DavidMillier
Forum Pro
I think Jim Kasson calculated a minimum of around 800MP is necessary to completely remove all colour and luminance aliasing with the very best lenses at optimal apertures.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I believe we've 'Jumped the shark' on camera resolution
- Thread starter daddyo
- Start date
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
Thank you for insulting my choice of equipment.
My mother, a working class woman from the north of England, described attitudes like yours as "inverted snobbery" - making a virtue out of having less or achieving less so you could brag about having less to brag about.
James Stirling
Forum Pro
What makes it funny is that like the rest of us long term users of digital, they will have went through, 4,8,10,12 ,16 & 20mp models . And if by some miracle OM released a camera with 30mp they would buy it
It is just the ever popular by some yay OM and if OM does not do it then no one needs it This popped into my head
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
One of the more skilful and successful macro photography Youtubers https://www.youtube.com/@naturefold/featured switched to an X-H2 about a year ago, because he wanted the level of detail you can only get with a higher resolution (in this case 40 MP) sensor. He works to a consistently amazing standard and I am sure that was a great choice for him.
I can relate to both his choice and your comments above, but I've gone the other way, choosing the OM-1 with the 90 macro and the 150-400 as my everyday weapons of choice - despite also owning a Canon R5 and R7 with comparable lenses. I prefer the OM-1 setup for reasons which everyone here will be familiar with so I don't need to explain all that - but the fact is I do miss the sumptuous detail I could achieve with both of the Canons. I choose the 20 MP M4/3 sensor for all the other benefits that the system brings - not because I'm totally happy with a 20 MP sensor. I'm not.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
Like so much great comedy, it was inspired by astute observation of real lifeWhat makes it funny is that like the rest of us long term users of digital, they will have went through, 4,8,10,12 ,16 & 20mp models . And if by some miracle OM released a camera with 30mp they would buy it
This popped into my head
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/ or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/stevebalcombe/popular-interesting/
Last edited:
Tuonov2
Senior Member
I see, horses for courses, it's a rational way of working imo. It's a shame some of the system evangelists can't understand the logic.
Its all come down what kind of tech are u using. I mean not all have Nvidia GPU for which all denoise are optimized. So from high Mpix count maybe will benefit "profesionals" with right gear and lot of storage. Like i one profesional showed case of Sony Tough Cards like for at least 2k, maybe even more. I understand that 63mpix is 63mb picture so he need the speedy cards and big size storage. Do i? No!
For most people who dont even read manual and look for help on forums/groups its just "more is bigger" without real knowledge why it is so. Same goes for phone cameras To have high Mpix count you first need to switch some "Pro" mode etc... Do yiu really think most of people do it? Or even know that they need to do it? Of course no. They shoot with phone and are happy that the advertisment say they have 50mpix or 64mpix camera never looking even if its ture and are they really shooting in with that camera.
For most people who dont even read manual and look for help on forums/groups its just "more is bigger" without real knowledge why it is so. Same goes for phone cameras
To have high Mpix count you first need to switch some "Pro" mode etc... Do yiu really think most of people do it? Or even know that they need to do it? Of course no. They shoot with phone and are happy that the advertisment say they have 50mpix or 64mpix camera never looking even if its ture and are they really shooting in with that camera.
James Stirling
Forum Pro
AMD GPU's are also supported at least with DXO . I don't know how far back you can go my sister has a laptop with the mobile 3060 or 3060ti I can't remember which it works fine with DXO and Adobe . The recommended not minimum system requirements lists the RTX 2080 a 7yr old card now (2018 release ) so you don't need to be spending a small fortune on a 5090 !
Need is the thing , what we need is seldom what we have or want
If you are being paid for work you can use the best tool for the job. Many including the OP will have followed the digital trend from 4 to 8 to 10 to 12,16,20 mp . The main reason why some complain about it is because OM does not offer it, the same I don't need folk would be first in line for a shiny new OM camera with a high MP sensor --
Jim Stirling:
"Cogito, ergo sum" Descartes
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
Last edited:
You could successfully argue that the majority were satisfied long ago, whether it be cameras or computers or whatever. When it comes to cameras, it's that minority that the manufacturers want to keep attracting (and it really is the minority still buying non-phone, non-spyware, non-antisocial media-infested cameras). The more reasons to justify upgrading, the better.
I don't mind more resolution at all; I even expect it to steadily increase, as it has been, especially for larger-sensor cameras. Anything that helps get better images when cropping & blowing up is fine by me (if the lens is doesn't let down the team, that is), but the problem is the resolution advancements are too incremental and slow. With increased megapixel resolution we typically see only small improvements (horizontally and vertically) for every million pixels added, for example. But those same extra added megapixels arguably look a lot better on the spec sheet than in real life. I reckon manufacturers won't stop advertising it precisely because of that reason (and by the way, I'll take any extra resolution that they're offering).
With 4K video (arguably the biggest leap in video resolution for Average Joe, ever) a sensor with at least 8MP is required. I have an old 6MP DSLR. I'd like to say that I use it because it takes great images, but I do not. I want the extra resolution (12MP, 18MP, 24MP, etc.) that more recent cameras offer, despite the perfectly fine shooting qualities of that older DSLR.
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,415
- Reaction score
- 2,399
Considering picking up a Gf3 in red once more super in red with its curves portrait Oly 45/1.8 out and about london. Yesterday I realised in bustling central london I frequently just don't have time to change lenses on my E-Pl7 street portrait.
Considering EVF, I could a G3 in red would look super in red, instead of red Gf3, then I could G3 for street portrait 45/1.8 also G3 evf & tilt swivel fas screen for
with longer lenses in parks woods even though G3 doesn't have ibis. 
