I believe we've 'Jumped the shark' on camera resolution

Boo said:

James Stirling said:

daddyo said:

Photographer Joe Edelman talks about a billboard print he shot with an Olympus E-M1 Mkll. It's a very interesting video, as he describes the entire process. If you want to watch, just skip the first two minutes.

Click to expand...

Billboards due to the typically huge viewing distances are not particularly demanding on image quality

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

Nikon printed an image taken by Joe McNally with a 3mp P&S 65x43 foot 25 years ago on display in Times Square

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1845296760/coolpix990bigprint

Click to expand...

I was about to say the same - billboards are actually printed at quite a low dpi - because, as you say, they're viewed from some distance, they don't need to be any finer.

I actually have the prints of one here in my office, from something I did professionally a few years ago and took a scan of it next to a ruler to post here some time ago. You can see how coarse it is - not sure if this will embed as DPR no longer likes my image host, but might work as a link:

https://photos.imageevent.com/boophotos/olddpreview/billboardscan.jpg

Click to expand...

That does show the resolution or lack of billboards

Boo said:

In respect of the thread subject - I'm personally happy with lower MP counts (12-16 is my own sweet spot, 20MP would maybe be nice, but not necessary) for my own purposes - I'd need a new computer to go much bigger - but I also get how that wouldn't suit others either who have different requirements - same as I don't need fast or pinpoint AF or very quick start up time, but others do.

Click to expand...

I do enjoy the high MP models but for most uses it is more a fun option than vital . I do have a fairly powerful PC but these days I don't shoot in high volumes ( I used to do weddings and the like ) . So processing time is not really an issue. I also enjoy the post processing experience which I appreciate not everyone does

Boo said:

We all choose cameras to suit our needs and there's a huge amount to choose from.

Click to expand...

That is very true , really unless you have a very niche use case , there are a host of ILC cameras going back a few years now.I am more likely at the moment to scale down my current gear than add any more , though temptation is a terrible thing

--
Jim Stirling:
"Cogito, ergo sum" Descartes
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post

Boo said:

James Stirling said:

daddyo said:

Photographer Joe Edelman talks about a billboard print he shot with an Olympus E-M1 Mkll. It's a very interesting video, as he describes the entire process. If you want to watch, just skip the first two minutes.

Click to expand...

Billboards due to the typically huge viewing distances are not particularly demanding on image quality

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

Nikon printed an image taken by Joe McNally with a 3mp P&S 65x43 foot 25 years ago on display in Times Square

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1845296760/coolpix990bigprint

Click to expand...

I was about to say the same - billboards are actually printed at quite a low dpi - because, as you say, they're viewed from some distance, they don't need to be any finer.

I actually have the prints of one here in my office, from something I did professionally a few years ago and took a scan of it next to a ruler to post here some time ago. You can see how coarse it is - not sure if this will embed as DPR no longer likes my image host, but might work as a link:

https://photos.imageevent.com/boophotos/olddpreview/billboardscan.jpg

In respect of the thread subject - I'm personally happy with lower MP counts (12-16 is my own sweet spot, 20MP would maybe be nice, but not necessary) for my own purposes - I'd need a new computer to go much bigger - but I also get how that wouldn't suit others either who have different requirements - same as I don't need fast or pinpoint AF or very quick start up time, but others do. We all choose cameras to suit our needs and there's a huge amount to choose from.

Click to expand...

Increase in monitor resolutions phone resolutions then being able to zoom in on such screens has partially to do with wanting more MP.

3MP Sigma Foveon SD9 I photographed a lot 2010 I like the look of when I zoom into it on my 4k laptop. Even though it doesn't have the detail of 16MP 24MP let alone 50MP 100MP.


3MP image from my Sigma Foveon SD9. With m42 manual legacy glass. Photographed 2010. Is fine on my 4K laptop zooming in. Even though doesn't have detail of higher MP modern cameras.

Having said this for birds wildlife photography I want more MP to crop in.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.

James Stirling said:

Boo said:

James Stirling said:

daddyo said:

Photographer Joe Edelman talks about a billboard print he shot with an Olympus E-M1 Mkll. It's a very interesting video, as he describes the entire process. If you want to watch, just skip the first two minutes.

Click to expand...

Billboards due to the typically huge viewing distances are not particularly demanding on image quality

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

Nikon printed an image taken by Joe McNally with a 3mp P&S 65x43 foot 25 years ago on display in Times Square

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1845296760/coolpix990bigprint

Click to expand...

