How BIG can you PRINT your PHOTOS? (Fuji XT3 vs Nikon Z7 vs GFX 50R)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 ноя 2024
- Printing your photos is awesome. For me it is the end product of my photography. In this video I explore how big you can print and compare the APS-C XT3, Full Frame Nikon Z7 and the Medium format Fuji GFX 50R. And a make a print almost as big as me.
Get 10% off Squarespace - www.squarespac...
The awesome strap I showed - geni.us/PDstrap
MORE DETAILS on printing big (on my blog) - www.nigeldanso...
SIGN UP HERE to my PHOTOGRAPHY newsletter here - www.nigeldanso...
The awesome prints in this video were provided by www.fotospeed.com
Where I get my MUSIC - goo.gl/7LWnFh
MY PHOTOGRAPHY GEAR
NIKON GEAR
Current landscape camera - Nikon Z7 - geni.us/nikonz7
Awesome telephoto lens - Nikon 70-200m f/2.8 - geni.us/nikon70200
Fav lens - Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 - geni.us/nikon2470
Best for Landscapes - Nikon 16-35mm f/4 -geni.us/MCglWI
FUJI GEAR
Fujifilm X-T3 - geni.us/fujifil...
Awesome Bokeh - Fuji XF35mm F2 - geni.us/fuji35f2
Killer wide angle lens - Fuji 10-24mm F4 - geni.us/fuji1024
GorillaPod - azon.ly/BXvQ (as seen in previous videos)
OTHER PHOTO GEAR
My awesome Hat - geni.us/myhat
My heated coat - geni.us/blazeja... DANSON10 for 10% off
The great printer I use - geni.us/cIIc
Great bag for hiking - Tenba 24L - geni.us/orPwh
Super light Benro Travel Tripod UK - geni.us/FTA28CV1
A must have for tripod amzn.to/2zJ6oTa
Lightweight tripod - Benro Mach3 Carbon Fiber Tripod - azon.ly/Eals
Paper I use for all my prints - Fotospeed - goo.gl/tEKLqY
Use DANSON10 to get 10% off your paper.
Filters I use - Formatt Hitech Firecrest www.formatt-hi... - use NIGEL20 to get 20% off
VLOGGING GEAR
Studio microphone - geni.us/rodentg4
Fujifilm X-T3 - geni.us/fujifil...
For steady shots - Zhiyun Crane 2 - geni.us/M24vjc
Drone I recommend - geni.us/zPs0p
Mic I use for walk and talk - geni.us/smartlavp
Recorder for walk and talk - amzn.to/2BE0hAM
Brilliant Tripod Jaws Clamp - amzn.to/2BBMLO2
Squirrels for Lav mic - amzn.to/2kgZtOa
#photography #landscapephotography #photos
A lot of comments about how the Nikon compares to the XT3. As the Nikon and the GFX were so similar I didn't do this comparison but assume similar results (apart from at the edges due to the lens).... AND thanks for watching
Nicely done, Nigel, and very impressive. Did you notice any significant differences in the dynamic range of the cameras, and do you think it's important? I wouldn't think it'd be as critical as lens sharpness, certainly, but I can have issues with noise in the shadows of my large prints. I use the D850 and wonder how the Z7 would compare. Anyway, we can always find more questions for you, but what you've done is quite impressive and most helpful. Thank you for making the effort to do it.
Hi Nigel, Fantastic video. Speaking of the differences lenses can make, I would love to see if using the XF 16mm lens when doing landscape photography with the XT3 would be much sharper than the XF 10-24mm Lens. or if you can do without filters another super sharp wide zoom lens I would love to see compared is the XF 8 - 16mm lens as it should also be a much sharper lens than the XF 10 - 24mm. Any chance of a follow up with either of these two lenses compared to you GFX50R? Dare I dream to see them both? I would love to see and hear your thoughts.
In few last 10-20 year, megapixel could make huge different for printing. But last few years, megapixel not really do huge affect to IQ, but still makes effect.
What would be the best print size for Nikon D500?
oh man, i've been printing wedding shots at 60x40inchs on a 12mp nikon d3 for years. noone has had a prob ever with the res .. even my commercial prints up to 6 meters - no worries. your standing many meters away and it looks mad still.
5 years later...Pretty good info here about pixel numbers. I actually went off to prove you wrong and proved myself wrong. Did not realise the pixel numbers for the Nikon and gfx 50 were the same on the horizontal. Now I see why ff vs gfx 50 isn't that much in res tests.
When I was studying art and photography in college, back in the late '80s, we were taught the basic rule of thumb for viewing art was a minimum distance of 1.5X the diagonal of the artwork.
You're right but unfortunately you're making a common mistake: you're assuming that customers buying these large prints wil know that. They won't. Customers will like what they like. And some customers definitely get a huge kick out of admiring the detail in a picture.
That's the difference between being an academic and actually having to make a living out of art.
@@mydemon well said. This is business not art if you want to make a living off of it.
Nice tip
A piece of advice that was given to me when I started was this: "Marry the lens, date the camera". Cameras will always be advancing leaps and bounds. But a good piece of glass will always make a difference.
Also, bonus points for the space invaders shirt. Love the channel and always jealous of your adventures.
