The "jello effect" is not because the readout is slower on the cameras. It's because for almost all small format photography cameras, the sensors are manufactured to be a rotating shutter, not a global shutter. Meaning the image is exposed in sections from the top of the frame down as opposed to the global shutter exposing the entire frame at once. This is why these small format cameras have a flash sync speed. If you photograph with flash above the sync speed you will have a partially or entire black image depending on the shutter speed used. A global shutter does not have a sync speed and you could use flash photography up to 1/500 sec or faster and it will not affect the image.
I think I would be safe in saying that 95% of photographers don’t print at all or no larger than A4. Magazine and web needs no more than 6Mp so 20Mp is already overkill. I do shoot a Nikon D850 but that is because the venue has abysmal lighting and I need that low light performance at 12800iso. Daytime my Fuji XH1 or Olympus EM1 Mk3 shine. The difference between using a Sony A7 or the Olympus is two 2 week holidays in Vietnam. Which do you think will produce better images?
I can see an obvious improvement in image quality with 61 megapixels. I wasn't sure how such high resolution would work with my lenses, but I didn't need to worry. Now, the a7rV is my #1 camera and I'd sell my M10 before the Sony. Resolution is very important if you want to crop your photos. I don't print my files, so that isn't a consideration for me.
It’s entirely what works for you ☺️ but yeah, resolution is important if you want to crop. When i’m out with family i just take a 35mm and my a7rv and i take so many photos and crop. I did a photo the other day and cropped to something that’s around maybe 9mp 😂😂 looks fine 🤷🏻♂️
The sad thing about this is I've done a 20x30 with a file from a Nikon D40 which has a 6MP sensor and it looked great. Of course it was done on an advanced Fuji printing system with a fractal upscaler but it looked great.
S3 has a 48 mp sensor that is pixel binned (averaged)on the sensor. Bit like the Canon c100 and c300 having 8mp sensor reduced to 2mp (1080p) on sensor.
Both my R3 and R6 MKII are 24 MP - help out in low light for video and stills plus print plenty big enough - would love more of course but only think large sensors are need if you are a major cropper ( buy a longer focal length) - cool little video Danny !
Actually, higher resolution sensors perform better in low light. Does a 61mp sensor produce more noise at 61mp? Sure. However, its already been proven in still photography that when you scale a 61mp photo down to lets say, 24mp... the noise is significantly less than the image that shot natively at 24mp. I'm not sure where this misconception of "less mp means better lowlight performance" in the photography space came from. You have a lot more headroom on a 61mp file.
absolutely correct on the pixel requirement being 300/400dpi for printing. for the commercial photography on the billboards, the photo was not a candid shot. the shot required lighting and focus to be perfect to print something that large. for hand held shooting, especially wildlife where you control almost none of the shooting environment, the more pixels you have, the better chance you have of getting a keeper. part of that is cropping to extend focal length, but also the level ion ibis you have. no perfect answer. the trade off is file size and buffer response. I'd take that any day vs. not coming home with the shot.
I've printed 30 by 40 inches prints from 12MP files. No issues. Looks great. Museum quality. I wouldn't go much higher than 30 by 40 though. By the way, most prints don't need 300dpi - size and viewing distance matter, the motive (and how many fine details it invites to look at up close) - all that matters. Also, not all pixels are created equal. My 20MP Sigma sd Quattro outresolves my 50MP Canon 5DsR for fine detail resolution. Nobody needs more than 16-ish to 20MP for basically anything. The common 24MP "full frame" sensors are the sweat spot, I agree. 20MP is in that same ballpark, there is no quantitative difference between 20 and 24MP.
Used A7S series because i took pictures in low light. But, A7R series was better at the end. Higher pixel resolution helped me to hide those blur and shaky photos. Taking low light with 61mp and squeezing to the same 12mp, R series delivered better and let me use slower shutter speed than S series :p
When I take a photo with my Sony a7riv and then take the exact same image with an a7iv, same lens, I can see a lot more detail with 61 mp. If you like detail and sharpness the higher megapixel cameras do make a difference. Especially with no AA filter…
61mp zoom 2x for free gives you double the lens without having to carry another lens. Don’t see how that is anything but good. Only down side is the slower reading sensor. A7r5 is the king of the range
Megapixels are good but... like you said there is a point of limiting and diminishing returns. I have a pentax k50 16 megapixels and im not blowing anything up in the big section. So what i got is good enough for my use and printing.