I was about to say the same - billboards are actually printed at quite a low dpi - because, as you say, they're viewed from some distance, they don't need to be any finer.

I actually have the prints of one here in my office, from something I did professionally a few years ago and took a scan of it next to a ruler to post here some time ago. You can see how coarse it is - not sure if this will embed as DPR no longer likes my image host, but might work as a link:

https://photos.imageevent.com/boophotos/olddpreview/billboardscan.jpg

Click to expand...

That does show the resolution or lack of billboards

James Stirling said:

In respect of the thread subject - I'm personally happy with lower MP counts (12-16 is my own sweet spot, 20MP would maybe be nice, but not necessary) for my own purposes - I'd need a new computer to go much bigger - but I also get how that wouldn't suit others either who have different requirements - same as I don't need fast or pinpoint AF or very quick start up time, but others do.

Click to expand...

I do enjoy the high MP models but for most uses it is more a fun option than vital . I do have a fairly powerful PC but these days I don't shoot in high volumes ( I used to do weddings and the like ) . So processing time is not really an issue. I also enjoy the post processing experience which I appreciate not everyone does

James Stirling said:

We all choose cameras to suit our needs and there's a huge amount to choose from.

Click to expand...

That is very true , really unless you have a very niche use case , there are a host of ILC cameras going back a few years now.I am more likely at the moment to scale down my current gear than add any more , though temptation is a terrible thing

Click to expand...

My circumstances changed after I lost my husband and I started travelling and holidaying differently. For example, he would unflinchingly carry anything extra I wanted in his rucksack and therefore weight and size didn't worry me as much - he regularly took a 300mm lens for me, in case I saw a deer or buzzard as we walked. But now I have to carry everything I want in my own bag, I became more aware of not only weight and size, but shape too.

I love my E-M10, but it's so damn knobbly, that it became a real nuisance putting it and out of bags one holiday (grazed knuckles, snagged nails etc), that I bought an 'as new' GF3 as a small streamlined 'bag' camera. I actually found it quite liberating and enjoyable to use and took more photos than I had on previous trips - and it performed better than I was expecting. But I missed an EVF or tilt screen (messed up some frames of low growing cyclamen in woodland) so have since added a GX7 and just this week a pristine, very low mileage 'like new' GF7. I haven't had chance to use either of them much yet, but one of those will become my walkabout camera in future.

I had potentially been in the market for one of the OM '5' models for a big trip this year as HHHR was of interest, but held off to see if anything new was on the horizon - so was interested to see what this '3' model might be like. But if the speculation is to be believed I don't think it's going to address what I thought it was that I needed - and I certainly don't need it enough to pay anything like 2k for it. Maybe a pre-owned 5' model will scratch that itch - if indeed it's still itching in a month or two - I suspect perhaps not - how many cameras does one girl actually need. But I've also been looking at some of the Sony 1" compacts that seem to have nice IQ too.

Boo said:

James Stirling said:

Boo said:

James Stirling said:

daddyo said:

Photographer Joe Edelman talks about a billboard print he shot with an Olympus E-M1 Mkll. It's a very interesting video, as he describes the entire process. If you want to watch, just skip the first two minutes.

Click to expand...

Billboards due to the typically huge viewing distances are not particularly demanding on image quality

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

Nikon printed an image taken by Joe McNally with a 3mp P&S 65x43 foot 25 years ago on display in Times Square

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1845296760/coolpix990bigprint

Click to expand...

I was about to say the same - billboards are actually printed at quite a low dpi - because, as you say, they're viewed from some distance, they don't need to be any finer.

I actually have the prints of one here in my office, from something I did professionally a few years ago and took a scan of it next to a ruler to post here some time ago. You can see how coarse it is - not sure if this will embed as DPR no longer likes my image host, but might work as a link:

https://photos.imageevent.com/boophotos/olddpreview/billboardscan.jpg

Click to expand...

That does show the resolution or lack of billboards

Boo said:

In respect of the thread subject - I'm personally happy with lower MP counts (12-16 is my own sweet spot, 20MP would maybe be nice, but not necessary) for my own purposes - I'd need a new computer to go much bigger - but I also get how that wouldn't suit others either who have different requirements - same as I don't need fast or pinpoint AF or very quick start up time, but others do.

Click to expand...

I do enjoy the high MP models but for most uses it is more a fun option than vital . I do have a fairly powerful PC but these days I don't shoot in high volumes ( I used to do weddings and the like ) . So processing time is not really an issue. I also enjoy the post processing experience which I appreciate not everyone does

Boo said:

We all choose cameras to suit our needs and there's a huge amount to choose from.

Click to expand...

That is very true , really unless you have a very niche use case , there are a host of ILC cameras going back a few years now.I am more likely at the moment to scale down my current gear than add any more , though temptation is a terrible thing

Click to expand...

My circumstances changed after I lost my husband and I started travelling and holidaying differently.

Click to expand...

I am very sorry for your loss

Boo said:

For example, he would unflinchingly carry anything extra I wanted in his rucksack and therefore weight and size didn't worry me as much - he regularly took a 300mm lens for me, in case I saw a deer or buzzard as we walked. But now I have to carry everything I want in my own bag, I became more aware of not only weight and size, but shape too.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with wanting a smaller lighter system . Everyone has their own needs and interests . I am luck that my main photographic activities can be done with compact lenses . For the bird and wildlife gang long lenses are the order of the day

Boo said:

I love my E-M10, but it's so damn knobbly, that it became a real nuisance putting it and out of bags one holiday (grazed knuckles, snagged nails etc), that I bought an 'as new' GF3 as a small streamlined 'bag' camera. I actually found it quite liberating and enjoyable to use and took more photos than I had on previous trips - and it performed better than I was expecting. But I missed an EVF or tilt screen (messed up some frames of low growing cyclamen in woodland) so have since added a GX7 and just this week a pristine, very low mileage 'like new' GF7. I haven't had chance to use either of them much yet, but one of those will become my walkabout camera in future.

Click to expand...

I had a GX7 myself and its follow on the GX8 is my most used and most enjoyed camera

Boo said:

I had potentially been in the market for one of the OM '5' models for a big trip this year as HHHR was of interest, but held off to see if anything new was on the horizon - so was interested to see what this '3' model might be like.

Click to expand...

Some of the computational stuff is bordering on magic Though I have drifted back to doing things in post the old fashioned way. The in-camera image stacking is a wonder for macro shooting

Boo said:

But if the speculation is to be believed I don't think it's going to address what I thought it was that I needed - and I certainly don't need it enough to pay anything like 2k for it. Maybe a pre-owned 5' model will scratch that itch - if indeed it's still itching in a month or two - I suspect perhaps not - how many cameras does one girl actually need.

Click to expand...

Need , what has that to do with our camera desires I think if you don't need the latest features and maybe we don't there are some fantastic bargains around

Boo said:

But I've also been looking at some of the Sony 1" compacts that seem to have nice IQ too.

Click to expand...

My wife loves here RX100 V and RX10 V amazing feature set squeezed in, for me the smaller RX100 series have handling and ergonomic challenges but for size to performance ratio they are hard to beat

Mark Ransom said:

TheRealYeats said:

daddyo said:

It seems to me that the obsession with ever increasing camera resolution demands has pretty much reached the point of absurdity -- for the overwhelming majority of photographers. I venture to guess that 99% of photographers use camera output to produce 'reasonable' size photo prints and internet based image sharing -- and that includes professional photographers (having been one).

Click to expand...

Those are a couple of good-looking photos you posted.

For those of us who photograph critters from tiny to large, having more pixels on our subject is generally always a good thing. Lots of resolution gives us lots of detail, or the ability to crop deeply - which can also lead to being able to use smaller, (hopefully) cheaper lenses.

Click to expand...

The problem with smaller cheaper lenses is that they might not have the required sharpness to take advantage of those extra megapixels.

Click to expand...

I mean, the 300/4 PRO is smaller and cheaper than the Great White.

Mark Ransom said:

Mark Ransom said:

More pixels can also give a bit more leeway when there's a screw-up, like slightly missed focus or a bit of motion blur. Careful sharpening + downsizing can result in a crisp, detailed photo.

Click to expand...

Downsizing is a magic rescue tool. But I don't think the resolution you started with makes a lot of difference.

Click to expand...

In my experience, it does. Comparing the same lens (Pentax A 400/5.6) on different bodies (K-5 II, K-3 II) the extra pixels help with a slightly missed focus.