I think most people viewing photos, unless they’re pixel peepers, would never know the difference , it’s only if you have the same images from different formats side by side like you showed that any difference would be noticeable. Thanks for your comparisons, as always , very informative and well done.
Nigel, have you tried using capture one for your Fuji XT? The difference between light room and capture one is unbelievable. There is much more detail in the shadows and the resolution is much improved. I also believe it renders more dynamic range as well. It’s like using an entirely different camera and the lens combination. I am using the capture one express which is a free version.
Welp
What I took away from this video was that an APS-C sensor camera works just fine, even with really big prints, because NO ONE sticks their nose in huge prints. They're meant to be viewed at a distance. 26 megapixels is more than enough for professionals, not to mention casual hobbyists.
@@akkual That's true, but I think that accounts for a pretty small percentage of relevance. This is just my experience, of course, but I hardly ever crop away significant amounts of pixels. That's because I make sure I get what I want in camera.
That is the wrong attitude, though. If we are talking about a hobbyist there really is no need for any discussion. A hobbyist can do whatever he wants, he can print an iPhone 3GS picture 100 inches wide and hang it on the wall if he likes it.
If we are talking about a professional who is starting out and doesn't have the funds, sure - do the best with what you have.
But if you are a professional and you have the means it absolutely makes sense to go the extra mile. It's the same in every field of excellence really. Great quality is not just about what a customer sees or recognizes. Take something like luxury mechanical watches: The consumer might never see the inside of the watch and yet he knows and expects the same quality inside as well as out.
Doing the best you can do is the right thing to do. Even if we don't take other aspects like future proofing, RAW data etc. into account
"because NO ONE sticks their nose in huge prints" ~ The "Mind's Eye" sees more than you give it credit for! ;)
I cannot even tell a difference when viewing prints with an electron microscope. Silly people, viewing photos from as far away as the length of their nose! Some people have really big noses. It's not even fair. Ok, seriously. This comment is spot on. If you can't see the whole print, you are too close for normal viewing. Lots of pros use cameras like the Olympus OMD EM1 Mk2 and that is even smaller than APSC. They get great results.
Really dumb question, if one day as someone new to photography actually takes a photograph worth printing. What type of printer is needed to produce quality images. Not to purchase but I'm sure he didn't go to a local drug store and have image printed. Lol would UPS have printer capable to accomplish the task? No worries now because with my Sony a6000 I spend more time deleting images than Saving them.
Nigel, I'm glad that you did this back to back test, especially when we are all totally over-whelmed by megapixels, mega-sized formats, mega-size lenses, etc. You hit the nail and the head, and that it, there are very few bad cameras these days, including entry level mirrorless and DSLRs. It is better that photographers buy the best lenses they can afford and focus on improving their techniques. I'm been to quite a number of exhibitions, and it is rare that photos are viewed at a distance of 6" of less. Thank you!
I remember Charlie Waite once saying - spend your money on good glass, don't worry about the camera, unless you are making very large prints - and you have just shown that still to be the case. Great example of side by side testing. Reassuring to know that the quality increases with cost in these examples, but changing to a different system is way more than I can justify, and I don't print bigger than A3+. I guess the Z & GFX lenses are good because they are bigger - like using a full frame lens on a cropped sensor body - you are in the best bit of the lens. Looking forward to seeing more lens tests.
I got the Zeiss Milvus 18mm for my z7. It is insanely sharp and the colors are amazing.
I encourage you to rent it and just try the Zeiss look!
I'd love to see a "pixel-shift" photo added to this comparison. For example the 80mp images the Panasonic G9 takes.
Thanks for taking the time to share your findings. I agree, lens quality is everything, that’s why I try to stick with prime lenses. I recently invested on a 50R coming from a X-T2 and I’m amazed about the overall resolution of the camera. The GFX system is quite something and still reasonably affordable (compared to Leica an Hasselblad).
What are your thoughts 8 months later on that new system?
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for taking the time to make these comparisions. I really enjoyed the video.
If I can give one tip of constructive feedback is that for comparisions like this would be great for us to have it in 4k so we can properly assess the differences. Minor request but perhaps it can be considered. :)
Once again thanks for the video.
I consider it but I do zoom digitally a lot so need 4K for that. When I can record in 8 K 👍👍👍
Nigel, you may try to convert your RAF images to DNG using Iridient X-Transformer with distortion correction OFF first ( this disables Fujifilm built-in lens correction ), then import to LR and process. No sharpening is required and you’ll be shocked how sharp is the Fujinon 10-24/4 lens actually. This way you get quite sharp corners and edges taken with optimal aperture (f/9). So, print quality also dramatically increase, as well.
Or you can use Capture 1
Regarding the Nikon Z7 + 16-35 and corner softness...you're going to get better results with the native Z lenses. You already know how good the 24-70 f/4 S lens is, so just imagine how good the 14-30 f/4 is when it's out in the public. I think it would be a better idea (and more fair) to use the new Z mount wide angle lens (but you can't since it's not here yet ;-)). I personally have never been thrilled about the corners in any F mount lens I've used, but I AM impressed by the one Z mount lens I have in the corners (24-70 f/4). I think you have a lens issue, not a camera issue.
Regarding Fuji - Makes you wonder why Fuji sticks with the X-Trans and doesn't go back to the Bayer like the GFX uses and the original X100. I personally would rather have the Bayer. Smaller files and easier/faster editing in Lightroom and NO noticeable difference to the sharpness, etc with Bayer. I've had the X-T1, X-T2, X100S and have an X-E3 now and none of them were any shaper or looked better than my old D750 and certainly not any sharper than my Z7. I think they're hyping the X-Trans too much and they need to get rid of it.
I think you'll find that the X-Trans is very capable in colour tonality, compared to the 24mp full frame Bayer. The reason being that the X-Trans filters the all important green spectrum more efficiently at 24mp. I tested these characteristics in pictures i took of Renaissance paintings. Indeed the X-Trans 24mp achieves the same colour tonality of the Fuji medium format Bayer sensor at 50mp.
Good information. Would love to see a test though where you put a prime on the XT3. Comparing a prime on the 50R against a zoom on the XT3 really handicaps the XT3 when you're talking about detail, no?
The X series primes are not as good as GFX primes, that's common knowledge.
@@TaipeiGeek yeah but zoom lenses are (no matter the brands) less sharp especially in corners compared to primes sooooo yeah the gfx 50r would still win but it would be a little bit better to compare prime "vs" prime instead of zoom vs prime
I feel like there's less IQ difference between Zooms and Primes in the Fuji X world as opposed to other brands and systems. Their zooms arr truly excellent. However I think you're making a good point. Its possible our man didn't have the right lens or possibly it's an oversight. You can still watch the video while taking this into account with regard to the conclusions you'd like to make.
@@TaipeiGeek argument doesn't make sense
After watching the video again, I agree with you Alex. It's grating to hear the comments on the Fuji being soft on the edges when a zoom lens is used. Its not pointed out clearly which I think its misleading. Not only that but it defeats the point of the comparison video.
Regardless, clearly the author is very passionate and went into a lot of work for this video. This video might not be perfect but they gained a new subscriber.
this is amazing how much picture looking better after being printed.
There is no substitute for great glass and great technique. Combine those two things with just about any decent digital camera on the market today and one can get great prints. I dare say IMO, that most people aren’t experienced enough to look at the corners of images with such a discerning eye as to deem the print as rubbish. Interesting comparison Nigel. Thanks for sharing as always. Cheers!
Hello Nigel, I didn't make a paper print but I have made a canvas print of a skyline shot of a city of Portland OR. and in order to overcome a lens softness at the angles using the Canon 24-105 by going too wide I actually zoomed in and made a panoramic shot which eliminates some of the lens imperfections. I shot an image that was printed using my old Canon 5D2 and the image every time I look at it looks great, mind you it was shot in good light. I have detailed information of windows etc.
Then again it really depends if the subject is small or big, because with a crop sensor when you photograph a large subject from a reasonable distance it revolves to a very acceptable resolution. There is a photographer in Austria that I follow and he shoots by combining two even three images with a 100 mega-pixel camera and the resolution and details that are resolved are outstanding, the images have a three dimensional look to them. So yes in order to get detail in any images I am a firm believer of having more pixels as long as there is no noise that is generated because of pixel density. The canon DSR which I don't have seems to resolve great detail in good light, then the shadows become noisy.
I realize that two issues are critical in a print noise and softness, softness is acceptable to a point but noise is horrible. Also pixels register differently dependent of subject matter, the dense the subject the softer the image, the less dense the subject the sharper the image. The more pixels then the more balanced the image with dense subjects. I find using the Nikon 810 has given me a compromise especially that the dynamic range is better than Canon. Landscapes are dense if you include everything in one shot but a panoramic shot allows for more detail hence of pixel density.
Some of my “best” large size prints hanging in my home were taken years ago with a Canon G 11 (1 in sensor) . Average viewing distance where they’re hung is 6ft.
I never want to go back and re- take the photos with my Nikon full frame, they are wonderful just the way they are.
Thanks for the video. It has confirmed to me that any semi recent APS-C with a half decent lens is pretty much sufficient for most people's needs. No need to spent tons of money on FF cameras and lenses.
There's can be a lot of reasons to look forward to Sundays, this channel is one among them for me.
An interesting comparison Nigel. From seeing this I bet looking at each of the images standalone you would have barely any reservations about any of them!
Exactly what I’ve recommended to my friends and family for years. It doesn’t matter if you have 600mp if your lens cant resolve it. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if you have 600mp and the best lens in the world if you don’t have knowledge of exposure and composition and the art of subtractive image creation. Also if you aren’t printing or cropping really deep, you don’t need a 50mp photo. Especially when instagram only uploads at 2mp max. Great video!
Thank you for taking the time to create this video. Honestly these are not really big enough prints to begin to illustrate the issues that big prints present especially with software and workflow techniques. Nigel is basically going straight to size and judging the output. Big prints need to be optimized and with optimization the size that can be hit BEFORE formats become limiting are much larger than what he is testing. Being the owner of the premiere US fine art print shop known for epic scale prints I have to say it is a VERY complex situation. Megapixels help to a point however the main hurdle to making enlargements is NOISE. When we make a 240” wide pano cropped from a single frame D850 every little processing glitch becomes an issue and noise is the main hurdle. Bottom line is the absolute best workflow from image conception to final file prep is mandatory. Medium format can help but it is not always so.
