Bill Pierce
Well-known
The increase in megapixels in the sensors of digital cameras may change the way we work.
When the Leica Q2 appeared we saw a camera with fixed lens produce what we think of as pictures taken with a 28, 35, 50 and 75mm lenses by cropping the images from a 47 megapixel, full frame sensor. Four months later, when the Sony A7 R IV hit the market with a 61 megapixel, full frame sensor, the same serious cropping possibilities hit a camera where you could choose a longer focal length lens.
Actually, the one lens and crop is not a new technique. 1950’s news photographers most often used the 4x5 Speed Graphic with a modest wide angle that coupled to the camera’s rangefinder, cropping the large negative to a tighter shot when needed. You could do that with the large film format and now you can do it with a number of digital cameras - something that was a little bit iffy in the days of 10 megapixel digital. Truth is the relatively common 24/26 megapixel sensors, even the 16 megapixel sensors can handle a crop and still deliver a decent relatively large print. This is a print discussion. The demands of the computer screen are far less.
But, if you are to take advantage of the increased power of high megapixel sensors, whether for big prints, cropping or a combination of both, you are going to need good lenses. Although it relies heavily on corrections in computer imaging programs, the lens on the Q2 is a very good lens. Turn to cameras with interchangeable lenses like the A7R IV and you may need an upgrade on some of your old lenses to take advantage of the new camera. Mark Alhadeff is a knowledgable Sony user and he outlines some of the lens changes he has made in moving from The A7R III to the IV.
https://sonyalpha.blog/2017/12/06/my-gears-as-sony-ambassador-some-alternative-kits/
I use a variety of gear, but do use a Sony A7R IV as a sort of digital view camera with Voigtlander Apo Lanthar, Zeiss Loxia and a few select Sony lenses.
More important, your accompanying technique has to compliment, not defeat, the ability of the camera. That means tripod or high shutter speed, optimum aperture and accurate focus, e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c.. Given those, many of today’s cameras deliver results beyond our needs. My final thought - sharpness isn’t everything - at least, not all the time. But I sure do like cropping.
Your thoughts?
When the Leica Q2 appeared we saw a camera with fixed lens produce what we think of as pictures taken with a 28, 35, 50 and 75mm lenses by cropping the images from a 47 megapixel, full frame sensor. Four months later, when the Sony A7 R IV hit the market with a 61 megapixel, full frame sensor, the same serious cropping possibilities hit a camera where you could choose a longer focal length lens.
Actually, the one lens and crop is not a new technique. 1950’s news photographers most often used the 4x5 Speed Graphic with a modest wide angle that coupled to the camera’s rangefinder, cropping the large negative to a tighter shot when needed. You could do that with the large film format and now you can do it with a number of digital cameras - something that was a little bit iffy in the days of 10 megapixel digital. Truth is the relatively common 24/26 megapixel sensors, even the 16 megapixel sensors can handle a crop and still deliver a decent relatively large print. This is a print discussion. The demands of the computer screen are far less.
But, if you are to take advantage of the increased power of high megapixel sensors, whether for big prints, cropping or a combination of both, you are going to need good lenses. Although it relies heavily on corrections in computer imaging programs, the lens on the Q2 is a very good lens. Turn to cameras with interchangeable lenses like the A7R IV and you may need an upgrade on some of your old lenses to take advantage of the new camera. Mark Alhadeff is a knowledgable Sony user and he outlines some of the lens changes he has made in moving from The A7R III to the IV.
https://sonyalpha.blog/2017/12/06/my-gears-as-sony-ambassador-some-alternative-kits/
I use a variety of gear, but do use a Sony A7R IV as a sort of digital view camera with Voigtlander Apo Lanthar, Zeiss Loxia and a few select Sony lenses.
More important, your accompanying technique has to compliment, not defeat, the ability of the camera. That means tripod or high shutter speed, optimum aperture and accurate focus, e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c., e.t.c.. Given those, many of today’s cameras deliver results beyond our needs. My final thought - sharpness isn’t everything - at least, not all the time. But I sure do like cropping.
Your thoughts?
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Artificial Intelligence is coming to image processing. Photoshop does this now, where a photo file is multiplied in size with no loss of detail. This technology is only going to get better, thus making the need for bigger sensors unnecessary.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Here's a write-up about the Photoshop Super Resolution technology:
https://petapixel.com/2021/03/13/adobe-photoshops-super-resolution-made-my-jaw-hit-the-floor/
https://petapixel.com/2021/03/13/adobe-photoshops-super-resolution-made-my-jaw-hit-the-floor/
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
this might lead to a never ending megapixel race and it will be worse than the super fast lenses war...even more so, as unlike fast lenses there is no physical design limitations to this.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Jamie - Here's a write up that puts limitations on super resolution. It indicates that in some situations the many megs would do a better job than super res.
https://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotog...aw-what-it-is-what-it-is-not-and-tips-for-use
I don’t stress it. Technology always marches along. You can choose to follow or just use the myriad of choices from photography’s camera and technical history. I think it always nice to know you can print large if you need it. It really depends on what purpose you use photography for. A 100mp image is 40” on the long side printed at 300dpi. In a gallery or museum setting, that’s nice to have. You can always print smaller. As far as súper resolution, you can choose to use it or not. It could come in handy. Again, I don’t stress these changes. They are simply additional tools you can use or ignore.
agentlossing
Well-known
I like that MP counts have gotten high enough to do some judicious cropping - I don't want or need anything beyond that. I've no desire to make a 28mm lens "act like" a 75mm. If I did then I picked the wrong camera/lens in the first place. There will always be characteristics of digital sensors that look better not massively cropped in.
But I do appreciate the move away from my 6MP Nikon DSLR, my 12MP and 16MP M4/3 sensors, into the 24MP of my GRIII and KP. That's plenty of latitude if I don't get the right frame or don't have room to zoom with my feet.
Confession: I do use the 50mm crop on the GRIII sometimes, but really only when taking product photos to put my other camera gear up on eBay when it doesn't suit me as well as the GRIII does.
But I do appreciate the move away from my 6MP Nikon DSLR, my 12MP and 16MP M4/3 sensors, into the 24MP of my GRIII and KP. That's plenty of latitude if I don't get the right frame or don't have room to zoom with my feet.
Confession: I do use the 50mm crop on the GRIII sometimes, but really only when taking product photos to put my other camera gear up on eBay when it doesn't suit me as well as the GRIII does.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm finding digital zoom to be practical with iPhone. Awesome feature to photograph serial numbers and asset tags.
Regarding photography, I kind of learned how to frame it right from get go.
Except 6x6. Always liked it at 8x10
. I get rid of all 6x6.
I also like it as close as possible to SOOC.
And I like lenses as they are.
But it would be nice to have, use framelines in EVF, IMO, which is only possible by the crop.
Regarding photography, I kind of learned how to frame it right from get go.
Except 6x6. Always liked it at 8x10
. I get rid of all 6x6.I also like it as close as possible to SOOC.
And I like lenses as they are.
But it would be nice to have, use framelines in EVF, IMO, which is only possible by the crop.
Dogman
Mentor
I'm not keen on super ultra megapixels, however, I do appreciate the ability to crop. I'm no purist on the sanctity of the out-of-camera image. My Nikon 36mp cameras are overkill for me, even when it comes to cropping. But cropped images from these cameras look really good. I've found even 12mp and 24mp images from full frame stand up well to cropping--of course the 24 holds up a bit better. And I really wish I could afford a Leica Q2 Monochrome. For my purposes it would probably be the One camera for it all.
Who knows, at some point we will probably be able to crop tiny sections of an image to make multiple photographs that look as good or better than we get now with our monster megapixel machines. That's almost scary. Too much machine and not enough human intellect involved for me.
Who knows, at some point we will probably be able to crop tiny sections of an image to make multiple photographs that look as good or better than we get now with our monster megapixel machines. That's almost scary. Too much machine and not enough human intellect involved for me.