BudgetTraveller said:

When Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa with just a couple of dollars worth of supplies. It's now worth 870 million dollars. It was created with low-tech and image IQ is not as high as Paula.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your extreme obsession with money. The use of technical cameras and large format film is not particularly expensive (it's basically the oldest form of photography), but the process is cumbersome and it requires great skill. But the point is that this process offers a level of realism that adds greatly to the quality of the work and the impression that it makes on the viewer. As said, I don't need it for my own photography, but I certainly understand and appreciate those who are up to the challenge (and the rewards!) of this sort of work.

daddyo said:

I'm sure Hendrik Kertens' print is a wonderful print. While I agree with what you are saying, I'm not sure this is a valid example. Here a photo of my Brother-in-law, reasonably close to the same crop, along with a 100% crop. This image was shot with the 16 MP E-M1 and Oly 45mm f/1.8. I think the detail in this crop compares very favorably with your example --

Click to expand...

Yes, good point. The level of detail that you can get out of even a 16MP file is very impressive (from the early 00's, I recall a movement that said that 6 MP, the approximate resolution of a 35mm slide, is enough for nearly all purposes).

At 50x60cm, assuming 300dpi, the 'analog' print that I showed corresponds to appr. 40 MP in digital. It would take a much larger print to exhaust the detail that's present in the large format negative, but I guess you'd have to stand very close to appreciate it. That 50x60cm print had the strange effect that the longer I looked at it, the more detail and color nuances it kept revealing. It was very different from watching an image on screen (but I haven't seen an 8K screen yet).

eques said:

BudgetTraveller said:

Danielvr said:

eques said:

So really, there are no rational reasons why people go for higher and higher megapixel cameras and lenses, only perhaps they can show it around like a status symbol.

Click to expand...

This is a copy of 'Hairnet', a photo by Dutch photographer Hendrik Kerstens. The print is 60cm (23") high. It shows his daughter Paula. As a portrait it is close to life-size.

I don't need high resolution in my own photography (it's a tool that requires more capable hands), but it would be foolish to deny its practical and artistic usefulness.

Click to expand...

When Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa with just a couple of dollars worth of supplies. It's now worth 870 million dollars. It was created with low-tech and image IQ is not as high as Paula.

Still, what made that painting worth 870 million dollars from a couple of dollars worth of supplies?

From your example, you are demonstrating what humans will do to justify putting a value on anything that is special, which is worth bragging about.

I mean, what is it so special about the Mona Lisa painting? You can brag about it being 870 million dollars in 2024 and you can brag about the life like portrait of Paula of Hendrik Kerstens. But remember; somebody spin that. Just like someone spin the Mona Lisa painting and made it millions of dollars.

Did Leonardo Da Vinci ever made those millions of dollars? I don't think so. Someone else did and more, without even having to learn how to paint!!

Click to expand...

I saw this crop and it haunts me (Mona Lisa never did! But that is another story.).

Must rethink my gear and shooting style completely.

Now about those $$ - I checked what a print of Kerstens costs. So even apart from the artistic value of his art, if you reduce it to $$, it still covers all MP you could dream of and makes a nice living besides.

Click to expand...

Yes, Kerstens' work no doubt appeals to a group of clients and sort of fuels the megapixel race, or FOMO for higher megapixels, because of the WOW factor.

I remembered during the 1990s, where there was this photographer who gave a speech about his work, which was valued at 1 million USD at the time, of a couple of partners having sex and was photographed in multiple exposures. It was just as haunting and as bizarre as Paula (Kersten's work) (not in extreme detail, but the extreme animalistic nature) and the man got all the pleasures, and the women needed to suffer what looks to me like pain to please that single man. Some of my friends commented that it was a photograph that came from hell! What stopped it from being thrown into the dustbin was the price tag. It was art.

It was quite an awakening process among the audience. After the talk though, there was a high interest in camera multiple exposure feature that led to today's birth of ICM (In Camera Movement) photography.

So stuff like this happens in waves. It goes up with interest, and then dies off. The soft focus FOMO craze of the 80's portrait photography era, where people couldn't get enough of that. Today, it's the sharp f/1.2 lenses with out of focus background that's in fashion for portraits, that not only it needs to be ultra-sharp, but detailed and taken with a high megapixel camera until that FOMO dies off too.

Danielvr said:

Danielvr said:

When Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa with just a couple of dollars worth of supplies. It's now worth 870 million dollars. It was created with low-tech and image IQ is not as high as Paula.

Click to expand...

I don't understand your extreme obsession with money. The use of technical cameras and large format film is not particularly expensive (it's basically the oldest form of photography), but the process is cumbersome and it requires great skill. But the point is that this process offers a level of realism that adds greatly to the quality of the work and the impression that it makes on the viewer. As said, I don't need it for my own photography, but I certainly understand and appreciate those who are up to the challenge (and the rewards!) of this sort of work.

Click to expand...

But you used the example of Hendrik Kerstens' work. Why do you use him as the example and not some Joe or Jane on Flickr who shoots with a Canon R5 or Nikon Z8 of his or her family portraits.

Aren't you doing this to instill some of form legitimacy that Kerstens' work is also valued a lot in terms of money? It's like the pot trying to call the kettle's black. Are you not also obsessed with money and a person's fame and use that to affirm your rebuttal on my post by you using Hendrik's work as an example? If Hendrik Kerstens' is a nobody, then your rebuttal won't work. But he is not a NOBODY isn't he and neither is Leonardo Da Vinci. Btw, Leonardo never made the millions after his death; it was someone else. And yet, Hendrik Kerstens not only made the money in his lifetime, but has the fame that Leonardo never had, but should be deserved.

Fame had always been used as a justification of one's legitimate work. The same with Vivian Maier. Her work didn't become legitimate until she died and until somebody went through her unpaid storage locker and discovered her work. Someone else made a lot of money off her work. She never saw a dime from her work and many people used her work to argue certain viewpoints and created a biography in her favour, so she can become a somebody rather than a nameless nobody and using that name allowed her name to legitimize whatever the art of street photography narratives people want to push as being true. What about all the other Chicago photographers during her time? Are all other Chicago born photographers in her time with much better gear all total S**T in their work? I found that hard to believe, because many of them earn higher income than a nanny and therefore have better gear. You know, when we went to the Chicago museum of art last year to see her work, most people were commenting of it must be her Leica that made her so good. Oh no, it's because she's using a medium format Rolleiflex that made her work so good, so detailed when everybody else was shooting 35mm. To be honest -- it's all make believe! This is the reflection of what today's demand is.

The OP wanted to know why there are these insatiable appetite for higher megapixel cameras and that's because that's the DEMAND. Supply and demand -- where there is a demand, there must be a supply to address the demand as you rightly and correctly pointed out is for those extreme detailed photographs people want. It's what people demand, at least today, because it gives people the WOW factor. 45MP is better than 20MP. 61MP is better than 20MP. 100MP is better than 20MP.

How arrogant for daddyo and BudgetTraveler to stand in judgement of me. I haven't bothered reading the rest of the thread.

I enjoy my 100 megapixels because I enjoy the experience of looking at them and working with them on my large monitor when I'm post-processing - and yes I enjoy post-processing just as I enjoyed darkroom work back in the day.

It's a sensuous experience seeing the incredible detail and stunning dynamic range come to life. Yes I'm pixel peeping. And I find it very satisfying. So how does that hurt you? Go away and mind your own business.

Even if I never share these images with anyone else, it's an experience I enjoy in and of itself. So a big middle finger to you for judging me.

I try to tell myself I'm keeping my M43 for macro and birding photography, but tbh I'll reach for the GFX and try to make it work and only grab the M43 when and if that fails, because the M43 raw files are just not as satisfying to work with.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

Joe Edelman makes the point very clearly that billboard production does not require high resolution images.

My reply was to 'JOrmsby' who seemed to think that m4/3's would not be adequate for billboard printing.

100MPix on a MF sensor is one thing, and perhaps less demanding optically than 20MPix on M43 even. Put 100MPix on an M43 sensor and you will most likely exceed the optical resolution that the best optics on the market are capable of resolving. I don't know how much the best optics resolving limit is, but judging by the extra details I see in HR mode, it is not far off its maximum already. Yes I see ever so slightly sharper details in HR mode (80Mpix) vs standard 20Mpix, but not a whole lot many more detail elements per se. You can pretty much see the same things at 20MPix that you can at 80MPix; the later is just a tad cleaner, but good processing of the 20MPix image can get you pretty darn close. I understand the amazement that can be had to see a MF 100MPix image at 100%, but to think that the same can be achieved with a M43 size sensor is a bit of a leap of fate I suspect. In most likelyhood, more pixels on an small M43 sensor will not lead to more details that we already have.

SterlingBjorndahl said:

How arrogant for daddyo and BudgetTraveler to stand in judgement of me. I haven't bothered reading the rest of the thread.

I enjoy my 100 megapixels because I enjoy the experience of looking at them and working with them on my large monitor when I'm post-processing - and yes I enjoy post-processing just as I enjoyed darkroom work back in the day.

It's a sensuous experience seeing the incredible detail and stunning dynamic range come to life. Yes I'm pixel peeping. And I find it very satisfying. So how does that hurt you? Go away and mind your own business.

Even if I never share these images with anyone else, it's an experience I enjoy in and of itself. So a big middle finger to you for judging me.

I try to tell myself I'm keeping my M43 for macro and birding photography, but tbh I'll reach for the GFX and try to make it work and only grab the M43 when and if that fails, because the M43 raw files are just not as satisfying to work with.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

Click to expand...

Some folks are into enjoying every fine detail. Others are "big picture" folk who care about the beauty of the forest but not any particular tree. Some do both, depending on the subject/scene/whim.

Sure is fun to fight about it.

James Stirling said:

Boo said:

James Stirling said:

Boo said:

James Stirling said:

daddyo said:

Photographer Joe Edelman talks about a billboard print he shot with an Olympus E-M1 Mkll. It's a very interesting video, as he describes the entire process. If you want to watch, just skip the first two minutes.

Click to expand...

Billboards due to the typically huge viewing distances are not particularly demanding on image quality

https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239

Nikon printed an image taken by Joe McNally with a 3mp P&S 65x43 foot 25 years ago on display in Times Square

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1845296760/coolpix990bigprint

Click to expand...

I was about to say the same - billboards are actually printed at quite a low dpi - because, as you say, they're viewed from some distance, they don't need to be any finer.

I actually have the prints of one here in my office, from something I did professionally a few years ago and took a scan of it next to a ruler to post here some time ago. You can see how coarse it is - not sure if this will embed as DPR no longer likes my image host, but might work as a link:

https://photos.imageevent.com/boophotos/olddpreview/billboardscan.jpg

Click to expand...

That does show the resolution or lack of billboards

James Stirling said:

In respect of the thread subject - I'm personally happy with lower MP counts (12-16 is my own sweet spot, 20MP would maybe be nice, but not necessary) for my own purposes - I'd need a new computer to go much bigger - but I also get how that wouldn't suit others either who have different requirements - same as I don't need fast or pinpoint AF or very quick start up time, but others do.

Click to expand...

I do enjoy the high MP models but for most uses it is more a fun option than vital . I do have a fairly powerful PC but these days I don't shoot in high volumes ( I used to do weddings and the like ) . So processing time is not really an issue. I also enjoy the post processing experience which I appreciate not everyone does

James Stirling said:

We all choose cameras to suit our needs and there's a huge amount to choose from.

Click to expand...

That is very true , really unless you have a very niche use case , there are a host of ILC cameras going back a few years now.I am more likely at the moment to scale down my current gear than add any more , though temptation is a terrible thing

Click to expand...

My circumstances changed after I lost my husband and I started travelling and holidaying differently.

Click to expand...

I am very sorry for your loss

Click to expand...

Thank you kindly. That's why my photography took a back seat and I'm trying to rediscover my 'eye', which seems to have got lost a bit after several years being a carer, then executor and house clearer, several times over - the peril of just being the age that I am. I was just starting to emerge when I then fell and broke my knee and ankle - so everything was on hold again for a while.

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

For example, he would unflinchingly carry anything extra I wanted in his rucksack and therefore weight and size didn't worry me as much - he regularly took a 300mm lens for me, in case I saw a deer or buzzard as we walked. But now I have to carry everything I want in my own bag, I became more aware of not only weight and size, but shape too.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with wanting a smaller lighter system . Everyone has their own needs and interests . I am luck that my main photographic activities can be done with compact lenses . For the bird and wildlife gang long lenses are the order of the day

Click to expand...

Likewise. I have the 75-300mm lens for the small amount of wildlife I do - but I don't generally carry it with me. I don't really have the opportunity to do much, but I enjoy it when I do.

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

I love my E-M10, but it's so damn knobbly, that it became a real nuisance putting it and out of bags one holiday (grazed knuckles, snagged nails etc), that I bought an 'as new' GF3 as a small streamlined 'bag' camera. I actually found it quite liberating and enjoyable to use and took more photos than I had on previous trips - and it performed better than I was expecting. But I missed an EVF or tilt screen (messed up some frames of low growing cyclamen in woodland) so have since added a GX7 and just this week a pristine, very low mileage 'like new' GF7. I haven't had chance to use either of them much yet, but one of those will become my walkabout camera in future.

Click to expand...

I had a GX7 myself and its follow on the GX8 is my most used and most enjoyed camera

Click to expand...