Excellent video as I have started printing. I only have an entry level DSLR (Nikon D3400) I do need to upgrade my lenses but this video has given me confidence in my camera body. Thanks Nigel
I’ve been thinking along similar lines recently with regards to lens choice and to be honest soft corners aren’t something that bother me too much. Often we are trying to guide a viewer through an image and not distract with corner sharpness so we end up putting on vignettes etc
With Sony the GM master glass is so much sharper than a lot of the other F4 offerings but so much heavier which makes it more of a slog to carry as much camping kit which ironically reduces the chances of getting a good shot. As you’ve mentioned before, subject, composition and light are so much more important.
Hello Nigel, If you are planning to continue using the X-T3 for landscape photography, I would recommend that you try out the new Fujinon XF8-16mmF2.8 R LM WR. It's a very expensive lens, but compared to the the 10-24, the corner sharpness is really quite unbelievable.
Thanks Brett. Actually tried it and at f8 the difference isn’t massive
Very interesting exercise. Thanks for doing this! It did make me think back to my days of striving for the best sound out of my audio system. The first thing I learned was that the most important part of the audio system was the speakers (lenses) and not the amplifier (camera body). If you use cheap speakers on the world's best high-end amplifier, it will sound horrible. If you pair an average amplifier, these days, with a really good pair of speakers, it will probably sound pretty good. An amplifier is just like a piece of wire with gain. The difficult part is the clean conversion of digital to analog or visa-versa. Most camera bodies these days can easily handle the electronics of converting the light hitting the sensor into a clean image. The analog job of converting the scene into a clean image, free from distortion, for the sensor to capture is the hard part. Certainly , bodies can have better DR and resolution, etc, but mostly, it's all about the glass!
Speakers are certainly important but for "old style" systems, the NEEDLE on the record player was critical as well, since that was what "picked up" the sound.
The best lesson I got from this was that you can simply divide one length in mp by 310 and get a measurement of biggest print size at that dpi... simple to understand now, but I was so lost before that!
Thanks! I concur with you about the critical importance of lenses. I'm a Fuji XT-2 and XT-3 user. I've found that at various comparable focal lengths, the XF 10-24 Is probably the least sharp , and softest in the corners, of all the (excellent!) Fujinon lenses. At anything from 10-16mm, the new 8-16mm produces markedly better images than the 10-24. At 16mm, the XF16mm prime is frankly in a league of its own! In the 16-55 range the XF16-55 is at least comparable to the 23 and 35.f1.4 lenses. But beyond that, the real 'blockbuster' lens from a sharpness and detail rendering both in the centre and the corners is the FX 50-140mm zoom. So it would be interesting to see what print quality at different print sizes you get with that lens? But your main point is in my view spot on: beyond a certain sensor size and resolution, it's the lenses that matter. Thanks again.
That 23mm is fantastic, I rented it one time and I was blown away. Thanks for the comparison
I was recently commissioned to do aerial shots ( drone) of my home town. I ended up stacking 12 vertical shots to make an panorama . the prints which look amazing are 6 meters long and 2.5 meters wide . I didn't think a mavic pro would be good enough but I was wrong
I think you nailed it. Lenses are more important and have a greater effect on the results for this kind of photography in daylight conditions.
Thank you Nigel, great work, as a GFX owner I am happy to see the results, but I think the comparison is not exactly fair, the 23mm on the GFX is probably one of the best wide angle lenses on the market, the 10-24mm zoom on the XT3 can’t be a match for that, I wonder how the results would have been in comparison with using the 16mm on the XT3 and a stitched panorama. But still great results, very reassuring
Great review! It would've been interesting to see these tests with quality prime lenses on the smaller sensor camera, not zooms. Cheers.
Exactly, this more of a lense comparison rather than camera comparison 🤦🏻♂️
Great video. I’m and X-T3 user, but not a fan of the 10-24. As you mentioned high quality glass makes a huge difference. I use the 8-16mm for wide angle shots and I believe that is a much better lens than the 10-24.
Great vlog, sometimes we need reality relayed in a simple manner, you really got that across, thank you.
Great content as always, great to see an actually reviewer of cameras do it in the field and show results.
I moved from Nikon to Sony last year and the main reason was lens quality. The 16-35 GM lens is so, so good that it just makes me smile every time I use it. I suffered with corner issues with wide Nikon lenses for 5 years. People say that the Sony lenses are expensive and I agree with that - but my search for a good wide angle lens on Nikon cost me far more as I went through 3x 16-35 F4s a 17-35 F2.8 and the 18-35.
Nigel, you lucky, lucky, person you! great information and perspective, I don't know why some people commenting here are so stuck-up, absolute resolution does matter, it allows flexibility to adjust and compensate, it's easier to take away too much data, much more difficult to add data that isn't there to start with!