The sweet spot will be 120mp. Currently I have the A74 and at 33mp, when I crop in too much it looks awful, but with 4 times that at 120 I can crop a very nice photo out of a average picture. An example is street photography, usually there is so much going on in the scenes but on review you find that there is a really good photo to be had after cropping but then the quality is terrible at that point. Needless to say when Sony comes out with a 120mp camera, I'm in, but for now 33mp will have to do.
No offense, but cropping in on a high MP image is not the same as an equivalent image from a lower MP camera. The images that come out of a D3 at 12MP will blow the socks off a 12MP crop from a 50 MP camera any day of the week. Sure you can crop in on birds in flight which don't really need a lot of fine detail, but that's a pretty forgiving niche when it comes to fine detail and contrast.
I am currently using Nikon ℤ𝒇 and Sony α7M4, and have tried my friend's Nikon ℤ72. My feelings are: I think 33 megapixels is a very sweet location, which is suitable for everything, and the control of file size is acceptable. A lot of people want as many pixels as possible, but no joke, storage is really expensive.
I regularly print 12MP images at 13x19 without any issues at all. The images look incredible when printed at that size with zero indication of pixilation or anything like that... 300 dpi is a little overkill when printed on photo paper imo.
Need: 24 or 36 MP is more than enough. Some fine art photographers may regularly print bigger than 1x2m. Sure huuge MP benefit them. Well I don't do that. And let's not forget editing 50/100 MP RAW is pain in the a**. Needs more powerful PC, more storage, more blah blah blah... Want: 50 MP. The used Fuji GFX 50S/R can be obtained under $2K. Holy moly modern digital medium format under $2K! 😁
@@AureLangvinis I think your lens is more important than the camera is for that application to be honest. I'd get a used nikon 60mm f2.8d which is pretty good at stitching when shots are from an aps-c like the d3300. It won't autofocus, but you should be manually focusing and focus peaking anyways if quality is the priority. With a good lens that has very low levels of distortion (like the 60mm) you shouldn't need to stitch very many photos together to get good results, maybe 6-8. Iphones are trash when it comes to applications like this which require clean files. I actually do this all the time with 30x42 plans using an Iphone because of how easy it is, but I only need to create a pdf that is legible, I'm don't need anything even close to resembling high quality reproduction work.
I think I’m a decent example. I do agree with others where around the 20-30s all you really need, there are instances like myself where I do have the ability to have the 61mp RV which comes in handy for even photographing my kid. Kids move quickly and it has been so much easier to have a wider lens with the ability to crop as opposed to constantly zooming. I am sure there are others, but that was the quickest I could think of
Absolutely, similar to the wildlife. If i’m tracking a bird it’s sometimes easier also go not zoom in as much but crop more in post. Everybody has a method, there’s never a right or wrong 👌🏻
If you just want to get one camera to do it all, is A7RV fun to use as EDC as well because some say Sony is not fun and they just use them for work and use something smaller and less casual like Fuji X100V for EDC and no need to edit with their Film Simulation. But if I just want realistic looking photo and video, Sony SOOC already deliver that and I don't need to shoot RAW but just try to set the best possible SOOC setting to get that too right plus Sony has Creative Style too right? I plan to get A7RV as my only camera for everything and my plan for lenses are 70-200mm F4 MACRO OSS G II with 2X tele converter, 16-35mm F4 PZ and one F0.95 lens, is it good, I choose Sony for the quality, the 4 ways screen and the unique capabilities of the lenses I mentioned that other brands need more lens to achieve similar things, plus I do love Sony as a brand too. I don't get the desire to get a slightly smaller camera that you still can't fit into your pocket, better go proper size with good EVF and screen like A7RV or go actual pocketable like RX100 or your phone right, slightly smaller will still noticeable you are a person with a camera from crowd perspective. Should we just shoot in 1080p because do we really watch 4K and able to tell the differences plus it give larger storage space for you to manage and spend on too? Also, have you wonder like many things in life, why put so many effort just to take photos and videos and not just use phone camera to record here and there if it's not your primary work and also your content not all will get pass down and value later but lose in time plus a lot places and things you take photos already took by many others even you value art? And what camera setup you bring in everyday life and travel, some people use less bulky and performance camera for their own life but use fancy gears for clients and travel, why, isn't everyday life is most parts of our life which is important too and shouldn't discount to document them in high quality forms?
