Where does the difference start to show?

whvick · May 10, 2017

I was just looking at sample galleries. I looked at some beautiful pictures from the Hasselblad x1D which I assume is MF. They were very nice. Then I looked at some FF...very nice again....then I looked at APSC...also very nice.

Bottom line was that on my dinky 19" screen, I could not tell the difference.

Since I will also assume that most of us look at pictures on phones, tablets and laptops, we are not getting the real picture of the quality from the larger formats.

The place that my 5D outshines my 30D is portraits, where it is easier to get shallow DOF. That is the one place that I can see the advantage of FF in my old cameras.

So my question is where does the difference really start to show? Is it a 30" screen with high resolution? And how much computer does it take to handle a 50MP picture?

Is it an 8x10 or 11x16 or poster size print? I won second place in the county fair with an 8x10 from an iPhone, and it really looked good!

Put this in practical terms for me.

30 years ago I was tempted to get into MF, but never did. I must admit that when I see these new MF cameras, I do pipe-dream about them, even though they are thousands of dollars above my budget and skill level.

Thanks for your answers. Please, remember to keep it simple.

thanks

whvick

SoCalWill · May 10, 2017

The difference between FF and MF is evident in how the larger sensor handles shadows, it shows regardless of size/display.

Ron Poelman · May 10, 2017

Most phones will display more pixels than your 19", some a lot more.
We just purchased a 12" tablet with 2160*1440 (!)
so the pixel race is well and truly on in these devices as well.
Phones are about to hit 24mp on their cameras,
that will probably be about the "enough already" point for mobile;
so, that should be as much as you need to decide
(and buy yourself at least a half decent monitor ?).

Max Iso · May 10, 2017

What you say is completely true and the point it matters depends on a couple things. First and foremost, your standards. It really depends on your standards of IQ, how much noise you can be happy with, DR, ect. Or, how sharp do you want your photos to be. If you use heavy NR, you can fix noise issues at the cost of detail.

The other major factor is what glass you will buy. For example, at one point i was comparing MFT with Pentax apsc. So i looked at the glass i was willing to buy for each, within my budget. One comparison was the walk around lens, for Pentax it was the 35mm f2.4DA, for MFT it was the Panasonic 25mm f1.7.

So the funny thing was, even though the Pentax would have a larger sensor, the Panasonic lens was a full stop faster, which would negate most sensor IQ differences, as well as DOF differences. I would start with the glass, do mock buying sprees and look at what you would buy for each format.

Once you normalize based on equivalence, you can better judge if there even will be a difference. I found that for my budget, going larger didn't really offer much more IQ but i would lose certain features that MFT would otherwise offer (IBIS, ect).

thenoilif · May 10, 2017

At the moment 24mp is more than enough for most photo applications. With that being said, the more mp you have the more freedom you'll have in post which let's be honest has become an integral part of the photo producing process for many.

Some will argue that a skilled photographer can get what they want without the use of post which to some degree is true but I find this mostly applies to people who are doing more real-to-life style photography like portraits.

For the people who focus on photography as a creative outlet, having more data to work with gives them a lot more possibilities for manipulation when it comes to achieving their vision.

NickZ2016 · May 10, 2017

whvick said:
IAnd how much computer does it take to handle a 50MP picture?

It's 2017 it doesn't take much at all to handle a still that size. If you want hard think about video. A small sensor 4k camera can generate 30+GB per 30 minutes of video.

Or a data CD if you could find it is over 600MB. Nobody would dream calling that current tech.

tko · May 10, 2017

Of course not all of us makes wall size exhibition prints. But take a grab shot on say, a street market at night with movement, try catch the moment. You're gonna find that FF at ISO 6400 and F/1.8 allows make a pretty good print. Try the same thing on a cell phone, all you'll get is a blurry mess.

If you don't need it, you don't think it. Just like a 4-wheel drive pickup.

bclaff · May 11, 2017

It's hard to make a complete answer "simple"; but here's an attempt.