I only got the GX7 before Christmas, when one cropped up in great condition (also low mileage and immaculate condition) after having 2 [returned] duds. I need to spend more time with it, but I'm already pretty comfortable that I'm going to like it. The GF7 is a pretty looking, dinky little camera and I tried it earlier and it works fine to fire from the phone app by wifi - which can be useful sometimes to fire ground level shots to do macro focus bracketing for example - I just do several frames with the same exposure and a static camera and move the focus point on the phone screen. Saves my old knees. So that should be good for me on the move too. It's only got a small battery though, so I don't think it's up to a whole day out of shooting.

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

I had potentially been in the market for one of the OM '5' models for a big trip this year as HHHR was of interest, but held off to see if anything new was on the horizon - so was interested to see what this '3' model might be like.

Click to expand...

Some of the computational stuff is bordering on magic Though I have drifted back to doing things in post the old fashioned way. The in-camera image stacking is a wonder for macro shooting

Click to expand...

I think on balance that I prefer focus bracketing for macro - either manually as above, or using the bracketing on the E-M10 - then stacking in Helicon. In-camera stacking might be better for out and about shots though, so was another consideration for a potential upgrade. I'm not sure that HHHR is the feature I hoped it might be - I've not seen compelling evidence yet that makes me go 'I want some of that' - so I'm cooling on that idea.

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

But if the speculation is to be believed I don't think it's going to address what I thought it was that I needed - and I certainly don't need it enough to pay anything like 2k for it. Maybe a pre-owned 5' model will scratch that itch - if indeed it's still itching in a month or two - I suspect perhaps not - how many cameras does one girl actually need.

Click to expand...

Need , what has that to do with our camera desires I think if you don't need the latest features and maybe we don't there are some fantastic bargains around

Click to expand...

I haven't told my sister yet that I've bought another camera - I'll wait until she appears with another designer handbag - although in fairness, like me, she buys pre-owned and does a lot of work restoring them. I think I've struck largely lucky of late - pristine GX7 at under £250, the GF7 was under £150 - it's only been powered up 64 times - I've already added over 30 more this week alone. I also got a very nice condition 7-14mm lens. I'm quite taken with pre-owned older gear (you need to choose carefully though) - the limiting factor in my photography at the moment is me - and opportunities. Those need work and can't just be bought.

James Stirling said:

James Stirling said:

But I've also been looking at some of the Sony 1" compacts that seem to have nice IQ too.

Click to expand...

My wife loves here RX100 V and RX10 V amazing feature set squeezed in, for me the smaller RX100 series have handling and ergonomic challenges but for size to performance ratio they are hard to beat

Click to expand...

That's the model, I couldn't remember the number - the RX100-whatever mark. But they seem to be priced quite highly - not sure what they were new (knowing Sony, probably silly money), but I shall keep my eye on them - I could do with a 'pocket' camera with comparable IQ. I got the T-G7, but am not very happy with it, so had my old TZ70 repaired and it's nowhere near as good as it was before I broke it, so that particular niche needs looking at.

And there you go again!

This thread is about the usefulness (or legitimacy if you will) of high resolution in photography. I brought up Kerstens because he is a well known large format photographer, and large format gear produces the highest achievable resolution. He is using that to great artistic effect. That's all - money and fame have nothing to do with it.

SterlingBjorndahl said:

How arrogant for daddyo and BudgetTraveler to stand in judgement of me. I haven't bothered reading the rest of the thread.

I enjoy my 100 megapixels because I enjoy the experience of looking at them and working with them on my large monitor when I'm post-processing - and yes I enjoy post-processing just as I enjoyed darkroom work back in the day.

It's a sensuous experience seeing the incredible detail and stunning dynamic range come to life. Yes I'm pixel peeping. And I find it very satisfying. So how does that hurt you? Go away and mind your own business.

Even if I never share these images with anyone else, it's an experience I enjoy in and of itself. So a big middle finger to you for judging me.

I try to tell myself I'm keeping my M43 for macro and birding photography, but tbh I'll reach for the GFX and try to make it work and only grab the M43 when and if that fails, because the M43 raw files are just not as satisfying to work with.

Sterling
--
Lens Grit

Click to expand...

People keep glossing over the difference between wants and needs. Wants are highly personal, and nobody can argue with you about those. If you want high resolution because you enjoy it more, that's your right.

Needs are a bit more objective. While circumstances may differ, it should be possible to have a reasoned discussion about them.

