Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

With all these giant-sensor cameras being announced - is it too much?
Old 09-26-2018   #1
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,651
With all these giant-sensor cameras being announced - is it too much?

. . . How many of you are using most of the data your current camera produces? Lordy, I'm not.

Tell you why I am asking. My data sweet-spot appears to be between 12-18 MP. My Nikon D3 and Leica M9 give me a level of resolution that approaches what I remember medium format did, back in the old days. But even then I wind up jettisoning much of the data before I hit "print" or "send."

I also have a relatively new-to-me Pentax K-1. The thing is brilliant. Great dynamic range, great resolution. But it produces 50 MB RAW files. Heck, I can't eat that much data on an empty stomach! I usually throw out all but about 2 MB of that data. . .You see where I am going with this?

It appears that I am discarding around 95% of what the camera is producing. . . . what am I going to do with a chip that produces even MORE 101010110001?

So: how many of you are actually using all (or most) of the bits and bytes your camera is producing? If not, are you jettisoning data? What percentage? Are we on the road to data bloat?

Inquiring minds. . . and all that.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #2
Scapevision
Registered User
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 469
Bigger sensors, not megapickles!
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #3
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scapevision View Post
Bigger sensors, not megapickles!
LOL, but who cares? Can you sell more MP to the public? Can we even use them, if we buy them? What would we use them for that we don't already have with the current crop of FF sensors?

Legitimately curious here. . .
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #4
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,235
Use that sensor/pixel shift tech in that K1 and then look at your file size haha. But man look at the result.

As for me I get off the bus at 16mp. Perfectly adequate for me. 18X20 is the biggest I ever print but I think something even bigger is possible because my pickles are awful clean. Plus my puter loves me for this I know.

Another note. When I look at snaps made with cameras like 5D1, 5D2, D700, D3, S5Pro, etc I like them more than anything made by most everything newer. All of them way less pickles than this new stuff.
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #5
Larry H-L
Registered User
 
Larry H-L is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 579
Some cameras now offer “small RAW” in the menu options, so maybe the manufacturers realize your concerns.

I just watched a YouTube video showing a billboard print... 2 mp.

I keep the big files, but they definitely burn up hard disk space.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #6
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
I usually throw out all but about 2 MB of that data. . .You see where I am going with this? It appears that I am discarding around 95% of what the camera is producing.
If your final image files are 2MB, then your cameras are already overkill and you have no need for larger sensors.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #7
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,279
I use all the silver my film develops.

Okay seriously my D800E is a great camera and for commercial work the ability to crop quite a lot when needed is also nice, while keeping the resolution good. For me I hate going back to 12mp when shooting my old D700. 24mp minimum for digital FF IMO.

Oh and as for file space, 1GB 4x5 scans are worse.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #8
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
LOL, but who cares? Can you sell more MP to the public? Can we even use them, if we buy them? What would we use them for that we don't already have with the current crop of FF sensors?

Legitimately curious here. . .
It depends on what you mean by current crop of full FF sensors. For Leica, it is 24MP, with a sensor size of 6000x4000. Most good printers have an optimum resolution of 300dpi. That means a print size of 20x13. You can print at a lower dpi but you sacrifice quality. If you don't print larger than 20x13, and don't routinely crop your images, you are all set.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #9
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,380
More megapixels can be valuable for two situations in particular that I can think of readily - for non pro users.

The first is where you want to crop the final image for a closer shot say, while still maintaining a good pixel count for a large final image file. That strikes me as useful. In effect this is more or less what I am doing when I shoot with a cropped sensor camera.

The second is for some landscape photography. It bothers me when I make a landscape shot with the best camera and best lens at the best aperture setting - only to find when I zoom in there is little real detail due to the camera I used having a smaller pixel count sensor.

For pro users of course the ability to produce big prints may be essential to their clients so the more data the better for that kind of pro user.

Having said this, I recall that back in maybe the year 2000 or a little before, when digital cameras were just kicking off and 1 megapixel cameras were the "newest and the best" I read an article that said that depending upon the assumptions made, a 35mm negative had about 25-30 megapixels of data in them. It followed that once we had sensors of that size (and back then it seemed an almost impossible dream) we would have all that was needed from digital cameras in order to match 35mm film photography. Well, we are now there on the mega pixel front. In fact, not just there - we are well beyond.

I think that particular technology race is coming to its logical conclusion and has already switched to a race for better dynamic range etc - something which has already improved greatly but still has some way to go.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #10
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
Having said this, I recall that back in maybe the year 2000 or a little before, when digital cameras were just kicking off and 1 megapixel cameras were the "newest and the best" I read an article that said that depending upon the assumptions made, a 35mm negative had about 25-30 megapixels of data in them. It followed that once we had sensors of that size (and back then it seemed an almost impossible dream) we would have all that was needed from digital cameras in order to match 35mm film photography. Well, we are now there on the mega pixel front. In fact, not just there - we are well beyond.
I don't think we should be satisfied with 35mm film equivalent quality from digital. Lots of us sought higher quality with MF and LF.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #11
Benjamin Marks
Registered User
 
Benjamin Marks is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterm1 View Post
I think that particular technology race is coming to its logical conclusion and has already switched to a race for better dynamic range etc - something which has already improved greatly but still has some way to go.
I agree with all of that, but particularly this last bit. I am certainly "there" in terms of base-level sensor quality. I think I have been since 2008 or so. But dynamic range is really where I'd like to see improvement.
__________________
Benjamin’s Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #12
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,485
If you look at some of the cameras pros are using, the MP count isn't huge. For a long time, many ADs were comparing digital camera output to a scanned 8x10 chrome. With the demise of big film, companies like Phase One took up the market with big sensors. They just graduated to a larger format sensor with a big MP count.

I could argue that no one needs that much information for publication. I was competing with 8x10 when using Kodachrome for AD work. I'm sure that some scientific recordings make good use of a huge MP count. But, it's not of much use to the photo artist unless you print really big like Gursky.

XF IQ4 150MP Camera System (full frame medium format sensor)
The XF IQ4 150MP Camera System provides unparalleled resolution and detail, allowing you to produce RAW images that are larger than life, for limitless editing possibilities. The XF IQ4 150MP Camera System is much more than the world’s first 151-megapixel camera – it’s a forward-thinking companion for producing the most creative and ambitious photographic visions.
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Camera-S...ra-System.aspx
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #13
Pioneer
Registered User
 
Pioneer's Avatar
 
Pioneer is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Age: 65
Posts: 3,108
We just keep on buying them so they keep on building them bigger and bigger.

As for dynamic range, digital passed film on that front quite some time ago but that old myth keeps getting kicked around anyway.

I hate to break the news to everyone; there are a lot of reasons to keep using film but using it because it produces better technical files than digital is not one of them.

Of course, as always, technical perfection is not the measure of a great photograph and never has been.
__________________
You gotta love a fast lens;

It is almost as good as a fast horse!
Dan
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-26-2018   #14
Archlich
Registered User
 
Archlich is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,260
There're many 24MP cameras around, of which the RAW file sizes are around 20MB. Just buy accordingly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #15
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,369
Years ago I experimented with printing, because I had a new printer and it was a big leap forward after the old one.

One of the things I did was some large prints (a little over 18" x 12") from crops so that they were 100 dpi. That had the advantage of being from the centre of the originals and so the best bit of the lens was in use and I reckon that the lens is an important part of this. Anyway, at that size no one held them in their hands and looked at them like we do 4"x6" and so on. So the prints hung on the wall and looked good.

That was just using about 2 megapixels...

So I reckon I could get a 5ft by 3ft 4ins poster from 24 mp and more as you'd have to stand so far back from it that you'd not see the individual pixels...