I use Sony because it delivers what I need as a working photographer/videographer. I do this full-time with my wedding business and there's no other camera brand out there that enables me to achieve the style I want - to me, these cameras a simply just tools! If I didn't do weddings, would I change? Not sure, maybe? Maybe not?! Btw, before you buy a teleconverter, watch my video on them... you may change your mind. Should we film in 1080 or 4K? No idea, you tell me?! I film in 4K for RUclips because my viewers (generally speaking) want to pixel peep and see if one camera is better than the other. I also film all of my weddings in 4K. If I was out with family, well I'd probably use my phone... For 5 years I only owned Sony cameras, now I have a Fuji and an old film camera. When I'm out just taking photos, I may just take one of them. Or I may take my Sony... It depends what I want. They are as I've said already, just tools and what I choose to buy and use is not right for other people and it's the same the other way round. Photography and videography is art, we could film It on an old point and shoot and if that's the look we want... so be it. I take photos and they are sometimes out of focus, not composed 'properly' but they tell a story. I have one on my Instagram, it's a squirrel and the story behind that squirrel photo is hilarious... Is the photo good? Nah, not really! It was taking at 12800 iso, grainy as hell and is slightly out of focus. Do I care? No... however without the right camera and the right lens with me that day, I'd never have that memory. The reason I do this, is for the experience and for the memories. Photography has changed my whole life, I make money every day on this channel, I teach others, I've learned new skills, met new friends and realised there's a whole world out there that needs exploring. I don't really care whether I take the photos on my phone, my fuji or a sony. As long as I get to experience it, I'm happy. but buying my first camera and sticking with it is the best thing I have ever done
And yet....there are 20x30 inch photographs hanging in galleries that were taken with 12mpx cameras. Larger images are generally not viewed as closely as smaller images (except by pixel peepers). You don't need 300 dpi.
Yup 🥴 i recall it saying it had to be a full frame, 24mp camera with a wide angle lens and had to be able to go to f2.8, a flash with a flash trigger and a tripod. Was a real estate company 😂😂
LOL 12 MP - just like my D700. Ditched Nikon and went 61 MP. Never going back. Nikon just don't get it. The Sony on a 5K screen is like looking out your window not a 14" 640 monitor.
The "jello effect" is not because the readout is slower on the cameras. It's because for almost all small format photography cameras, the sensors are manufactured to be a rotating shutter, not a global shutter. Meaning the image is exposed in sections from the top of the frame down as opposed to the global shutter exposing the entire frame at once. This is why these small format cameras have a flash sync speed. If you photograph with flash above the sync speed you will have a partially or entire black image depending on the shutter speed used. A global shutter does not have a sync speed and you could use flash photography up to 1/500 sec or faster and it will not affect the image.
I think I would be safe in saying that 95% of photographers don’t print at all or no larger than A4. Magazine and web needs no more than 6Mp so 20Mp is already overkill. I do shoot a Nikon D850 but that is because the venue has abysmal lighting and I need that low light performance at 12800iso. Daytime my Fuji XH1 or Olympus EM1 Mk3 shine. The difference between using a Sony A7 or the Olympus is two 2 week holidays in Vietnam. Which do you think will produce better images?
