Should Sigma make a 30 MP per layer full-frame Foveon instead of 20 MP per layer?

Scottelly said:

In a recent thread I wrote, "Today I would make a full-frame sensor that captures 30 MP per layer, to compete with the 60 MP images from the latest high-resolution Sony camera. I think Sigma should still do this, though that would no doubt delay the new sensor a few months."

Someone replied, "There is very little real world difference between 40, 50, 60MP. The occasions when you could actually put those pixel count differences onto paper in a way that was unambiguously visible to most viewers must be very rare indeed."

It is true that there is very little difference between 40 MP and 50 MP, and even less difference between 50 MP and 60 MP, but the difference between 40 MP and 60 MP is significant, in my opinion. That is a 50 % step up, like going from 16 MP to 24 MP, and when I stepped up from my 16 MP Sony A55 to my 24 MP Sony A65 it was quite a visible and meaningful difference to me. Sure, in prints at or smaller than 24" x 36" there might be no visible difference from 40 MP to 60 MP, and there might be no visible difference from an SD1 Merrill to an SD Quattro H with the same size prints . . . but I plan to make much bigger prints, and while most people might not see a significant difference, I will see it, and a few affictionados will see it too, I'm sure.

One of the things we do, when we strive for excellence, is we push our limits, whether it be by staying a few minutes longer, just to see what happend in the sky, as we shoot the sunset, or by purchasing the best equipment we can for the job we think we're going to be doing. I recently bought a couple of Art lenses. I didn't do that because I'm the type of person to say, "Oh, the lenses I've got are good enough." I want more. I see something really good that someone else did/made, and I want to do better myself. I shoot a photo that I think is good, and I either wish I had shot it with a better lens or camera, or I am satisfied, because I shot it with the best I could afford at the time. Eventually I do believe we will hit a point of diminishing returns. We may be there now. Maybe I just don't need a 60 MP camera or even a 50 MP camera.

Maybe I don't need anything better than my Nikon D810, and I should just sell everything I have that doesn't work with that camera, because I know I can get a replacement for that camera for about the same price I can get a replacement for my Sigma SD Quattro H . . . but my Nikon is more versatile, faster, and has longer battery life (much longer). I can get lots of excellent, weather sealed lenses for the Nikon. I can get lots of accessories made to work with Nikons, and I know other photographers with Nikons, who I can work and travel with, so we can share equipment (i.e. lenses, such as a telephoto, macro, or super-wide, or batteries). Me having the same camera as a photographer who I get paid to assist from time to time helps to make me someone she likes to have around. The more Nikon equipment I have, the more that helps me with photographers who shoot with Nikon equipment. Having Sigma equipment doesn't help me in the same way.

But I don't think I want to use another Nikon as much as I want to shoot with my SD Quattro H. It would be cheaper for me to just get my SD Quattro H fixed or buy another one. Maybe that's what I'll do.

Anyway, as far as resolution goes, I think a bit more is always better than a bit less. I always think of having more, when I shoot with my SD Quattro H, rather than my SD1 Merrill. I wish I had a Nikon D850 or Z7, rather than my D810, because the D850 and Z7 both capture 9 MP more than my D810 . . . but for other reasons too, of course (i.e. speed of shooting, the tilt screens on those newer cameras, etc.).

So I think the 30 MP per layer idea is important, and I think there are a lot of other people out there who agree with me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe 20 MP per layer is plenty, but I think it's be significantly better to have 30 MP per layer, producing a 30 MP jpeg (and native TIFF and jpeg images from the raw files) - not only from the standpoint that it would be a step up from my 25.5 MP jpegs from my SD Quattro H, but because I think it would be seen by most people out there as a more TODAY camera, rather than a camera of the past. I know it seems like the megapixel race is over, and I know there are new cameras out with 20 MP full-frame sensors (i.e. both Canon's and Nikon's newest and most expensive flagship cameras), but so many people think of 20 MP as a spec. for an old camera. It brings to mind the SD15. I remember thinking Sigma was crazy to put that "old" sensor in that camera in a time when 12 MP and 15 MP and even 16 MP were the norm. I thought at that time that Sigma should have stepped up to a 10 MP sensor, cutting the area of their photo-sites in half, or maybe stepping up to a larger, 1.5x crop factor sensor. Little did I know what was on the drawing board, and probably taking longer than expected to make (the sensor that eventually ended up in the Merrill cameras). I imagine Sigma was probably intending to put that true APS-C size sensor in the SD15, but eventually realized it would not be ready in time, and just put the sensor from the SD14 into the SD15 instead.

What do you think? Would it be worthwhile for Sigma to redesign their full-frame sensor to be 30 MP per layer, rather than 20 MP per layer, even if it means another few months in development? Do you think 20 MP per layer is enough today? What about next year, when entry level cameras in the 30 MP and even 40 MP range are commonplace? Today I can buy a Sony A7r II, with a 42 MP full-frame sensor in it, for less than $1,500. Would you pay $500 more for a camera with no tilt screen, slower focusing and operation, a lower resolution screen, less battery life, and a smaller raw shooting buffer, even though that camera makes 20 MP native photos? (though they are the best 20 MP photos, by far, of any camera out there)

Certainly Sigma may be wanting people to see the improvement from the 20 MP photos from their SD Quattro to the 20 MP photos from their full-frame camera, and it may make sense to keep the camera at 20 MP for people to see that difference (or lack of difference), but is this just an experimental camera, or is it a camera Sigma wants to make for a lot of people to use? I guess if Sigma really is just making the cameras with the Foveon sensors as experiments, it probably makes sense to make a 20 MP per layer camera first, followed by a 30 MP per layer full-frame camera one or two years later, possibly followed by a 48 MP top layer Quattro full-frame camera (which might be accepted by people, if the 20 MP full-frame camera makes images very similar to what today's Quattro cameras make).

Click to expand...

joe173 said:

Scottelly said:

In a recent thread I wrote, "Today I would make a full-frame sensor that captures 30 MP per layer, to compete with the 60 MP images from the latest high-resolution Sony camera. I think Sigma should still do this, though that would no doubt delay the new sensor a few months."

Someone replied, "There is very little real world difference between 40, 50, 60MP. The occasions when you could actually put those pixel count differences onto paper in a way that was unambiguously visible to most viewers must be very rare indeed."

It is true that there is very little difference between 40 MP and 50 MP, and even less difference between 50 MP and 60 MP, but the difference between 40 MP and 60 MP is significant, in my opinion. That is a 50 % step up, like going from 16 MP to 24 MP, and when I stepped up from my 16 MP Sony A55 to my 24 MP Sony A65 it was quite a visible and meaningful difference to me. Sure, in prints at or smaller than 24" x 36" there might be no visible difference from 40 MP to 60 MP, and there might be no visible difference from an SD1 Merrill to an SD Quattro H with the same size prints . . . but I plan to make much bigger prints, and while most people might not see a significant difference, I will see it, and a few affictionados will see it too, I'm sure.

One of the things we do, when we strive for excellence, is we push our limits, whether it be by staying a few minutes longer, just to see what happend in the sky, as we shoot the sunset, or by purchasing the best equipment we can for the job we think we're going to be doing. I recently bought a couple of Art lenses. I didn't do that because I'm the type of person to say, "Oh, the lenses I've got are good enough." I want more. I see something really good that someone else did/made, and I want to do better myself. I shoot a photo that I think is good, and I either wish I had shot it with a better lens or camera, or I am satisfied, because I shot it with the best I could afford at the time. Eventually I do believe we will hit a point of diminishing returns. We may be there now. Maybe I just don't need a 60 MP camera or even a 50 MP camera.

Maybe I don't need anything better than my Nikon D810, and I should just sell everything I have that doesn't work with that camera, because I know I can get a replacement for that camera for about the same price I can get a replacement for my Sigma SD Quattro H . . . but my Nikon is more versatile, faster, and has longer battery life (much longer). I can get lots of excellent, weather sealed lenses for the Nikon. I can get lots of accessories made to work with Nikons, and I know other photographers with Nikons, who I can work and travel with, so we can share equipment (i.e. lenses, such as a telephoto, macro, or super-wide, or batteries). Me having the same camera as a photographer who I get paid to assist from time to time helps to make me someone she likes to have around. The more Nikon equipment I have, the more that helps me with photographers who shoot with Nikon equipment. Having Sigma equipment doesn't help me in the same way.

But I don't think I want to use another Nikon as much as I want to shoot with my SD Quattro H. It would be cheaper for me to just get my SD Quattro H fixed or buy another one. Maybe that's what I'll do.

Anyway, as far as resolution goes, I think a bit more is always better than a bit less. I always think of having more, when I shoot with my SD Quattro H, rather than my SD1 Merrill. I wish I had a Nikon D850 or Z7, rather than my D810, because the D850 and Z7 both capture 9 MP more than my D810 . . . but for other reasons too, of course (i.e. speed of shooting, the tilt screens on those newer cameras, etc.).

So I think the 30 MP per layer idea is important, and I think there are a lot of other people out there who agree with me. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe 20 MP per layer is plenty, but I think it's be significantly better to have 30 MP per layer, producing a 30 MP jpeg (and native TIFF and jpeg images from the raw files) - not only from the standpoint that it would be a step up from my 25.5 MP jpegs from my SD Quattro H, but because I think it would be seen by most people out there as a more TODAY camera, rather than a camera of the past. I know it seems like the megapixel race is over, and I know there are new cameras out with 20 MP full-frame sensors (i.e. both Canon's and Nikon's newest and most expensive flagship cameras), but so many people think of 20 MP as a spec. for an old camera. It brings to mind the SD15. I remember thinking Sigma was crazy to put that "old" sensor in that camera in a time when 12 MP and 15 MP and even 16 MP were the norm. I thought at that time that Sigma should have stepped up to a 10 MP sensor, cutting the area of their photo-sites in half, or maybe stepping up to a larger, 1.5x crop factor sensor. Little did I know what was on the drawing board, and probably taking longer than expected to make (the sensor that eventually ended up in the Merrill cameras). I imagine Sigma was probably intending to put that true APS-C size sensor in the SD15, but eventually realized it would not be ready in time, and just put the sensor from the SD14 into the SD15 instead.

What do you think? Would it be worthwhile for Sigma to redesign their full-frame sensor to be 30 MP per layer, rather than 20 MP per layer, even if it means another few months in development? Do you think 20 MP per layer is enough today? What about next year, when entry level cameras in the 30 MP and even 40 MP range are commonplace? Today I can buy a Sony A7r II, with a 42 MP full-frame sensor in it, for less than $1,500. Would you pay $500 more for a camera with no tilt screen, slower focusing and operation, a lower resolution screen, less battery life, and a smaller raw shooting buffer, even though that camera makes 20 MP native photos? (though they are the best 20 MP photos, by far, of any camera out there)

Certainly Sigma may be wanting people to see the improvement from the 20 MP photos from their SD Quattro to the 20 MP photos from their full-frame camera, and it may make sense to keep the camera at 20 MP for people to see that difference (or lack of difference), but is this just an experimental camera, or is it a camera Sigma wants to make for a lot of people to use? I guess if Sigma really is just making the cameras with the Foveon sensors as experiments, it probably makes sense to make a 20 MP per layer camera first, followed by a 30 MP per layer full-frame camera one or two years later, possibly followed by a 48 MP top layer Quattro full-frame camera (which might be accepted by people, if the 20 MP full-frame camera makes images very similar to what today's Quattro cameras make).

Click to expand...

You're getting hung up on resolution. I have worked scanners with much lower resolution yet capture more real detail than their high-mp brethren. Why? Because their noise ceiling is much higher. Noise obstructs a lot of the image. You're not noticing it but the software is doing heavy processing to eliminate it, and it is still there, visible. Mitigate that problem and you'll have very happy users. The difference between 20 and 30 isn't that great. Instead of 7000 pixels horizontal, the image might be a whopping 8300 pixels across. WOW!

Plus, for many users, those files would slow down nearly every 3-5yr old machine to a painful 15 second wait to do anything. The average user's computer isn't up to the task.

The medium format Fuji has 400MP mode. If you need it, buy that. Or start scanning fine grain film. It has high resolution with added bonus, no digital artifacts.

Click to expand...

Scottelly said:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.

Large prints need to be examined from far enough away that you can take in the whole print. I've read the argument plenty of times that "ah, but I've seen people take in the whole image, then move in close to examine the detail". This is actually a distressing indictment of photographers. Yes, it is photographers who see a beautifully composed and lit print and move in close and shake their heads in disappointment. Normal people rarely do this.

To quote photographer, blogger, reviewer, exhibition printer, bespoke print shop owner Keith Cooper from his excellent in depth article on what difference buying a 50MP camera makes:

DavidMillier said:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

Click to expand...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/

My personal belief is that the thing photographers need to get obsessive about is not technical quality but image content. People who know these things tell me that Cartier-Bresson's technical quality is poor - many shots have visible camera shake or slightly miss perfect focus.