Last edited:
A 24mmf1.4 prime lens (exceptional lenses available) on a 60MP body offers similar range of application as a 24-70f2.8 prime lens, because you can crop the 24mmf1.4 to 70mmf2.8 (with enough MP left).
this means you use a much smaller lens (much like m43) and still have the option for spectacular 60MP image quality at 24mm (not like m43).
Since Apple also uses this cropping technique for their main camera I think this is probably what we will see being used more often anyway. Why should we as photographers not use this option.
this means you use a much smaller lens (much like m43) and still have the option for spectacular 60MP image quality at 24mm (not like m43).
Since Apple also uses this cropping technique for their main camera I think this is probably what we will see being used more often anyway. Why should we as photographers not use this option.
Last edited:
Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
I disagree, I think we're already at that point. I think that because sensors have stopped including moiré filters because for the most part they are unnecessary. Unless you're photographing a wedding dress with perfect focus, you're probably never going to see moiré because the picture won't be sharp enough to trigger it. Whereas the unsharpness caused by the filter was visible in every picture you take.
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,415
- Reaction score
- 2,399
If Canon Nikon bring out E-P style 35mm digital with clip on tilt evf
If Fuji bring out E-P X-A style 44x33 Gfx with clip on tilt evf
Would be game over for me particularly E-P X-A Fuji Gfx with ibis.
Paired with adapted 35mm manual legacy glass ProfHankD has a list of them that cover well or nearly cover 44x33 would be jacket pocketable .... ideal for me with a legacy 55/1.4, 24/2.8
I'd still carry my E-P alongside my 1/2.5" Ricoh from 2005 and a Sigma DP.
--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
If Fuji bring out E-P X-A style 44x33 Gfx with clip on tilt evf
Would be game over for me particularly E-P X-A Fuji Gfx with ibis.
Paired with adapted 35mm manual legacy glass ProfHankD has a list of them that cover well or nearly cover 44x33 would be jacket pocketable .... ideal for me with a legacy 55/1.4, 24/2.8
I'd still carry my E-P alongside my 1/2.5" Ricoh from 2005 and a Sigma DP.
--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
Last edited:
Mark Ransom
Veteran Member
You're making the mistake of assuming that 60MP is automatically giving you "spectacular image quality". I don't think that's true.
James Stirling
Forum Pro
If the rumours turn out to be true the GFX fixed lens camera would hold some appeal for me , Fuji has a long history in fixed lens MF film cameras . I have their Gw690iii a fun beastie
If the rumours turn out to be true the GFX fixed lens camera would hold some appeal for me , Fuji has a long history in fixed lens MF film cameras . I have their Gw690iii a fun beastie
https://www.fujirumors.com/compose-...res-reflect-fujifilms-photography-philosophy/
James Stirling
Forum Pro
That is good plan ,you canny foxTell your wife it's a P&S like her Sony.If the rumours turn out to be true the GFX fixed lens camera would hold some appeal for me , Fuji has a long history in fixed lens MF film cameras . I have their Gw690iii a fun beastie
https://www.fujirumors.com/compose-...res-reflect-fujifilms-photography-philosophy/
A
It is about the only camera rumoured / on route that tickles my interest . Maybe not enough to part with the cash but It will be interesting to see what it is like--
Jim Stirling:
"Cogito, ergo sum" Descartes
Feel free to tinker with any photos I post
Last edited:
MEDISN
Senior Member
I don't think 16GB would last me a day! :-D Surely you mean TB!
I am in the process of moving cloud servers for backup and subsequently thinking about how big files are and if I should utilize JPG and/or RAW compression more.
Having a single local backup on a NAS is relatively inexpensive I agree. However, clients and collaborators don't operate on my LAN. I move thousands of photos around every week to remote locations, luckily most are JPG! When a client or collaborator want RAW files, then this puts quite a damper on my bandwidth and the process of transferring is a pain point. File size definitely matters.
For the last 10 years or so I seem to store about 1.5 new TB of still images every year (video is another matter). The server in the studio holds six HDD, each 8TB and redundant (24TB total with redundancy). I will upgrade these to 16TB drives soon at a cost of ~ $2400. Beyond the cost, the real PITA will be the time to safely move all files to the new drives. That is a one time process, no way around it.
The real problem is, having one redundant backup in one location is not really a backup. In the event of theft, fire, flood, earthquake, power surge, malware I lose everything if I don't have a remote backup. Even then, there are no guarantees of course. That's where the real cost comes in. Right now we spend $200/month on cloud storage and we are out of space. We are running some trials with other vendors now but overall I am not impressed with speed. They are okay, not great.
So file sizes are important when you rely on mobile workflow and clients/collaborators abroad. I feel like 20-25MB for RAW is the sweet spot. JPG better still. Culling, editing, transferring, backups - everything slows down with large files. Even the G9II RAW are noticebly slower to transfer vs OM1 files. Basically the same size ~40MB as my Canon R5 RAW files. Why? That is frustrating. My 60MP sensor cameras are ~70MB/raw with lossless compression. The A1 is ~60MB/raw lossless compressed. Still a lot of data to shuffle around but better than the X2D 212MB/raw files!!
I hate to put a cap on what I archive for clients. With the recent fires in LA I have already had one client reach out to me because of lost photos. Luckily I was able to pull them off the backup but I wonder how much longer I should maintain this as the cost is not insignificant.
David Kieltyka
Veteran Member
I think this is a literal vs. effective distinction. I'm being literal in the post above: how many megapixels would it take to get to zero aliasing? This is different than "How many mp does it take to effectively get rid of aliasing?" I agree we've reached that effective point.
-Dave-
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum