30”x60”, 30”x40” and 40”x50”. I would also often make tryptics made of panels at the 30”x40” and 30x60 sizes. I also had to upscale my work for printing (I have a tutorial here: ruclips.net/video/NbH7ZtQMsC8/видео.htmlsi=xhXAEjB_xa0k5TI8 ) my understanding is that ppi stands for pixels per inch and that industry standard is 300. So at 300ppi a native 61mega pixel print is 31”x21”. You can obviously print larger and have it look good, but the closer you are to that “native” size the sharper it will look. Again my upscaling tutorial might help!
Megapixels… way overrated… ever wonder why Canon hasn’t really exceeded 50MP with full frame cameras? Diffraction. Doesn’t matter how sharp your lens is, or how much resolution it throws down, you can’t escape physics. The more you stop down to get a deeper depth of field, the more diffraction eats your fine detail. The more you open the aperture up to get less diffraction, the less is actually in focus. 45-60MP on a full frame camera is about the sweet spot. More than that and diffraction is already in full effect by f/8. I don’t know about you, but I shoot at f/8 to f/16 all the time. More resolution is not helpful.
It seems that photographers have trained camera companies to make cameras at different megapixel levels. We tell them, "Numbers sell". They ask, "High ISO numbers? We say, "Yes!" They ask, "Dynamic range values?" We say, "15EV, NOW!" They ask, "Is 45mp okay?" So many whine, "61mp! 61mp! 61mp!!!" even though it is only a 15% improvement in resolution. Consumers have trained manufacturers what to market to us. The manufacturers, for their part, have decided how to market to us: buying social media influencers, including yt imaging channels. The JL effect, best accomplished with the left hand in the jeans pocket.
The reason 45mp Nikon has become somewhat a "new standard" is 8K. The A7RV has a crop for 8K because it has too many mp.
When comparing two different mp sensors, use the ratio of the mp for file sizes but take the square root of the ratio for resolution. The easiest way to see this is to consider the sensors needed for video:
* 1080p: 3mp
* 4K: 11mp
* 6K: 24mp
* 8K: 45mp
Going from 11mp to 24mp, the mp more than doubles, but the resolution only increases by 50%.
For the jump from the D800/D810 to the D850, the resolution change was too small for any Nikon lens to be okay with the D810 but inadequate with the D850. But people are good at convincing themselves that things matter, so it was a good opportunity to be pushed to upgrade lenses...
And with the advent of some pretty amazing AI upscaling software, you can take a lower megapixel image that’s already good to begin with, and make it that much larger, especially if you hit the focus accurately for the shot.
Really wish Sony would have used the a7riii sensor in the new a7cr. I think the 61MP is overkill, and while I could occasionally see real detail, I found the a7riv a liability and routinely captured better images with the a7riii. Thinking of honestly picking up the a7riii again it produced such consistent images.
Great voice/eye contact! 2 Questions; What is pixel peeping? Can anyone really see a pixel? And, What is a panorama photo?...is it a setting on the camera? or a video of and landscape?
Thank you for the common sense analysis.
Re: Dynamic range, I had thought (for a given sensor “age”) that a lower pixel-count had higher dynamic range because the pixels were physically larger, enabling it to collect more light. Eg: Nikon Z6ii vs Z7ii, both full-frame but 24.5 MP VS 45 MP. BUT, per DXOMARK, dynamic range is 14.4 eV vs 14.7 eV respectively, so it is indeed higher for the higher pixel-count sensor. Live and learn! Thank you for pointing that out.
Between the 24MP Nikon (I stick to full frame here) and the 45MP we lost "ceteris paribus" and are not comparing pure photosite size - a sensor has analogie photocells with an analogue circuit to measure exposure so there are no PICture ELements there (pixels).
The difference is that the 45MP has no OLPF and the 24MP has an OLPF.
Nikon has one camera where we can deduce "ceteris paribus" what the impact is.
In 2012 Nikon released the D800E version that Eliminates the OLPF from the D800.
Go to DxO Mark and find the sharpest F-mount lens.
Now compare that same lens in the following comparisons on cameras as follows:
D800 (36MP, OLPF) to D800E(36MP, no OLPF) - we deduce the impact of the OLPF - shockingly surprising.
D750 (24MP with OLPF) to D800 (36MP with OLPF) - we deduce the impact of more MP - disappointing.
D800E (36MP no OLPF) to D850 (45MP no OLPF) - we deduce the impact of more MP - disappointing.
The OLPF (also called anti-aliasing (AA) filter) was introduced to make the guessing of colours missing in the Bayer raw file easier, and at the same time deal with jagged edges/lines. I call the OLPF "fuzzy filter). It make life easier for the Mudbricks in programming their camera-raw programs and up to a resolution point we don't really notice, but above that the cons exceed the pros.
As the OLPF disperses light travelling to photosite [x,y] so a fraction hits the direct neighbours, it:
- reduces (contour) sharpness;
- reduces low light sensitivity;
- reduces dynamic range (DR);
- reduces contrast envelope (DR available in a single shot);
- reduces colour space;
- and messes with vignetting.
If we bring in the comparison between Nikon's APS-C and full frame and e.g. compare a D500 (20MP) to a D750 or Z 6ii (24MP), and conclude that the D500 is very good, then we have to be aware that the D500 has no OLPF as its photosite density compares to that of the 45MP full frame camera.
@@jpdj2715thank you for the thoughtful exposition. Much appreciated!
Interesting thoughts. I am curious, when you ran a studio, what percentage of your sales were bigger than say 16x20 or 18x24? Secondly, most photo printers print at 2400x1200 ppi which is 2.88 mega pixels. Not sure if you are printing your work the extra megapixels makes all that much difference. What am I missing here?
My most common sizes were 30”x60”, 30”x40” and 40”x50”. I would also often make tryptics made of panels at the 30”x40” and 30x60 sizes. I also had to upscale my work for printing (I have a tutorial here: ruclips.net/video/NbH7ZtQMsC8/видео.htmlsi=xhXAEjB_xa0k5TI8 ) my understanding is that ppi stands for pixels per inch and that industry standard is 300. So at 300ppi a native 61mega pixel print is 31”x21”. You can obviously print larger and have it look good, but the closer you are to that “native” size the sharper it will look. Again my upscaling tutorial might help!
@@summitbid Thank you. That was SO helpful. I have photos I have wanted to make tryptics out of. I kind of have an idea now how to do it.
Megapixels… way overrated… ever wonder why Canon hasn’t really exceeded 50MP with full frame cameras? Diffraction. Doesn’t matter how sharp your lens is, or how much resolution it throws down, you can’t escape physics. The more you stop down to get a deeper depth of field, the more diffraction eats your fine detail. The more you open the aperture up to get less diffraction, the less is actually in focus. 45-60MP on a full frame camera is about the sweet spot. More than that and diffraction is already in full effect by f/8. I don’t know about you, but I shoot at f/8 to f/16 all the time. More resolution is not helpful.