Andrea Taurisano
il cimento
What he actually meant, is "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close (to having) enough (Megapixels)"
Timmyjoe
Mentor
This reminds me of something I read about years ago and am a bit fuzzy on right now 'cause it's early in the morning and I haven't had enough caffeine. But it was about a camera that you could just snap a picture, and frame and focus later in post. Maybe it was just frame later in post, can't remember. But everyone was saying how it was going to completely revolutionize photography, and now anyone with computer skills could be a great photographer, and blah, blah, blah.
At the time I thought, that's not photography. Not sure what it is, but that's not the way I make images at all. For me, the whole point of making an image is seeing something that I want to capture, and possibly share with someone else. And I do that by seeing with my eyes, then framing with the viewfinder of a camera. So much of the image is what I include, or exclude from what I see, by framing with the viewfinder. Sure, having a bit of crop room, in case you caught an errant phone poll or something distracting in the shot, but that's it. The idea of just capturing a huge amount of pixels, then later in post, deciding what you want to make the image about, doesn't match my definition of photography. Again, maybe I'm just an old timer.
And although the photographers using Speed Graphics were very fast with those cameras, compared to the modern DSLR, those cameras were SLOW. So I can understand how being able to crop an image of a fast moving subject or situation would be a plus. Today, that is really not a need.
Just my 2¢ worth.
Best,
-Tim
At the time I thought, that's not photography. Not sure what it is, but that's not the way I make images at all. For me, the whole point of making an image is seeing something that I want to capture, and possibly share with someone else. And I do that by seeing with my eyes, then framing with the viewfinder of a camera. So much of the image is what I include, or exclude from what I see, by framing with the viewfinder. Sure, having a bit of crop room, in case you caught an errant phone poll or something distracting in the shot, but that's it. The idea of just capturing a huge amount of pixels, then later in post, deciding what you want to make the image about, doesn't match my definition of photography. Again, maybe I'm just an old timer.
And although the photographers using Speed Graphics were very fast with those cameras, compared to the modern DSLR, those cameras were SLOW. So I can understand how being able to crop an image of a fast moving subject or situation would be a plus. Today, that is really not a need.
Just my 2¢ worth.
Best,
-Tim
Corran
Well-known
If we are talking about "good enough" and AI computational whatever, just use a phone. 95% the same results - especially considering you can seamlessly use longer/shorter focal lengths in-camera with the multi-lens and multi-sensor camera bumps now common, not to mention the computationally-derived out-of-focus rendering.
Outside of the need for super-teles for some types of images, most photojournalism is or could be done on a phone today. Most videos seen around the world on the news are phone videos, not live news cameras.
Outside of the need for super-teles for some types of images, most photojournalism is or could be done on a phone today. Most videos seen around the world on the news are phone videos, not live news cameras.
agentlossing
Well-known
I think I agree with your feelings, if I crop it's to crop in on the center of the scene a little bit, trim up the edges, straighten a little... basically ways to correct the mistakes I made in shooting due to, oh, I don't know, a too-small viewfinder with not enough coverage, bad framelines (notice I'm trying to avoid admitting I may have been careless in the composition).
The problem with using one of these massive sensors as a "net" and composing later is that you still get distortion towards the end of the frame, worse optical performance as you get out of the center, etc. I don't think shooting a wide scene and then halving it on the left side, for example, is going to make for a satisfying result. Same for just centering a subject - if you decide to end up putting that subject on the far side of one of the frames, for instance, then half of your image will look odd due to distortion.
It’s funny though... people never complain about people using 8x10” negatives. Even when they only contact print. I guess one is deemed cool and the other isn’t.
And sloppily framing now just to crop later doesn’t work too well most of the time. Sure maybe if you put your subject in the center always, but a more complex frame that doesn’t balance still tends not to balance well after the crop. Sometimes it might work but it’s not a good way to work always.
And sloppily framing now just to crop later doesn’t work too well most of the time. Sure maybe if you put your subject in the center always, but a more complex frame that doesn’t balance still tends not to balance well after the crop. Sometimes it might work but it’s not a good way to work always.
JeffS7444
Well-known
I don't go out of my way to turn a FF camera into a smaller-sensor camera, but I sometimes use smaller cameras to fill niches which would be costly or cumbersome to handle with a larger-sensor camera, and with a camera such as Sony's HX99, even extreme focal lengths can be considered for day-to-day use.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Looking at this thread, I should probably clarify my enthusiasm for cameras with high megapixel counts. I have friends and working acquaintances who make large prints, primarily for exhibition. In the film days they did this with a careful selection of film and lens - these days, a sensor with a lot of megapixels and a good lens. I’m not one of them. A large print of one of my pictures was once made for a group show was being shown at a few museums. When the “tour” was over, the print was returned to me. I had no idea what to do with it. You couldn’t hang it in a home or office without it reducing the function of the room to “Look at me!” I put it in the trash.
My interest in megapixels is the ability to carry a single small camera with a small lens, not a large zoom, and still be able to shoot pictures with a variety of angles of view from wide angle to moderate tele when I’m with family, friends or just wandering the streets with no idea of what picture possibilities will show up.
While many modern digitals are capable of producing a good cropped image, the Leica Q2 really took that to extremes. I know that some Leica experts say they would never crop beyond the equivalent of a 35mm frame. I don’t hesitate to crop to the equivalent of a 75mm frame. And since I’m doing it to a full frame raw file, I can draw that cropped image from anywhere in the full frame. Yes, I sometimes crop verticals out of a horizontal frame.
Once you start working this way, and it is the way much of my personal work is going, using slightly longer lenses on a high megapixel body is inviting. Of course, those slightly longer lenses have to be small. If you look at some of the best lenses for high megapixel cameras, they are big and certainly not suited for either discretion or comfortable, all-day carrying. But the Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar line ups offer relatively small, albeit manual focus, lenses with the optical quality that lets you crop into the full image and still pull out a good looking image. I guess you could say, at least for my personal photography, I have become a fan of big pixel counts and little lenses.
My interest in megapixels is the ability to carry a single small camera with a small lens, not a large zoom, and still be able to shoot pictures with a variety of angles of view from wide angle to moderate tele when I’m with family, friends or just wandering the streets with no idea of what picture possibilities will show up.
While many modern digitals are capable of producing a good cropped image, the Leica Q2 really took that to extremes. I know that some Leica experts say they would never crop beyond the equivalent of a 35mm frame. I don’t hesitate to crop to the equivalent of a 75mm frame. And since I’m doing it to a full frame raw file, I can draw that cropped image from anywhere in the full frame. Yes, I sometimes crop verticals out of a horizontal frame.
Once you start working this way, and it is the way much of my personal work is going, using slightly longer lenses on a high megapixel body is inviting. Of course, those slightly longer lenses have to be small. If you look at some of the best lenses for high megapixel cameras, they are big and certainly not suited for either discretion or comfortable, all-day carrying. But the Zeiss Loxia and Voigtlander Apo-Lanthar line ups offer relatively small, albeit manual focus, lenses with the optical quality that lets you crop into the full image and still pull out a good looking image. I guess you could say, at least for my personal photography, I have become a fan of big pixel counts and little lenses.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Need to ponder this a bit: I may have fallen into the trap of regarding the uncropped image as an ideal, but does that make much sense now that the effective resolving power of a modern camera is vastly better than anything Cartier-Bresson ever used? Of course, the more heavily cropped an image is, the more that meticulous technique matters, but even that has become easier these days, thanks to tools like magnified EVF focusing, IBIS - even low-tech solutions like the Arca-Swiss type quick-release plates.
Going off on a bit of a tangent, I wonder what it'd be like to have a native square or even round sensor, in order to get the most image from the least amount of glass!
agentlossing
Well-known
Do you think perhaps it was the limited resolution or graininess or imperfections of 35mm film that sort of propagated the idea that you shouldn't crop after the fact? I could see that being a reason - for what it's worth, I rarely crop film images beyond slightly adjusting the horizons if necessary, somehow a film image seems "done" to a greater degree than a digital one.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
agentlossing
Well-known
That certainly looks like a wider lens than his typical 50mm. I wonder if it was a 35mm?