I have the greatest admiration for the effort you take in presenting these wonderful, dynamics photographic exercises, it is all extremely inspirational. Thank you ND
Appreciate that Rick
What an enormous surprise. Upon close and critical inspection the camera system costing the same as a small family car produces better large format prints than an APS C camera. If you print and frame an image at A2 and hang it on the wall no one stands with their nose 6 inches from the glass analysing the dots. It’s all about viewing distance. Billboards on the underground and the streets are printed at 30dpi. How on earth did we manage in the days of film? Fujifilm's Provia 100 produced a resolution around 7 MP while their Velvia 50 produced a resolution around 16 MP yet still we happily printed A1 prints. There's more to photography than today's incessant preoccupation with technical excellence.
Eh! What film were you using? Velvia can resolve so much higher than that. But agree Photography is about the capturing of a story 👍
How wonderful you took the time to make these prints for the audience, Excellent video, I really appreciate your effort, and let me tell you that when I have photos on my wall, people do tend to come very close, as I photograph either birds or macro insects... Thanks a lot again, best regards from distant Uruguay.
You are very correct on the quality of glass. With my Nikon am only using Nikon lenses now - before was using Sigma and Tamron and the quality was not there
It was the colour rendering and contrast that struck me about the GFX prints compared to all the other examples.
Resolution is a technical detail, at any distance it is the colour and contrast that are more important in engaging with a printed subject.
I would have been interested to see a comparison with the Fuji 16mm f1.4 on the XT3 rather than the 10-24mm. The 16mm is incredibly sharp from edge to edge.
totally but would be unfair to compare a perfect lense against the rest :p
@@Guenounovitch well the GFX got its "perfect sharp" lens, the 23mm i think
Great video. Thanks for the comparison. A key piece of information left out by the “measurebaitors” pushing gear in reviews is the relationship between sensor size and printed image quality.
I’ve concluded, glass matters far more than megapixels of the camera body. I have a Nikon 16-35 f4 which works great on my D800. It’s softer on the D850. Lesson learned the hard way.
I am not in Printing my images “yet”. Thanks for comparing different print outs and sharing your experience on this topic!
By the way, it is great to see in your videos how you involve your family into your "photography live”.
Have a good Sunday Nigel!
Nigel, for the best sharpness from corner to corner for your X-T3 you should use 14mm f2.8 lens. From my experience nothing comes better than 14mm. The 16mm is excellent too, but from corner to corner I go with 14mm.
You my friend have just gained a new subscriber.
Your video was very informative, but what really pulled me in was your passion for photography and excitement you have for your work!
Keep it up Nigel! Cheers.
Hi Nigel. I've picked up on this video rather late. Pretty characteristic for me. This is a really valuable video and finding it has been very timely for me.
I've very recently invested in an X-T4 and some lenses and the results have been very favourable indeed. It has made me wonder why I have stuck with Canon for so long!
It strikes me that there is a place for very close attention to detail, whilst at the same time acknowledging that photography is both an art and a technical exercise, though it is often the latter that takes up much of the attention in the media. When I go to a gallery as well as viewing a picture from a distance I will also step forward to try and get some insight about how artist has created the illusion before me. That second part is not the purpose of the visit but enhances the experience. In photography a little more off that and a little less time on 'kit and whizz bang' might not go amiss. Though in fairness much of all sorts of media survives on building excitement for the next big thing and then possibly knocking it down.
PS Your channel amongst others is an antidote to that and the brash style that seems to accompany it.
I recently purchased the Z6 and used it in Arizona and was very impressed. I also shoot Fuji XT2 as well. Have not done any comparison yet between the two because I will use them differently. But the 6 is along with the S 24-70 lens is a great camera.
How tall are you? Either you're 6'9 or you're in a tiny house? Anyway, I appreciate the care and time it took to create this comparison. It answers a lot of questions about how and why size pixies, lenses matters.
Massive print at the beginning. Can't afford the "ink" for that size. Had one printed locally, my wonderful border collie being the subject. We were in Padley Gorge. Just LOVE IT!
Thanks for an informative video, Nigel.
I have a number of landscape books by New Zealand photographers that I use as a sort of reference for my own work.
There is one in particular - 'Looking For The Light' by Peter Latham. He uses a Mamiya 645 with a phase One P65 (60Mpix) back and Mamiya primes (and stitches images no less!) The level of detail reproduction in (some of) the printed images is nothing short of extraordinary. It blows everything else I have seen away.
I suspect his expert post production and in particular 'sharpening for print' has a lot to do with it, but it appears with the right equipment, and know how, the differences between cameras and resolution etc, can indeed be significant.
I think the obsession with sticking your eye right on a print and saying that things are soft or sharp, itself is really counterproductive. Print sizes (as paintings) were made to be viewed from a particular distance. The bigger the picture the further back really one should be viewing it. I think from an absolute standpoint there is no question about the issues of corner and center sharpness but from a relative standpoint (viewing distance) extreme analysis is questionable. But, the point of your vlog is the same that has always been true of photography -- the better the lens, the more precise the photo. Changing your camera every year might be great for us gearheads but makes much less difference in great photos. Spend most of your money on lenses for your chosen format and get the best picture box you can afford after that.