I can see an obvious improvement in image quality with 61 megapixels. I wasn't sure how such high resolution would work with my lenses, but I didn't need to worry. Now, the a7rV is my #1 camera and I'd sell my M10 before the Sony. Resolution is very important if you want to crop your photos. I don't print my files, so that isn't a consideration for me.
It’s entirely what works for you ☺️ but yeah, resolution is important if you want to crop. When i’m out with family i just take a 35mm and my a7rv and i take so many photos and crop. I did a photo the other day and cropped to something that’s around maybe 9mp 😂😂 looks fine 🤷🏻♂️
This was a great video man I genuinely enjoyed getting educated about this topic
Awesome!!! I’m glad to hear it, thanks for watching!
The sad thing about this is I've done a 20x30 with a file from a Nikon D40 which has a 6MP sensor and it looked great. Of course it was done on an advanced Fuji printing system with a fractal upscaler but it looked great.
Yup. My 4k tv is 60 inches and never looks pixelated when viewing. Even when watching at lower resolutions such as 1080p. Viewing distance is key.
Glad you agree ☺️
24mp is the sweet spot .
It’s days like this I wish we had the performance of cameras such as the Sony A7Siii but a 24mp sensor 😂
How much does pixel density matter to you?
S3 has a 48 mp sensor that is pixel binned (averaged)on the sensor. Bit like the Canon c100 and c300 having 8mp sensor reduced to 2mp (1080p) on sensor.
Both my R3 and R6 MKII are 24 MP - help out in low light for video and stills plus print plenty big enough - would love more of course but only think large sensors are need if you are a major cropper ( buy a longer focal length) - cool little video Danny !
I didn’t know that the R3 was 24mp! But yeah, you’re right. 24-30 is a nice sweet spot imo. Thanks for watching, hope you’re well!
@@DannyBligh yeah but it is a stacked BSI CMOS Sensor
Actually, higher resolution sensors perform better in low light. Does a 61mp sensor produce more noise at 61mp? Sure. However, its already been proven in still photography that when you scale a 61mp photo down to lets say, 24mp... the noise is significantly less than the image that shot natively at 24mp. I'm not sure where this misconception of "less mp means better lowlight performance" in the photography space came from. You have a lot more headroom on a 61mp file.
absolutely correct on the pixel requirement being 300/400dpi for printing. for the commercial photography on the billboards, the photo was not a candid shot. the shot required lighting and focus to be perfect to print something that large. for hand held shooting, especially wildlife where you control almost none of the shooting environment, the more pixels you have, the better chance you have of getting a keeper. part of that is cropping to extend focal length, but also the level ion ibis you have. no perfect answer. the trade off is file size and buffer response. I'd take that any day vs. not coming home with the shot.
I've printed 30 by 40 inches prints from 12MP files. No issues. Looks great. Museum quality. I wouldn't go much higher than 30 by 40 though. By the way, most prints don't need 300dpi - size and viewing distance matter, the motive (and how many fine details it invites to look at up close) - all that matters. Also, not all pixels are created equal. My 20MP Sigma sd Quattro outresolves my 50MP Canon 5DsR for fine detail resolution.
Nobody needs more than 16-ish to 20MP for basically anything. The common 24MP "full frame" sensors are the sweat spot, I agree. 20MP is in that same ballpark, there is no quantitative difference between 20 and 24MP.
Yup, i’ve printed big from 12MP files, sure it’s not as detailed but to the average viewer 🤷🏻♂️
Thanks for watching
Used A7S series because i took pictures in low light. But, A7R series was better at the end. Higher pixel resolution helped me to hide those blur and shaky photos. Taking low light with 61mp and squeezing to the same 12mp, R series delivered better and let me use slower shutter speed than S series :p
😂😂 sounds like you’re cheating the system there 😉 love it!
Depends on how big you're blowing your prints up to. You need Medium format to print extremely large prints.
When I take a photo with my Sony a7riv and then take the exact same image with an a7iv, same lens, I can see a lot more detail with 61 mp. If you like detail and sharpness the higher megapixel cameras do make a difference. Especially with no AA filter…
61mp zoom 2x for free gives you double the lens without having to carry another lens. Don’t see how that is anything but good. Only down side is the slower reading sensor. A7r5 is the king of the range
Yeah, i said it somewhere in another comment but sometimes when i’m out with family or something i just take a 35mm and crop 😂 its’s great
Megapixels are good but... like you said there is a point of limiting and diminishing returns. I have a pentax k50 16 megapixels and im not blowing anything up in the big section. So what i got is good enough for my use and printing.
The sweet spot will be 120mp. Currently I have the A74 and at 33mp, when I crop in too much it looks awful, but with 4 times that at 120 I can crop a very nice photo out of a average picture. An example is street photography, usually there is so much going on in the scenes but on review you find that there is a really good photo to be had after cropping but then the quality is terrible at that point. Needless to say when Sony comes out with a 120mp camera, I'm in, but for now 33mp will have to do.
If you're having to crop that much into an image, that's an issue with the photographer and the composition
No offense, but cropping in on a high MP image is not the same as an equivalent image from a lower MP camera. The images that come out of a D3 at 12MP will blow the socks off a 12MP crop from a 50 MP camera any day of the week. Sure you can crop in on birds in flight which don't really need a lot of fine detail, but that's a pretty forgiving niche when it comes to fine detail and contrast.
Printing with a 300 dpi printer on A4 size paper at 10 x 8 inches only requires 7.2 MP. A little more if you print borderless.
I am currently using Nikon ℤ𝒇 and Sony α7M4, and have tried my friend's Nikon ℤ72. My feelings are: I think 33 megapixels is a very sweet location, which is suitable for everything, and the control of file size is acceptable. A lot of people want as many pixels as possible, but no joke, storage is really expensive.
Yup, even just the processing of the large files can be hard work. Large mp is great for some things, not so much for others
I regularly print 12MP images at 13x19 without any issues at all. The images look incredible when printed at that size with zero indication of pixilation or anything like that... 300 dpi is a little overkill when printed on photo paper imo.
Yup! Getting maxiumum print quality is important but viewing distance, medium it’s printed on etc is also a variable. Thanks for watching! 🙌🏻
Need: 24 or 36 MP is more than enough. Some fine art photographers may regularly print bigger than 1x2m. Sure huuge MP benefit them. Well I don't do that. And let's not forget editing 50/100 MP RAW is pain in the a**. Needs more powerful PC, more storage, more blah blah blah...
Want: 50 MP. The used Fuji GFX 50S/R can be obtained under $2K. Holy moly modern digital medium format under $2K!
😁
The true struggles of a photographer right there 😂😂😂
@@AureLangvinis I think your lens is more important than the camera is for that application to be honest. I'd get a used nikon 60mm f2.8d which is pretty good at stitching when shots are from an aps-c like the d3300. It won't autofocus, but you should be manually focusing and focus peaking anyways if quality is the priority. With a good lens that has very low levels of distortion (like the 60mm) you shouldn't need to stitch very many photos together to get good results, maybe 6-8. Iphones are trash when it comes to applications like this which require clean files. I actually do this all the time with 30x42 plans using an Iphone because of how easy it is, but I only need to create a pdf that is legible, I'm don't need anything even close to resembling high quality reproduction work.
I think I’m a decent example. I do agree with others where around the 20-30s all you really need, there are instances like myself where I do have the ability to have the 61mp RV which comes in handy for even photographing my kid. Kids move quickly and it has been so much easier to have a wider lens with the ability to crop as opposed to constantly zooming. I am sure there are others, but that was the quickest I could think of
Absolutely, similar to the wildlife. If i’m tracking a bird it’s sometimes easier also go not zoom in as much but crop more in post. Everybody has a method, there’s never a right or wrong 👌🏻
If you just want to get one camera to do it all, is A7RV fun to use as EDC as well because some say Sony is not fun and they just use them for work and use something smaller and less casual like Fuji X100V for EDC and no need to edit with their Film Simulation. But if I just want realistic looking photo and video, Sony SOOC already deliver that and I don't need to shoot RAW but just try to set the best possible SOOC setting to get that too right plus Sony has Creative Style too right? I plan to get A7RV as my only camera for everything and my plan for lenses are 70-200mm F4 MACRO OSS G II with 2X tele converter, 16-35mm F4 PZ and one F0.95 lens, is it good, I choose Sony for the quality, the 4 ways screen and the unique capabilities of the lenses I mentioned that other brands need more lens to achieve similar things, plus I do love Sony as a brand too. I don't get the desire to get a slightly smaller camera that you still can't fit into your pocket, better go proper size with good EVF and screen like A7RV or go actual pocketable like RX100 or your phone right, slightly smaller will still noticeable you are a person with a camera from crowd perspective.