Now the question is; how many of us look at our photo's on the screen when the computer cuts them back to about 1 mp to fit the screen? Even smaller if they are using a smart phone and never back them up out of the 'phone...

And the second question is do people think or care about it?

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #16
al1966
Feed Your Head
 
al1966's Avatar
 
al1966 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Years ago I experimented with printing, because I had a new printer and it was a big leap forward after the old one.

One of the things I did was some large prints (a little over 18" x 12") from crops so that they were 100 dpi. That had the advantage of being from the centre of the originals and so the best bit of the lens was in use and I reckon that the lens is an important part of this. Anyway, at that size no one held them in their hands and looked at them like we do 4"x6" and so on. So the prints hung on the wall and looked good.

That was just using about 2 megapixels...

So I reckon I could get a 5ft by 3ft 4ins poster from 24 mp and more as you'd have to stand so far back from it that you'd not see the individual pixels...

Now the question is; how many of us look at our photo's on the screen when the computer cuts them back to about 1 mp to fit the screen? Even smaller if they are using a smart phone and never back them up out of the 'phone...

And the second question is do people think or care about it?

Regards, David
The viewing distance is important and does make a difference, someone like Burtinsky intends for his large prints to be somewhat studied closer up to reveal the information held with in. A lot of other work is made not to be studied in this manner but viewed as a whole and the further we move away the lower the DPI that is required. The massive billboards are very low resolution per inch as the viewing conditions don't require it. Personally I have done an A0 from a Ricoh GX100 but that was over laid images (ones in my avatar) and the 60x40 inch from a 16mp m43 camera no one complained about quality. I have been told by a retoucher that high res files do make their work a lot easier though.
__________________
Life is a series of photographs surrounded by the worthless bits

http://jamesagrady.blog.com/
http://randompicture.wordpress.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #17
Axel100
Registered User
 
Axel100's Avatar
 
Axel100 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
. . . How many of you are using most of the data your current camera produces? Lordy, I'm not.
Me too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
If not, are you jettisoning data? ...
No. I keep them as they are. But I don´t do that RAW-stuff. My JPGs are from my 5 to
18(?) MP cameras.

I generally do not care for the amount of pixels a camera produces.

My pictures are taken for viewing as a whole only. So it doesn´t matter how many details there
*could* be. If I need big prints and there are too few data I can scale them up to any size the
printer is happy with
__________________
its all Fuji my photos here
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #18
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,265
Since the camera in many phones is as good as the m8 was there is little room for the camera companies to not keep upping the sensors. Why lug around a camera if the phone makes equal or better pictures?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
...As for dynamic range, digital passed film on that front quite some time ago but that old myth keeps getting kicked around anyway.

I hate to break the news to everyone; there are a lot of reasons to keep using film but using it because it produces better technical files than digital is not one of them...
Bravo on both counts. I am getting ready to sell off most or all of the 810 equipment since seeing what the X1D can really do.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

24 X 36 mm Is No Longer Full Frame
Old 09-27-2018   #19
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,296
24 X 36 mm Is No Longer Full Frame

It is amusing that some people who insisted 24 X 36 mm sensors are required pay no heed to the newer cameras with more surface area.

Granted, the increase in area is only 1 2/3 – 1,441 mm sq. vs 864 mm sq. However the total maximum signal level is higher. So there is a significant increase on potential signal-to-noise ratio.

The surface area difference is smaller than APS-C vs 24 X 36 mm cameras. But every single argument people made to justify 24 X 36 mm sensor areas is equally valid for the 43.8 x 32.9mm sensors.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #20
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
... But dynamic range is really where I'd like to see improvement.
Get a 24 X 36 mm camera with dual conversion gain(1). Better yet, use a 43.8 x 32.9 mm (or larger surface area) camera.

Here's some data as measured and computed by Bill Claff (scroll down for the table.

The columns are

dynamic range| low-light ISO| low light EV


FujiFilm GFX 50S 11.90 7853 11.30

Hasselblad H6D-50c 12.01 6400 11.00

Hasselblad X1D-50c 11.98 9058 11.50

Leica S (Typ 007) 11.36 6400 11.00

Nikon D850* 11.63 4115 10.36

Pentax K-1 II* 11.60 7669 11.26

Phase One IQ3 13.06 12800 12.00

The * indicates dual-conversion gain sensors. The dynamic range data is about a constant 2 stops lower than engineering dynamic range. I only included cameras with DR > 11.

1. Photo-diode circuits can be optimized for dynamic range or sensitivity, but not both. The circuits' conversion gain level determines which property is favored. Dual conversion-gain cameras use two different gain settings. One is for bright light (low camera ISO settings) and the other is for low light (high camera ISO settings).
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #21
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
 
semi-ambivalent is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: DenCo, USA
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pioneer View Post
Of course, as always, technical perfection is not the measure of a great photograph and never has been.
Yep, same as it ever was. But it's good to re-visit, I guess.

Best,
s-a
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #22
bulevardi
Registered User
 
bulevardi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brussels
Posts: 145
What I was interested in was the ISO in digital cameras.
I now have a 'modern' DSLR where the MP are quite high already, but the ISO just starts at 100... and than I ask myself:
Why can't they get the ISO starting with 25 or so. You can still buy 25 iso films from ADOX for example, which should theoretically be more fine than a 100 iso digital, or am I wrong in that?
__________________
http://users.telenet.be/bulevardi/ << 【insta~flickr】
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #23
Scapevision
Registered User
 
Scapevision is offline
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Toronto
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulevardi View Post
Why can't they get the ISO starting with 25 or so. You can still buy 25 iso films from ADOX for example, which should theoretically be more fine than a 100 iso digital, or am I wrong in that?
I can't imagine any finer details than what I get from ISO 100 on Sony A7r. Does it even exist? I believe, in all the modern glory digital sensors the <100 iso is just to make the shutter speed go down, nothing else.
__________________
Flickr
scapevision.ca
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #24
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,724
I have been reading this same question of "have we reached the point of enough megapixels?" and the same answers for years and years. I see us simply being on this continuum of max megapixels, currently somewhere around the 48mp mark now. But the questions and answers were the same back at the 24mp mark, or the 12mp mark. I don't remember anyone saying long ago that the 6mp max was simply not enough and we really needed XXmp. In a few years, we will be asking if 80mp is finally enough? or when we get to 120mp? 240mp? By then CPU's will be so fast and mass storage so large those will not be a factor.

I believe similar questions were once asked, is this blazing fast ASA 25 film fast enough? Or, now that we have ASA 100 film, it that fast enough? Wow, this new Tri-X is iso 400, certainly that is fast enough. Delta 3200? No one could ever need an iso higher than that, we said.

Does any of this really matter?
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2018   #25
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,746
I have no problem with huge MP counts as long as storage is cheap and computers are powerful enough (while being cheap).

I just hope they do not forget to make small cameras with large sensors...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-28-2018   #26
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,296
Why can't they get the ISO starting with 25 or so. You can still buy 25 iso films from ADOX for example, which should theoretically be more fine than a 100 iso digital, or am I wrong in that?


The answer is the sensitivity would become unacceptably low.

By acceptable I mean very few buyers would prefer ISO 25 instead of shadow region image quality.

There is no IQ advantage to a low calibrated exposure index (a.k.a. camera ISO setting). Once you use a shutter time and aperture that maximizes the photo -diode full-well capacity, you will also maximize the IQ.

The exposure index meter calibration plays no direct role.

Unfortunately increasing full well capacity decreases sensitivity.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-28-2018   #27
martinkirchner
Registered User
 
martinkirchner is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post

The answer is the sensitivity would become unacceptably low.
So, a build in ND-Filter would be great as a compromise.
We (all the photographers) have fast lenses, but the digital cameras were too sensitive for them. So a build in Filter would be good.