This. Unless you're actually hanging your work in a well-lit gallery, it is likely to be hung behind a sofa/couch, or in a similarly distant situation on a wall.
Having said that, it is very likely that a 24MP APS-C camera could make a print that seems "identical" to a 50MP FX or even MF camera, when viewed from across the room. For this reason I would have liked to see a Z6 thrown into the mix, but I know the constraints on getting that much gear all at once are not insignificant.
It is quite interesting though, that as a MFD commercial shooter, that when you watch a client look at a 200Megapixel image and the level of detail contained therein, they look at the image ina completely different way doe to the level of tiny detail... and thats actually because the detail is there. Interesting to watch. E
@@EwanDunsmuirImages commercial work is definitely a whole different ballgame. Party just because clients can be picky, but partly because they might actually need to crop that much, legitimately.
@@MatthewSaville - i actually meant Commercially as in selling large Landscape shots commercially. Its a small world as i have just watched some of your vids which are really cool. I had watched the radian timelapse vid aaaaages ago, when i was doing TL WITH 5D. Nice Job!
Regards
Ewan
Erich Stocker- your points are valid in themselves and concur generally with Nigel's (and my private ones too). Relevance, however, doubtful. What you call an obsession, IMO is an instinct that some (most?) homo sapiens samples have, not just pixel peeping nerds.
I used to shoot a EOS 100 with canon lenses, and a mamiya RB67. With Velvia 50, I could tell which pictures were shot on the mamiya, the resolution, depth of the image and the colour rendition almost gave the image a three dimensional quality that was noticeable even on book prints only A5 size or smaller. It wasn't just the resolution, there was something difficult to define about the medium format that just made the pictures zing. So the question is, beyond the simple gains in resolution on massive prints, does moving up to a medium format digital camera offer other benefits, like that beautiful rendering of my RB?
A very informative vlog, I feel even more confident that great prints can be attained from the images generated by my Nikon D7200.
I would love to have seen how the D850 stacks up. The lens used could very well be as important as the camera body (sensor) when it comes to these enlargements.
So for the XT3 what would be the best landscape lens? I noticed on the GFX you used a prime lens but not on the other cameras - How much difference do you think this made and would an equivalent prime on the XT3 improve the results?
Medium format mainly uses primes.
The best landscape lens for the X-T3 would probably be the 16mm f/1.4.
Thank you for this interesting comparison, Nigel. I shoot the Fuji XT2, Nikon D850, and Sony A7Riii, and I prefer the A7Riii for most applications. As for lenses, there are now so many outstanding FE lenses that surpass the Nikkor and Fujifilm lenses that if the ultimate determiner of output is realized in quality glass, Sony currently has the best overall ecosystem.
I don't print that big. But color saturation is amazing on GFX! I could say it straight away from this video which one is GFX. Did you edit it differently to others?
All edited to maximise their strengths. Colour on them all is pretty similar to be honest. I may have just processed slightly dofferent. My fault
I notice it on all GFX shots in general. I think the GFX, or maybe just MF has a tonality that APS-C and FF sensors can't match. I don't really want to drop that much $$$ but to be honest since I've been looking at a ton of GFX shots the tonality and exposure latitude of APS-C and FF just look bland to me. There's a depth in the color I don't see anywhere else. And I think it's more than just saturation or contrast.
Excellent as always Nigel. With all the new drool-worthy camera announcements that 2018 brought it's a service you do for us to nudge the focus back to the importance of lenses.
Thank you very much for those comparisons.
You have answered one of my major thoughts:
Mirrorless native lenses are sharper than DSLRs lenses adapted to ML, making them "must have" 👍
Not surprised that what matters most is the quality of the lenses. Thanks for the video it was still fun to see you compare these three cameras (and lenses)
Very interesting video which I think is quite an eye opener for a lot of people. The ultimate expression of a photographic image is a print. For most people viewing a framed print on the wall at home or even in a gallery A3 is big enough, A2 would be considered quite large. A lot of people would be delighted ito see one of their pictures printed in a book or magazine in which case they would probably be smaller than A4. So my point is that crop sensor cameras in the 20MP range are all 99% of people really need. Forget the depth of field and dynamic range difference you get with a more expensive and bulkier full frame camera. These differences will not transform your ability to see and get good pictures.
Good video Nigel and I fully agree about the importance of good lenses, photographers often seem to concentrate on camera's more. The Fuji medium format system is just fantastic and their GFX lenses are a big part of it. Regarding the XT3, the new 8-16mm is meant to be significantly better, I haven't tried it, but if you can get your hands on one, it would be worth doing a similar comparison. the only downside is that you can't put filters on it, we'll have to wait for third party adapters. Also might be worth trying a Fuji prime like the 16mm on the XT3??
Adrian
I agree. Using a prime lens on each camera would be a truer comparison, though it's near impossible to hold ALL the variables constant.
Thanks for doing this.... not everyone knows the difference between different sensors and the importance of lens quality. 👌🏼
Lens quality is paramount. S@d zooms, go primes, Zeiss produce some stunners BTW.
What are your aims? 1.5m prints to sell?
0.7m canvas for the home?
Social media?
A MF or LF camera with a prime lens will always win-out hugely over a 35mm Sony7Rmk3 or a Nikon D850.