But no one cares - apart, maybe, from those amateur photographers who examine the prints with a loupe and shake their heads in sadness....

Anyone not making exhibition grade prints with any of the equipment available today, is not trying hard enough, and dreams of tomorrow's fantasy camera might well be a fun diversion but it is simply a distraction from what you can achieve today.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.

Large prints need to be examined from far enough away that you can take in the whole print. I've read the argument plenty of times that "ah, but I've seen people take in the whole image, then move in close to examine the detail". This is actually a distressing indictment of photographers. Yes, it is photographers who see a beautifully composed and lit print and move in close and shake their heads in disappointment. Normal people rarely do this.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

To quote photographer, blogger, reviewer, exhibition printer, bespoke print shop owner Keith Cooper from his excellent in depth article on what difference buying a 50MP camera makes:

DavidMillier said:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

Click to expand...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/

My personal belief is that the thing photographers need to get obsessive about is not technical quality but image content. People who know these things tell me that Cartier-Bresson's technical quality is poor - many shots have visible camera shake or slightly miss perfect focus.

But no one cares - apart, maybe, from those amateur photographers who examine the prints with a loupe and shake their heads in sadness....

Click to expand...

mike earussi said:

As much as I would love more pixels than 20mp I would not want them at the expense of overall pixel quality. Having owned all SDs from the 10 to Merrill I've noticed how the 3D look and color saturation have struggled to maintain the original feel of the SD9/10 as the pixels got smaller. I'm not privy to the actual Foveon technical details but I have a feeling that there is a limit on how small the pixels can be made before the decreasing s/n ruins the Foveon look.

Click to expand...

mike earussi said:

I was hoping the FFF would have 24mp just for marketing purposes because it would be the same as the Sony and other FF bodies and so not sound inferior to potential new buyers. But an eventual 80mp/20mp Quattro design could compete with any FF camera, at least in resolution, provided Sigma can control the heat and processing time.

Click to expand...

mike earussi said:

You also need to remember that the higher the mp count the greater the chip reject rate which in turn raises the cost of the camera, and if the body it too costly very few will buy it.

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.<>

Click to expand...

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? <>

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

mike earussi said:

As much as I would love more pixels than 20mp I would not want them at the expense of overall pixel quality. Having owned all SDs from the 10 to Merrill I've noticed how the 3D look and color saturation have struggled to maintain the original feel of the SD9/10 as the pixels got smaller. I'm not privy to the actual Foveon technical details but I have a feeling that there is a limit on how small the pixels can be made before the decreasing s/n ruins the Foveon look.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

Keeping them the same size as in the Merrill should give about 24 Mpix, if my mental arithmetic is correct.

Click to expand...

xpatUSA said:

DMillier said:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.

Large prints need to be examined from far enough away that you can take in the whole print. I've read the argument plenty of times that "ah, but I've seen people take in the whole image, then move in close to examine the detail". This is actually a distressing indictment of photographers. Yes, it is photographers who see a beautifully composed and lit print and move in close and shake their heads in disappointment. Normal people rarely do this.

To quote photographer, blogger, reviewer, exhibition printer, bespoke print shop owner Keith Cooper from his excellent in depth article on what difference buying a 50MP camera makes:

xpatUSA said:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

Click to expand...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/

My personal belief is that the thing photographers need to get obsessive about is not technical quality but image content. People who know these things tell me that Cartier-Bresson's technical quality is poor - many shots have visible camera shake or slightly miss perfect focus.

But no one cares - apart, maybe, from those amateur photographers who examine the prints with a loupe and shake their heads in sadness....

Anyone not making exhibition grade prints with any of the equipment available today, is not trying hard enough, and dreams of tomorrow's fantasy camera might well be a fun diversion but it is simply a distraction from what you can achieve today.

Click to expand...

+1 ... a splendid rebuttal, Dave!

In spite of my technical rants, I am painfully aware of my inability to 'see' and frame good content and thanks for rubbing it in ... ;-)

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.

Large prints need to be examined from far enough away that you can take in the whole print. I've read the argument plenty of times that "ah, but I've seen people take in the whole image, then move in close to examine the detail". This is actually a distressing indictment of photographers. Yes, it is photographers who see a beautifully composed and lit print and move in close and shake their heads in disappointment. Normal people rarely do this.

Click to expand...

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? There is a lot more to such a photo than just the overall composition and lighting.

D Cox said:

To quote photographer, blogger, reviewer, exhibition printer, bespoke print shop owner Keith Cooper from his excellent in depth article on what difference buying a 50MP camera makes:

D Cox said:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

Click to expand...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/

My personal belief is that the thing photographers need to get obsessive about is not technical quality but image content. People who know these things tell me that Cartier-Bresson's technical quality is poor - many shots have visible camera shake or slightly miss perfect focus.

But no one cares - apart, maybe, from those amateur photographers who examine the prints with a loupe and shake their heads in sadness....

Click to expand...

Not all photos or paintings have any details, and it isn't always appropriate, especially for portraits. But many pictures of landscapes or architecture, general street views with a crowd of people, and so on, do; and they reward close examination.

The Sigma cameras are particularly suited to taking detailed photos.

Obviously most non photographers are interested only in the general subject: they want to know who it's a picture of, and have no interest in lighting, composition, white balance, or resolution -- and certainly not in bokeh.

Click to expand...

xpatUSA said:

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.<>

Click to expand...

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? <>

Click to expand...

But where does one stop?

How about those tera-pixel images where one can zoom in fractally just like the movies?

Have to say that, if I'm looking down my street with my eyes, I can't read the street sign at the T-junction. If I shoot an image from the same position, should I expect the sign to be readable in the whole image - even if printed large and walked up to or even when zoomed in on-screen?

I do have a 1930's 5" magnifying glass, a 10X loupe and a Seibert 50X pocket microscope all of which are useful upon occasion.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

xpatUSA said:

+1 ... a splendid rebuttal, Dave!

In spite of my technical rants, I am painfully aware of my inability to 'see' and frame good content and thanks for rubbing it in ... ;-)

Click to expand...

Find someone else's photography you like and copy it! I found I have a bit of a fetish for door knockers (probably not a lot of those around your way). European cities seem to have a wide range of door knockers on offer. There's only so many ways you can portray them, so you can get to be quite the specialist in short order

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

Your obsession with ever more pixels leads you astray in my opinion.

I know you dream of making humongous prints but you can do that today with most cameras. The error you make is in insisting a 30 foot wide print should be equally as crisp and sharp as a 10"x8" examined from 1 foot.

Large prints need to be examined from far enough away that you can take in the whole print. I've read the argument plenty of times that "ah, but I've seen people take in the whole image, then move in close to examine the detail". This is actually a distressing indictment of photographers. Yes, it is photographers who see a beautifully composed and lit print and move in close and shake their heads in disappointment. Normal people rarely do this.

Click to expand...

How are you to see the fine details in a high resolution photo without looking at it closely ? There is a lot more to such a photo than just the overall composition and lighting.

DavidMillier said:

To quote photographer, blogger, reviewer, exhibition printer, bespoke print shop owner Keith Cooper from his excellent in depth article on what difference buying a 50MP camera makes:

DavidMillier said:

"Yes, the 5Ds images are notably superior in resolution, but when it comes to making prints there is an important consideration.

Not one of the half dozen non photographers I showed the prints to, mentioned detail in the images.

When asked for differences, most popular was spotting the slightly different view, next up was that the brickwork was ‘a bit redder’ in one print.

Most common observation – that the council should do something more about the landlords who dump stuff from student housing when clearing houses at the end of the academic year.

Even when I pointed to detail in the biggest prints, several people ‘couldn’t see the difference’. One even said they liked the 1Ds print the best (I’m told the look on my face was worth seeing…

Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I’ve spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don’t carry a magnifying glass with them – they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.

It’s a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn’t spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

Click to expand...

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-5ds-print-performance/

My personal belief is that the thing photographers need to get obsessive about is not technical quality but image content. People who know these things tell me that Cartier-Bresson's technical quality is poor - many shots have visible camera shake or slightly miss perfect focus.

But no one cares - apart, maybe, from those amateur photographers who examine the prints with a loupe and shake their heads in sadness....

Click to expand...

Not all photos or paintings have any details, and it isn't always appropriate, especially for portraits. But many pictures of landscapes or architecture, general street views with a crowd of people, and so on, do; and they reward close examination.

The Sigma cameras are particularly suited to taking detailed photos.

Obviously most non photographers are interested only in the general subject: they want to know who it's a picture of, and have no interest in lighting, composition, white balance, or resolution -- and certainly not in bokeh.

Click to expand...

Read the article. Keith's point is that people who actually buy photographs aren't bothered by the technicalities. The people who do care about the technicalities are other photographers and they don't buy pictures.

Click to expand...