On the Topic-Question:
It is hard to believe for me that Nikon and Canon didn't talked with each other.
FF-Mirrorless-Cameras announced nearly at the same time, while years and years before that they weren't able to build it?
Its like the new feature the cameras get now and then which were advertised as the game-changing big deal.

In my opinion there were also ugly as hell. They don't look like a tool to take photos, they look like computers with a lens (which - in fact - they are)
Why not a design like the nikon F3 or S2 or Canon AE-1 or Canonet G-III...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-28-2018   #28
bulevardi
Registered User
 
bulevardi is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brussels
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post

The answer is the sensitivity would become unacceptably low.
For me it would be acceptible ^^
Would there be reciprocity failure during long exposures otherwise? Like with films?

I like to play with long exposures, and I'm limited to shooting at night (I always use 100 iso for night shots, on tripod).
However, I can shoot sometimes during daytime too, but then I need a 25 iso roll, or ND-filters (which I don't have for each lens when using my DSLR). It's nice to have longs exposures in daytime though.
Will have to look for my ND again, will experiment someday again with that.
__________________
http://users.telenet.be/bulevardi/ << 【insta~flickr】
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-28-2018   #29
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
. . .
So: how many of you are actually using all (or most) of the bits and bytes your camera is producing? If not, are you jettisoning data? What percentage? Are we on the road to data bloat?

Inquiring minds. . . and all that.
Don't know, don't care.

Most of the time I use Raw files exported as JPEGs. Looks better than out of the camera JPEGs and they print nicely. I'm sure this is clinically not the way to achieve the best image quality but I don't care because the pictures look good.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-28-2018   #30
joe bosak
Registered User
 
joe bosak is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 93
Personally, can't afford to keep upgrading and i haven't yet learnt to use what i do own to my satisfaction yet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #31
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bosak View Post
Personally, can't afford to keep upgrading and i haven't yet learnt to use what i do own to my satisfaction yet.
That`s a great place to be though...
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #32
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bosak View Post
Personally, can't afford to keep upgrading and i haven't yet learnt to use what i do own to my satisfaction yet.
I think it is more about being aware of the capabilities of you camera rather than learning how to use each of them. It is a little bit like learning software, say MS Word for example. I only use a small subset of its capabilities. For new cameras I am looking for improvements in image quality, not new features.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #33
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinkirchner View Post
So, a build in ND-Filter would be great as a compromise.
We (all the photographers) have fast lenses, but the digital cameras were too sensitive for them. So a build in Filter would be good.
...
That's right. Or an on lens ND filter for those rare times when a shorter shutter time is not a viable solution.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #34
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulevardi View Post
For me it would be acceptible ^^
Would there be reciprocity failure during long exposures otherwise? Like with films?

I like to play with long exposures, and I'm limited to shooting at night (I always use 100 iso for night shots, on tripod).
However, I can shoot sometimes during daytime too, but then I need a 25 iso roll, or ND-filters (which I don't have for each lens when using my DSLR). It's nice to have longs exposures in daytime though.
Will have to look for my ND again, will experiment someday again with that.
There is no phenomenon analogous to reciprocity failure.

However, for exposures times longer than about 1minute fixed-pattern noise become visible. There are noise filtering solutions and some brands offer in-camera dark-frame subtraction to minimize this problem
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #35
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe bosak View Post
Personally, can't afford to keep upgrading and i haven't yet learnt to use what i do own to my satisfaction yet.
Same here, I don't think I've bothered to look in the menu for more than the ISO and metering...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #36
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
. . . How many of you are using most of the data your current camera produces?
I am!

I have 42 MP - but need more!

I've an exhibition on as part of Brighton Photo Fringe 2018, and my prints are A1 size (35 inches) on lightboxes - see below. They were taken with a 36 MP Nikon but at this size they are not quite as sharp as I'd like - passable but could be better...