It's wants that make the marketplace dynamic and interesting, and keep the manufacturers in business.

daddyo said:

I don't need more resolution than I get from the native 20MP files -- so I'm simply using tons of storage space for something I don't need.

Click to expand...

BudgetTraveller said:

Danielvr said:

BudgetTraveller said:

So really, there are no rational reasons why people go for higher and higher megapixel cameras and lenses, only perhaps they can show it around like a status symbol.

Click to expand...

This is a copy of 'Hairnet', a photo by Dutch photographer Hendrik Kerstens. The print is 60cm (23") high. It shows his daughter Paula. As a portrait it is close to life-size.



I don't need high resolution in my own photography (it's a tool that requires more capable hands), but it would be foolish to deny its practical and artistic usefulness.

Click to expand...

When Leonardo Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa with just a couple of dollars worth of supplies. It's now worth 870 million dollars. It was created with low-tech and image IQ is not as high as Paula.

Still, what made that painting worth 870 million dollars from a couple of dollars worth of supplies?

From your example, you are demonstrating what humans will do to justify putting a value on anything that is special, which is worth bragging about.

I mean, what is it so special about the Mona Lisa painting? You can brag about it being 870 million dollars in 2024 and you can brag about the life like portrait of Paula of Hendrik Kerstens. But remember; somebody spin that. Just like someone spin the Mona Lisa painting and made it millions of dollars.

Did Leonardo Da Vinci ever made those millions of dollars? I don't think so. Someone else did and more, without even having to learn how to paint!!

Click to expand...

I think that Kersten's image is more after the style of the also very famous painting "The Girl with the Pearl Earring" than the "Mona Lisa" but that having been said these super inflated values have more to do with the "bigger fool" theory of valuation than any other intrinsic value based on real life worth.

The "bigger fool" theory says - I am a fool to pay such a silly price for such an article that cannot service any useful purpose other than be looked at and from which "wealth status" can be deduced". That if I keep it for a while and then re-sell it then there will be a "bigger fool" that will pay me even more for it. So who is wrong? The fool that did not buy it when it was cheaper, or the fool that will pay even more in an expectancy of finding that even bigger fool when the time comes to re-sell?

Of course there is the rare value of a single item of considerable quality crafted by someone who has already died. Other items can qualify - jewellery, rare cars, stamps, coins, other objects d'art, even Leica cameras and lenses (but make this the first film model issues) - even wilder still: the becoming rarer unique GM5 (smile) - that is, until Panasonic eventually decides to make an update model - in which case rendering all the GM5 bodies in captivity completely valueless.

But photographs? Much harder, no matter how good, as long as there is any chance that the "negative" is still hanging around.

--
Tom Caldwell

I used to own the RX100 III. The lens is really sharp, but I didn't like the power on and off waiting for the lens to do its thing. It's not too uncomfortable carrying it around using a small pouch and a lanyard.

Also, where are my other GF owners at?!





Small, cute, and unassuming. I keep the JPEG noise reduction to minimum and use only centre auto focus point. Works great, including the flash. I'm hoping I can find a cheap GX850 or a later gen GF camera.

--
I like cameras, they're fun.

Daniel, I would bet that your being blown away by Kerstens print was exactly that -- the print itself. The large format used to capture the image was probably very secondary. I bet that the print you viewed was in fact an outstanding, very high quality print -- which always makes an impression.

Ansel Adams for sure captured some amazing images, but what really rocketed his work to fame was the quality of his amazing printing skills -- he was a master of darkroom technique, and I have read that he worked through many versions of "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" before he was satisfied with the result.

I am blessed to own an 11X14 B&W Gelatin Silver Print of a gorgeous scenic image by a photographer named Keith Rutledge. Keith studied darkroom technique under Ansel, and my print is hands down the finest, most visually impactful print I have ever owned. What makes it so impactful isn't that Keith shot it with a 4X5 View Camera, nor the beauty of the scene and composition which are outstanding, and certainly contribute. What makes it so visually arresting is Keith's darkroom skills, and the obvious tonal quality of the print itself. There is no comparison with any other print I own.

So again, the quality of the image output, be it print or just an image on a monitor really boils down to the skill of the photographer in the areas of capture and processing, much more than image resolution -- in virtually all cases. The point of this post was never to suggest that resolution doesn't matter -- it clearly does -- just not to the extent that many seem to assign to it. I think your example shows that.

I would add that my personal preference is always to view a good print, rather than an electronic image -- but alas, there's only so much wall space.