Should we just shoot in 1080p because do we really watch 4K and able to tell the differences plus it give larger storage space for you to manage and spend on too?
Also, have you wonder like many things in life, why put so many effort just to take photos and videos and not just use phone camera to record here and there if it's not your primary work and also your content not all will get pass down and value later but lose in time plus a lot places and things you take photos already took by many others even you value art?
And what camera setup you bring in everyday life and travel, some people use less bulky and performance camera for their own life but use fancy gears for clients and travel, why, isn't everyday life is most parts of our life which is important too and shouldn't discount to document them in high quality forms?
I use Sony because it delivers what I need as a working photographer/videographer. I do this full-time with my wedding business and there's no other camera brand out there that enables me to achieve the style I want - to me, these cameras a simply just tools! If I didn't do weddings, would I change? Not sure, maybe? Maybe not?!
Btw, before you buy a teleconverter, watch my video on them... you may change your mind.
Should we film in 1080 or 4K? No idea, you tell me?! I film in 4K for RUclips because my viewers (generally speaking) want to pixel peep and see if one camera is better than the other. I also film all of my weddings in 4K. If I was out with family, well I'd probably use my phone...
For 5 years I only owned Sony cameras, now I have a Fuji and an old film camera. When I'm out just taking photos, I may just take one of them. Or I may take my Sony... It depends what I want. They are as I've said already, just tools and what I choose to buy and use is not right for other people and it's the same the other way round.
Photography and videography is art, we could film It on an old point and shoot and if that's the look we want... so be it. I take photos and they are sometimes out of focus, not composed 'properly' but they tell a story. I have one on my Instagram, it's a squirrel and the story behind that squirrel photo is hilarious... Is the photo good? Nah, not really! It was taking at 12800 iso, grainy as hell and is slightly out of focus. Do I care? No... however without the right camera and the right lens with me that day, I'd never have that memory.
The reason I do this, is for the experience and for the memories. Photography has changed my whole life, I make money every day on this channel, I teach others, I've learned new skills, met new friends and realised there's a whole world out there that needs exploring. I don't really care whether I take the photos on my phone, my fuji or a sony. As long as I get to experience it, I'm happy. but buying my first camera and sticking with it is the best thing I have ever done
12 mp is good for 8x10 @300dpi but not quite enough for 11x14.
And yet....there are 20x30 inch photographs hanging in galleries that were taken with 12mpx cameras. Larger images are generally not viewed as closely as smaller images (except by pixel peepers). You don't need 300 dpi.
@@alansach8437 Not exactly by choice though. Just the tech of the time.
Yep 16 plenty
He has his cap on backwards.
4:23 Good lord a company that requires 24mp for web use?
Yup 🥴 i recall it saying it had to be a full frame, 24mp camera with a wide angle lens and had to be able to go to f2.8, a flash with a flash trigger and a tripod. Was a real estate company 😂😂
Sensor size is THE most important but pixels help. And why do you think pixels only relate to printing ? Dumb...
It-s IMPOSSIBLE to film with any digital camera. You can record video though.
LOL 12 MP - just like my D700. Ditched Nikon and went 61 MP. Never going back. Nikon just don't get it. The Sony on a 5K screen is like looking out your window not a 14" 640 monitor.
Strange, because Nikon have sensors from Sony... but for you "logo" tells quality right?