Attached Images
File Type: jpg BPF_2018_Rich.jpg (30.9 KB, 125 views)
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #37
MCTuomey
Registered User
 
MCTuomey's Avatar
 
MCTuomey is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: U.S.
Age: 65
Posts: 3,309
No, not too much if, say, you shoot landscapes (and print big) where a small, lightweight hi-res camera and some nice, compact MF lenses are a benefit for travel.

I like the 16-24 max space for what I do, but I see the benefit of the 36+ max bodies. Amazing what can be had for the money.
__________________
--Mike

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #38
maggieo
More Deadly
 
maggieo's Avatar
 
maggieo is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nebraska, USA
Posts: 3,849
For editorial and commercial studio photographers, this is going to be a boon. If your work is going up on a two-story Times Square billboard, the more pixels the better. Giant files make pixel-by-pixel retouching and manipulation easier and more precise.

As mentioned above, these cameras are like 8"x10" view cameras. Detail, detail, detail, is where it's at.

Those bigger than 35mm sensors have, according to the writing of folks who use the, amazing range and resolution, since they all use top-line lenses.
__________________
My Flickr Photostream & My Photo Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-29-2018   #39
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by maggieo View Post
For editorial and commercial studio photographers, this is going to be a boon. If your work is going up on a two-story Times Square billboard, the more pixels the better. Giant files make pixel-by-pixel retouching and manipulation easier and more precise.

As mentioned above, these cameras are like 8"x10" view cameras. Detail, detail, detail, is where it's at.

Those bigger than 35mm sensors have, according to the writing of folks who use the, amazing range and resolution, since they all use top-line lenses.
I can't argue with that but I hope newcomers reading these posts realise that a mega-megapixel camera needs a harem of expensive lenses and a very large printer that will cost a fortune in ink cartridges to run.

Being practical I'd suggest for everyday use an eight mp camera would suffice; I can remember when they were saying it means printing at A3 (about 12" x 16½") and so should be more than adequate for A4 or A5. And you won't run out of wall space quickly either.

Alas, I don't see many 8 mp cameras about these days but I expect smartphones are going that way if not already there.

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-30-2018   #40
Argentia1
Registered User
 
Argentia1 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Marks View Post
So: how many of you are actually using all (or most) of the bits and bytes your camera is producing? If not, are you jettisoning data? What percentage? Are we on the road to data bloat?

Inquiring minds. . . and all that.
What do we do with our digital images in 99.5% of the cases?
We only look at them on computer monitors.
Our computer monitors have only 2k or 4k resolution. So our 12, 24 or 35 MP images are only 2 MP or 8 MP images in real viewing situations.
We pay and waste huge amounts of money for high megapixel count just to destroy that resolution afterwords by using the imaging chain with the lowest quality (computer monitor).

For image quality not your input data, but the whole imaging chain is the decisive factor. That fact is mostly ignored by photographers. Also due to the marketing of the manufacturers: They concentrate their marketing messages on pixel count in the camera.
But this high pixel count cannot be fully used with the imaging chains computer monitor and digital projection.
It looks better in printing: But how often do you really print big?
For a 300dpi print of 30x40cm 18 MP are enough.
How often do we really print bigger than 30x40 centimeters?
And even if we do: For bigger prints the viewing distance is also bigger, so 300dpi are not needed, we can use 200 or 150dpi. So the 18 MP remain absolutely sufficient even for bigger prints.
We should be honest to ourselves:
We are wasting now too much money for high megapixel cameras. In 99.99% of the situations we either don't need that megapixel count, or we just cannot fully use it because of the strong limitations in the digital imaging chain (monitors, digital projection).

I have decided to stop being a part of that extremely expensive megapixel upgrading rat race.
I spend the money instead on travelling and making images on my journeys.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:05.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.