Shot at f8-11, even printing at 0.75 - na, save you money, buy the Nikon / Sony.
Shoot a portrait at f2.5, now that's a different matter entirely.
Interesting comparison but in the real world many of us can’t afford the Fuji 50R never mind the lenses. Many of us haven’t got the house with the wall space for a print that big. Glass,glass,glass every time with the camera in your budget.
Take viewing distance into account, print images with the camera you can afford.
Great and incredibly helpful video. I own a Nikon D800E and I was planning to get a Fuji X-T3 for long walks or hikes. I do usually offer A3 or 16:20 prints on my website and I was amazed by the quality of the Fuji APSC prints you showed here. Won't go up to A2 with the Fuji but I now feel more than happy to get one and print images up to A3. The video also confirmed my feelings about the 16-35 Nikon. Great in the centre but lacking details in the corners. These days I rather take multiple images and stitch them in post than a single shot at whatever focal length.
Great comparison. I've found the 24-70 S to be a really nice lens as well and while I haven't printed 50" wide, I am certainly looking forward to doing so. I presume you'll be looking at the 14-30 S when it's released and probably the 20/1.8 S as well? I'm eagerly anticipating more native z-lenses becoming available. Thanks again for the print comparison, much appreciated!
Should have used prime lenses on all systems, primes are typically sharper then the zoom alternative.
Loving your videos Nigel! Really interesting content and a pleasure to listen to your style.
Hi Nigel, I’m lucky enough to live in the Peaks too, and having just rediscovered my motivation for photography, I just wanted to commend you on your easy to follow approach and your evident passion for your art. I’m hooked again, thank you. Kind regards Paul.
I enjoyed your research. I have a Z 50 and I use the 24-70mm f/2.8 or 50 & 85mm f/1.8, so I get edge to edge sharpness. If I add Topaz Gigapixel and NIK output sharpening to the mix, I bet I could get results similar to the Z 7 ii...perhaps???
Bit unfair comparing zoom lenses with a prime but other than that it just proves that 20-24mp cameras can produce perfectly acceptable images for most amateur use. 👍
He is not trying to tell us what camera is better, but what the difference is when you are printing.
@@jessecohen1 True. Still would be interesting how much better an APSC-sensor would fare with the sharpest possible lens.
I use a 4/3 13 megapixel sensor which means there are about 250 cells per linear millimeter. Printing at 240 dots per inch is the eye’s resolution at about 20 inches. So, this means the 12 x 18 millimeter sensor corresponds to a 12 x 18 inch print to be viewed at 20 inches. However, in the real world most people could not see, or would not notice, the dots of significantly larger prints.
Wonderful video, you never disappoint. So glad you’re back to your roots.
Very good video Nigel and proof were it ever needed that there is a reason why top lenses are expensive, as you say it's because they do make a huge difference
when printing largish prints. Having soft corners in landscape photography can ruin a good photo, different in say bird/ wildlife or model photography(or any genre actually) where the main interest is usually focussed away from the corners. No for landscape photography great lenses are vital. Hope you have decent weather for the trip to Scotland, stay safe. Cheers.
Excellent comparison Nigel, really interesting, the one thing that did not surprise me was the softness of the Nikon 16-35, I loved the lens when it came out in 2010 with my D700, but found it just couldn't cope with my D810 resolution. For walking and Landscape, I actually bought the new Tamron 17-36 DI OSD lens and it is so much sharper especially on the edges.
Interesting stuff Nigel. It's that quality of prime vs flexibility of zoom argument as well of course. My 25+ year old Nikon 105mm f/2.5 is still one of my best bits of glass !. Enjoy Torridon, I'm up there in a few weeks, hopefully we'll both get some snow !!
Yes! I've been using my Nikon 105 along with Super Takumar 50 & 35 & having a ball.
One of my favorite lenses is my Nikon 105 which I bought second hand 37 years ago, it’s just an amazing lens
Thanks for that compare.... I have got some questions: 1) do you use JPEG-out-of-camera? 2) do you use Lightroom or other raw-converter? 3) If use RAW-file, which was the developement settings for sharpening? ...
If you want to compare, you have to be very careful, HOW you do it? Otherwise, the result is not the "same"!!!
Have you had a chance to try the XF 8-16 yet for the X-T3?
i was thinking about the same thing. If the first reviews are to be believed, at 12mm it should be a good deal sharper than the 10-24 in the center and in a completely different league in the corners.
Indeed. I believe the XF 8-16 is weather resistant (important for me) while the 10-24 is not. For outdoor work in dodgy conditions, WR can be important.
I just watched Andy Mumford's review on this lens ruclips.net/video/8nTfoBWDOyI/видео.html on the XT-3 for landscape photography
A very well constructed, intelligent video on this subject Nigel. Thank you.
Thanks for all of your videos ! I am saving up for a x-h1. Full frame does cost a bit more and from what you have shown the cost to results,performance is little
Interesting - great practical comparison. There's also the artistic point that sharpness draws the eye. So if you're looking "at the picture" as opposed to "at sections of the image" that slight fall off in sharpness at the edge of the frame may be even less important.
The 50R images look beautiful. Maybe changing light made a difference? But wow that 50r is really nice.
Hi Nigel, thanks for a great comparison. One point though, the Fujifilm XF 10-24mm is WAY BELOW most of the XF lenses and it would have been much better to compare one of the primes (14mm, 16mm or 23mm) instead. It is very satisfying to see how well the X-T3 stands up compared to the larger sensor alternatives. (I have the X-T3 myself with 17 lenses, and sold the 10-24mm in favour of the primes).
Talk about splitting hairs. As for resolution, I think those huge roadside billboards are around 10 DPI
@@KrispyCrem3 True enough, BUT can you imagine driving down the road, and seeing a full size billboard with an actual 300 dpi photograph on it, obviously taken with a medium or large format digital camera? It would "capture" you so much that you would be distracted, and that's not safe. Of course, no advertiser REALLY wants to spend that much, but for the sake of discussion, *_imagine!_* ;)
I'm always walking close by those billboards thinking how much of a blotchy pixelated mess they look from the footpath, and wishing the photographer had had a 100MP medium format camera instead.
Imagine a world *without* billboards. One reason Europe is so photogenic is their absence.
I hate goddamn billboards lol
Really enjoyed this video, Nigel. Subscribed!
I’m awaiting my X-T3 right now, and I love what you’ve made me aware of with regards to print potential.
Thanks!
Enjoyed this video and your refreshingly candid thoughts without over-the-top hype. Agree with your conclusion about the lens quality being foremost - and - the larger pixels on the GFX 50R do those lenses justice. The Nikon 24-70 is a very sharp lens and fun to use. However, the field curvature at 24mm is quite noticeable and should be watched for. Thanks and keep up the good work!
50R colours are on the orange side... They have some orange tint Lil bit. Btw one take way is that you can do wonders with APS-c and really always need full-frame camera!
Really hard to tell from the video but APS-C seems great for large prints. Whatever gains you get with medium format digital don't seem worth the huge cost. Certainly not for my purposes and the needs for most of us I would think. I think you are correct on the lenses. I think they can really help an APS-C large print. Considering the cost of medium format, I would expect those to be great at 50 inches. That's a huge print.
Wow Nigel, another great video. I’ve just watched this again. What a very interesting exercise to open a discussion. Thanks for the advise to prioritise the best quality lenses. From these comparisons it appears that a prime lens (Fuji GF) will out perform good zoom lenses, - (Fuji XF & the Nikon) at the edges. As very interesting as this experiment is for practical purposes, as many people seem to shoot with zoom lenses, another comparison using only prime lenses may conclude that they are all very similar to each other and that you don’t need expensive 45 and 50 mpx cameras for 50” prints.
BUT how many unprofessionals are going to print at 50” ?? There was very little difference even close up at size A2 with Fuji’s crop sensor camera X-T3 so I’d expect the X-T3 or X-T4 with a prime Fuji lens (other camera systems are available!) will be much more than enough to satisfy most of us and without spending loads of money and lugging superfluous weight.
Will be interesting to see any effect on print quality of Fuji’s new 40 mpx X and H cameras and the new XF lenses being made for these sensors in 2022. The new XF primes, 23mm f1.4 and XF 33mm f1.4 have already been launched ready for the 40 mpx sensor.
I think unless you’re a professional printing extremely large, beware of the industry’s megapixel myth!! Any thoughts on this Nigel?
I once digitally printed a gallery of photos typically 24 x 30 inches -- all from a 300 dollar 5 Mpx point and shot camera with a 12x zoom. According to signal theory, it was good enough (barely), and anything more is mostly one-click convenience and conspicuous consumption.
Great Video Nigel. I would compare the Fuji primes in this focal length mainly the 14mm/16mm or the Laowa 9mm which is great. I think it proves your point that the lens is what really matters
Great video. I would love your perspective on the color rendition. The oranges and reds from 50R seemed more vibrant than the other two cameras.
I am a first adopter, gear-acquisition-syndrome-loving photographer , who has owned or used every type of camera imaginable , and I couldn't agree more , all the while being surprized that people find this a revelation . Cameras today are so amazing and superior to what was used in any previous point in time ( although digital camera sensors still struggle with over-exposure as compared to film ) . We get hung up on the features and specs, but like another passion of mine - guitars vs amps - it's the lens that can really be a game-changer to your final results. True, so much can be fixed in post-editing , but in general, better glass gives you increased sharpness, contrast, less lens aberration & flare, and greater saturation . And don't feel that you have to buy the best Fstop lens available unless that fits the style of photography that you are doing. No sense in spending $2500 to buy an F2.8 version of a lens that can be only $ 1300 if it's widest aperture is F4 if you are doing landscapes - since you are shooting at much wider apertures anyway. Adam Gibbs had a good video on that with his various Nikon lens that he uses.
Great video and explanation, and having the prints here to show the relatively small differences at normal viewing distances is a fantastic idea. Keep up the great work and well-done.
I don't know if it's really a photo hack or not, but if you have an APS-C camera you can increase the resolution by using HDR or - why not - panorama HDR. I think it's an interesting case when you compare a panorama HDR of the X-T3 with a single shot of the GFX 50R on a very large print.