The combination of image size as viewed and viewing distance is a determining factor.
Along with the visual acuity of the human eye there's a circle on the image you are viewing that is as large as you can distinguish.
If you do the math and compute that circle in terms of the image as captured on the sensor you get what's called the Circle of Confusion (CoC).

Back on the sensor that circle covers a surprisingly large number of pixels.
If you're not cropping for an estimate think the number of mega-pixels divided by a million; so 24 pixels for a 24mp sensor (sensor size does not matter!)
(This estimate is for an 8x12 print/image viewed at arms length.)

Those (24 for example) pixels are visually combined by your eye so what you see is a function of the aggregate performance of those pixels.
Once that aggregate performance is above a certain level you won't see any improvement.
So, you start to see differences when performance drops below a certain level.

That (aggregate) pixel performance can cover many things, like color fidelity.
But for many the strongest factor is whether noise is apparent in the image.
Noise is generally only an issue in the shadows so noise tends only to be problematic if the image has high dynamic range and/or when light levels are low.

Even at close viewing distances small images look good because many many pixels are being visually combined.

So, if the scene dynamic range isn't too demanding, and there is enough light, differences won't show unless you make a large image and/or view it closely.

biza43 · May 11, 2017

Simple:

1. If you are doing personal work - the difference is set by yourself.

2. If you are doing professional work for a client - the difference is set by the client.

3. If you are doing professional work for an art gallery - the difference is set by the gallery.

In all 3 cases, you should know what is the right tool for the job.

Kung Fu · May 11, 2017

tko said:
Of course not all of us makes wall size exhibition prints. But take a grab shot on say, a street market at night with movement, try catch the moment. You're gonna find that FF at ISO 6400 and F/1.8 allows make a pretty good print. Try the same thing on a cell phone, all you'll get is a blurry mess.

With a single frame maybe, but smartphone camera apps have "night mode" and other stacking tricks to reduce noise.

Also there are a lot of cameras and sensor sizes in between those two extremes. It's entirely possible to shoot at night with less than a full frame.

D Cox · May 11, 2017

Ron Poelman said:
Most phones will display more pixels than your 19", some a lot more.
We just purchased a 12" tablet with 2160*1440 (!)
so the pixel race is well and truly on in these devices as well.
Phones are about to hit 24mp on their cameras,
that will probably be about the "enough already" point for mobile;
so, that should be as much as you need to decide
(and buy yourself at least a half decent monitor ?).

Also, phones and tablets have gestures which make it really easy to zoom in and look at details in the picture.

50 or 60 Megapixels would not be too much when you want to do this. Take a photograph of a landscape or a crowded street scene to see the advantages of higher resolution.

whvick · May 11, 2017

thenoilif said:
At the moment 24mp is more than enough for most photo applications. With that being said, the more mp you have the more freedom you'll have in post which let's be honest has become an integral part of the photo producing process for many.

Some will argue that a skilled photographer can get what they want without the use of post which to some degree is true but I find this mostly applies to people who are doing more real-to-life style photography like portraits.

For the people who focus on photography as a creative outlet, having more data to work with gives them a lot more possibilities for manipulation when it comes to achieving their vision.

This makes sense....I often crop a lot.

thanks

whvick

whvick · May 11, 2017

tko said:
Of course not all of us makes wall size exhibition prints. But take a grab shot on say, a street market at night with movement, try catch the moment. You're gonna find that FF at ISO 6400 and F/1.8 allows make a pretty good print. Try the same thing on a cell phone, all you'll get is a blurry mess.

If you don't need it, you don't think it. Just like a 4-wheel drive pickup.

whvick · May 11, 2017

bclaff said:
It's hard to make a complete answer "simple"; but here's an attempt.

The combination of image size as viewed and viewing distance is a determining factor.
Along with the visual acuity of the human eye there's a circle on the image you are viewing that is as large as you can distinguish.
If you do the math and compute that circle in terms of the image as captured on the sensor you get what's called the Circle of Confusion (CoC).

Back on the sensor that circle covers a surprisingly large number of pixels.
If you're not cropping for an estimate think the number of mega-pixels divided by a million; so 24 pixels for a 24mp sensor (sensor size does not matter!)
(This estimate is for an 8x12 print/image viewed at arms length.)

Those (24 for example) pixels are visually combined by your eye so what you see is a function of the aggregate performance of those pixels.
Once that aggregate performance is above a certain level you won't see any improvement.
So, you start to see differences when performance drops below a certain level.

That (aggregate) pixel performance can cover many things, like color fidelity.
But for many the strongest factor is whether noise is apparent in the image.
Noise is generally only an issue in the shadows so noise tends only to be problematic if the image has high dynamic range and/or when light levels are low.

No quite simple

bclaff said:
Even at close viewing distances small images look good because many many pixels are being visually combined.

So, if the scene dynamic range isn't too demanding, and there is enough light, differences won't show unless you make a large image and/or view it closely.

Simple...good..thanks

bclaff said:
--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at http://www.photonstophotos.net )

whvick · May 11, 2017

biza43 said:
Simple:

1. If you are doing personal work - the difference is set by yourself.

2. If you are doing professional work for a client - the difference is set by the client.

3. If you are doing professional work for an art gallery - the difference is set by the gallery.

In all 3 cases, you should know what is the right tool for the job.

whvick · May 11, 2017

thenoilif said:
At the moment 24mp is more than enough for most photo applications. With that being said, the more mp you have the more freedom you'll have in post which let's be honest has become an integral part of the photo producing process for many.

I remember when the argument was that it was better to keep MP down to reduce noise. I think I saw a lot of reviews to that end back in the day on this website.

thenoilif said:
Some will argue that a skilled photographer can get what they want without the use of post which to some degree is true but I find this mostly applies to people who are doing more real-to-life style photography like portraits.

For the people who focus on photography as a creative outlet, having more data to work with gives them a lot more possibilities for manipulation when it comes to achieving their vision.

tbcass · May 11, 2017

whvick said:
This makes sense....I often crop a lot.

If you crop a lot you want all the sensor resolution you can afford!!!!

tbcass · May 11, 2017

whvick said:
I remember when the argument was that it was better to keep MP down to reduce noise. I think I saw a lot of reviews to that end back in the day on this website.

That was before the days when the concept of size normalization came into play. Not to brag but I was an early proponent of that argument (along with others) and now it's a generally accepted fact. What that means is higher resolution sensors tend to look noisier on screen when viewed at 100% even if the actual S/N noise is the same. It is now well known that sensor size is the primary determination of S/N ratio all things being equal and not resolution or pixel size/density.

--
Tom
Look at the picture, not the pixels
------------
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography.

Buttons252 · May 11, 2017

I have had many many cameras, and the full frame cameras on average give the most amount of keepers. My D750 can easily take shots at 8000iso and be better then my 1600 iso aps-c cameras. With that said, with perfect focus, iso 100 etc etc there is very little difference -- but in the real world 100iso is not always an option. I have some good light outdoor photos from a pentax K10d that are just jaw dropping to me, but used at wedding in dim light hardly better then my current cell phone -- and i was using flash

coase · May 11, 2017

Having spent a year indulging my GAS fully, I would say that an RX100ii satisfies all my snapshot needs. Ditto for an MFT cam with a kit zoom.

Where the larger cameras and better glass matter a lot to me are for a) high ISO, especially concerts b) shallow DOF c) large panoramas d) blowups e) indoor pics such as museums, and f) macro and flower shots.

I also like being able to fool around with older manual glass with their differences in rendering and flaws/character. I like being able to shoot old glass at their native focal lengths. And I tend to enjoy shooting manual lenses more than I do with autofocus.

Where does the difference start to show?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts