32 mp really?

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,018
Re: 32 mp really?
1

Jeepit wrote:

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance. This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

Viewing distance of course plays a critical part , but I have found that very large prints seem to encourage folk to move closer to look at the fine detail I have a 72" wide panoramic photo framed on my living room wall { stitched from half a dozen A7rIII shots }.

It is a very detailed view from a mountain overlooking the area I live in . Folks reactions are typically wow look at the size of that , then they invariably move closer to see the fine detail . I think that "Where's Wally?" syndrome is part of human nature

that the detail stands out?

Thanks to all who responded.

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +8 more
Jonas Palm Contributing Member • Posts: 957
Re: 32 mp really?

James Stirling wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance. This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

Viewing distance of course plays a critical part , but I have found that very large prints seem to encourage folk to move closer to look at the fine detail I have a 72" wide panoramic photo framed on my living room wall { stitched from half a dozen A7rIII shots }.

It is a very detailed view from a mountain overlooking the area I live in . Folks reactions are typically wow look at the size of that , then they invariably move closer to see the fine detail . I think that "Where's Wally?" syndrome is part of human nature .

This has been my experience as well. As long as people perceive that "there is more", they will tend to move into the image. And if the detail is subjectively infinite (think contact prints from yesteryear) your eye/mind has a much easier time accepting the image as a window into another place/time. Something qualitative happens when there is no percievable limit.

And as I’ve said many times here, the days of images primarily being enjoyed as prints are long gone. Everyone I know uses screens where they can zoom into the picture to their hearts content, even my severely elderly parents. (And it’s a godsend to them as their eyesight is deteriorating). IPads {insert your own brand of choice} are fantastic for them, allowing them to enlarge images/text/buttons as they please. And they do. All the time.

There is no upper resolution limit any more when it comes to image viewing. All those formulas where you plug in image size and viewing distance (and CoC and...) are useless now. This plays havoc with assumptions about DOF, but also underlying processing such as sharpening.

 Jonas Palm's gear list:Jonas Palm's gear list
Olympus E-M1
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,018
Re: 32 mp really?

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance. This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

Viewing distance of course plays a critical part , but I have found that very large prints seem to encourage folk to move closer to look at the fine detail I have a 72" wide panoramic photo framed on my living room wall { stitched from half a dozen A7rIII shots }.

It is a very detailed view from a mountain overlooking the area I live in . Folks reactions are typically wow look at the size of that , then they invariably move closer to see the fine detail . I think that "Where's Wally?" syndrome is part of human nature .

This has been my experience as well. As long as people perceive that "there is more", they will tend to move into the image. And if the detail is subjectively infinite (think contact prints from yesteryear) your eye/mind has a much easier time accepting the image as a window into another place/time. Something qualitative happens when there is no percievable limit.

And as I’ve said many times here, the days of images primarily being enjoyed as prints are long gone. Everyone I know uses screens where they can zoom into the picture to their hearts content, even my severely elderly parents. (And it’s a godsend to them as their eyesight is deteriorating). IPads {insert your own brand of choice} are fantastic for them, allowing them to enlarge images/text/buttons as they please. And they do. All the time.

There is no upper resolution limit any more when it comes to image viewing. All those formulas where you plug in image size and viewing distance (and CoC and...) are useless now. This plays havoc with assumptions about DOF, but also underlying processing such as sharpening.

I agree the ability to zoom in with the flick of a finger is both a boon and a bit of curse at times as any issues with your image can be seen in gory detail Viewing on devices that allow for such zooming is I assume the most popular way of looking at digital images , though I love large prints

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +8 more
Jonas Palm Contributing Member • Posts: 957
Re: 32 mp really?
1

James Stirling wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance. This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

Viewing distance of course plays a critical part , but I have found that very large prints seem to encourage folk to move closer to look at the fine detail I have a 72" wide panoramic photo framed on my living room wall { stitched from half a dozen A7rIII shots }.

It is a very detailed view from a mountain overlooking the area I live in . Folks reactions are typically wow look at the size of that , then they invariably move closer to see the fine detail . I think that "Where's Wally?" syndrome is part of human nature .

This has been my experience as well. As long as people perceive that "there is more", they will tend to move into the image. And if the detail is subjectively infinite (think contact prints from yesteryear) your eye/mind has a much easier time accepting the image as a window into another place/time. Something qualitative happens when there is no percievable limit.

And as I’ve said many times here, the days of images primarily being enjoyed as prints are long gone. Everyone I know uses screens where they can zoom into the picture to their hearts content, even my severely elderly parents. (And it’s a godsend to them as their eyesight is deteriorating). IPads {insert your own brand of choice} are fantastic for them, allowing them to enlarge images/text/buttons as they please. And they do. All the time.

There is no upper resolution limit any more when it comes to image viewing. All those formulas where you plug in image size and viewing distance (and CoC and...) are useless now. This plays havoc with assumptions about DOF, but also underlying processing such as sharpening.

I agree the ability to zoom in with the flick of a finger is both a boon and a bit of curse at times as any issues with your image can be seen in gory detail Viewing on devices that allow for such zooming is I assume the most popular way of looking at digital images , though I love large prints

I also make occasional large prints. Love the physicality of them, and if you hang them on a wall, being ever present will make them ingrained into your mind and memory.

It’s not an either/or proposition. But lets be clear about statistics here. Several billion new images are shared on the internet every day. So how many more images stay on phones or computers? A factor of hundred? A factor of thousand? Compared to that photo print volumes are completely negligeable. So generalizing about photographic needs based on (no cropping allowed!) prints, is intellectually dishonest, and only applies to an infinitesimally small number of images overall.

 Jonas Palm's gear list:Jonas Palm's gear list
Olympus E-M1
john isaacs Veteran Member • Posts: 3,509
Re: 32 mp really?
1

Jeepit wrote:

This from Mirrorless Rumors:

Sshort roundup of the rumored cameras for the year 2019:

Leica SL2: coming the second half of the year with same Panasonic S1R sensor
Hasselblad X1D-100: To be on the market by the second half of the year and featuring the new Sony 100MP sensor
Fuji GFX100: Will be announced on May 23 (we know all specs about that camera)
Canon High End EOS-R camera: Probably features a new 64 Megapixel sensor and will be announced in autumn
Canon EOS-M500: Entry level APS-C camera coming this autumn
Sony A9II: To be announced in September and feature some revolutionary advancements (particularly on the sensor level)
Sony A7sIII: To be announced with or slightly after the Sony A9II
Olympus E-M5III: To be announced in late summer/early autumn and maybe featuring a new 32MP Sony sensor

Does anyone know if Sony actually has a mFt 32 mp sensor?

Because if they do and if Olympus is able to procure it and implement it into a camera...maybe hold off on purchasing the EM1x for the OMD EM1 mark III. The mark II is coming up on its end of life cycle. i know I know pure speculation...

Rick

This is what "End of Life Cycle" means to me:

It's now reasonably priced.

It now has updated firmware to fix the problems it had on release and add new features that make it even better.

There are now lots of articles on how to best set up and use the camera, as well as what to expect from it's performance.

 john isaacs's gear list:john isaacs's gear list
Nikon D7100 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Nikon D750 Olympus E-M5 II +13 more
cba_melbourne Senior Member • Posts: 1,020
Re: 32 mp really?

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance. This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

Viewing distance of course plays a critical part , but I have found that very large prints seem to encourage folk to move closer to look at the fine detail I have a 72" wide panoramic photo framed on my living room wall { stitched from half a dozen A7rIII shots }.

It is a very detailed view from a mountain overlooking the area I live in . Folks reactions are typically wow look at the size of that , then they invariably move closer to see the fine detail . I think that "Where's Wally?" syndrome is part of human nature .

This has been my experience as well. As long as people perceive that "there is more", they will tend to move into the image. And if the detail is subjectively infinite (think contact prints from yesteryear) your eye/mind has a much easier time accepting the image as a window into another place/time. Something qualitative happens when there is no percievable limit.

And as I’ve said many times here, the days of images primarily being enjoyed as prints are long gone. Everyone I know uses screens where they can zoom into the picture to their hearts content, even my severely elderly parents. (And it’s a godsend to them as their eyesight is deteriorating). IPads {insert your own brand of choice} are fantastic for them, allowing them to enlarge images/text/buttons as they please. And they do. All the time.

There is no upper resolution limit any more when it comes to image viewing. All those formulas where you plug in image size and viewing distance (and CoC and...) are useless now. This plays havoc with assumptions about DOF, but also underlying processing such as sharpening.

I agree the ability to zoom in with the flick of a finger is both a boon and a bit of curse at times as any issues with your image can be seen in gory detail Viewing on devices that allow for such zooming is I assume the most popular way of looking at digital images , though I love large prints

I also make occasional large prints. Love the physicality of them, and if you hang them on a wall, being ever present will make them ingrained into your mind and memory.

It’s not an either/or proposition. But lets be clear about statistics here. Several billion new images are shared on the internet every day. So how many more images stay on phones or computers? A factor of hundred? A factor of thousand? Compared to that photo print volumes are completely negligeable. So generalizing about photographic needs based on (no cropping allowed!) prints, is intellectually dishonest, and only applies to an infinitesimally small number of images overall.

The thing is this, mainly exceptional pictures, pictures that speak directly to your brain, make it to a large print. Those pictures almost invariably will be seen as a whole from a distance. Because they engage the viewer and entice emotions. There is no need nor desire to zoom in to discover something relevant.

The other 100 or 1000 pictures left in digital form are those that do not talk for themselves. We instinctively want to zoom in for curiosity - but there is rarely something hidden in the details that speaks to us. It's just average pictures. They do not become better in an artistic sense, just because we can pixel peep and confirm that they technically perfectly sharp.

 cba_melbourne's gear list:cba_melbourne's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus PEN-F Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm 1:4.0-5.6 +11 more
TN Args
TN Args Veteran Member • Posts: 8,360
Re: 32 mp really?
3

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

I also make occasional large prints. Love the physicality of them, and if you hang them on a wall, being ever present will make them ingrained into your mind and memory.

It’s not an either/or proposition. But lets be clear about statistics here. Several billion new images are shared on the internet every day. So how many more images stay on phones or computers? A factor of hundred? A factor of thousand? Compared to that photo print volumes are completely negligeable. So generalizing about photographic needs based on (no cropping allowed!) prints, is intellectually dishonest, and only applies to an infinitesimally small number of images overall.

The thing is this, mainly exceptional pictures, pictures that speak directly to your brain, make it to a large print. Those pictures almost invariably will be seen as a whole from a distance. Because they engage the viewer and entice emotions. There is no need nor desire to zoom in to discover something relevant.

The other 100 or 1000 pictures left in digital form are those that do not talk for themselves. We instinctively want to zoom in for curiosity - but there is rarely something hidden in the details that speaks to us. It's just average pictures. They do not become better in an artistic sense, just because we can pixel peep and confirm that they technically perfectly sharp.

That is just way too big an overgeneralisation. "Prints are for the elite images, screens are for the leftovers." More wishful thinking than reality.

Screen-based viewing, even of the best images in the world, is the norm today. So cameras need to be compatible with the habits of screen-based photo appreciation. Those habits include whole-image appreciation, and zooming in to appreciate amazing detail.

There is a parallel in tradition, too. Ancient wall murals were made for standing back and appreciating the whole story, and stepping up to enjoy the amazing scenes within small sections. The small sections weren't just blurry broad brush strokes.

cheers

 TN Args's gear list:TN Args's gear list
Sigma dp0 Quattro Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +7 more
iano Senior Member • Posts: 1,767
retirement
1

john isaacs wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

This from Mirrorless Rumors:

Sshort roundup of the rumored cameras for the year 2019:

Leica SL2: coming the second half of the year with same Panasonic S1R sensor
Hasselblad X1D-100: To be on the market by the second half of the year and featuring the new Sony 100MP sensor
Fuji GFX100: Will be announced on May 23 (we know all specs about that camera)
Canon High End EOS-R camera: Probably features a new 64 Megapixel sensor and will be announced in autumn
Canon EOS-M500: Entry level APS-C camera coming this autumn
Sony A9II: To be announced in September and feature some revolutionary advancements (particularly on the sensor level)
Sony A7sIII: To be announced with or slightly after the Sony A9II
Olympus E-M5III: To be announced in late summer/early autumn and maybe featuring a new 32MP Sony sensor

Does anyone know if Sony actually has a mFt 32 mp sensor?

Because if they do and if Olympus is able to procure it and implement it into a camera...maybe hold off on purchasing the EM1x for the OMD EM1 mark III. The mark II is coming up on its end of life cycle. i know I know pure speculation...

Rick

This is what "End of Life Cycle" means to me:

It's now reasonably priced.

It now has updated firmware to fix the problems it had on release and add new features that make it even better.

Great definition.  Makes retirement sound like something to look forward to. Who said getting old was a drag.

There are now lots of articles on how to best set up and use the camera, as well as what to expect from it's performance.

 iano's gear list:iano's gear list
Panasonic GX850 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic Lumix G Vario HD 14-140mm F4-5.8 OIS Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm F2.8 ASPH OIS Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 +9 more
Kevin Sutton
Kevin Sutton Senior Member • Posts: 1,052
Not sure why 32Mp wouldn’t be okay...

Hi

Back in 2004, I used to shoot digital with an Olympus C-8080, which was an 8Mp 2/3 sensor camera (CCD sensor).  At low ISO (50) the images were fine.

Given the 4/3 sensor has 4x the area of a 2/3 sensor, along with the advances in sensor tech since 2004, I would imagine that image quality from a 32Mp 4/3 sensor would look fine, at least at base ISO.

Thoughts?

Cheers Kevin

-- hide signature --

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning” - Albert Einstein

 Kevin Sutton's gear list:Kevin Sutton's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS50 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro +13 more
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,018
Re: Not sure why 32Mp wouldn’t be okay...
1

Kevin Sutton wrote:

Hi

Back in 2004, I used to shoot digital with an Olympus C-8080, which was an 8Mp 2/3 sensor camera (CCD sensor). At low ISO (50) the images were fine.

I still have my C-8080 , though it is in a box up in the loft of doom. As you say at low ISO it could give very decent results

Given the 4/3 sensor has 4x the area of a 2/3 sensor, along with the advances in sensor tech since 2004, I would imagine that image quality from a 32Mp 4/3 sensor would look fine, at least at base ISO.

Thoughts?

Cheers Kevin

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +8 more
LoneTree1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,157
Re: Not sure why 32Mp wouldn’t be okay...

James Stirling wrote:

Kevin Sutton wrote:

Hi

Back in 2004, I used to shoot digital with an Olympus C-8080, which was an 8Mp 2/3 sensor camera (CCD sensor). At low ISO (50) the images were fine.

I still have my C-8080 , though it is in a box up in the loft of doom. As you say at low ISO it could give very decent results

Given the 4/3 sensor has 4x the area of a 2/3 sensor, along with the advances in sensor tech since 2004, I would imagine that image quality from a 32Mp 4/3 sensor would look fine, at least at base ISO.

Thoughts?

Cheers Kevin

The C-8080's big claim to fame wasn't the then (larger) sensor, it was the lens.

Jonas Palm Contributing Member • Posts: 957
Re: 32 mp really?
1

cba_melbourne wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

frst16 wrote:

Jonas Palm wrote:

frst16 wrote:

If 4K is roughly 8mp, a 6.7mp still displays superbly on my 42” tv (3ft on the long edge). 12mp D700/300 had enough detail to see individual eye-lashes of a portrait shot, and there is even more detail within the 20mp EM1 mkiI or G9 images.

What is the advantage of going to 32mp?

For your use case, watching the full area of the captured image on a legacy TV, there is no advantage to higher resolution sensors, now or ever.

But that is not how all images are used, all the time, by all photographers.

Personally, I’d prefer a 8000x6000 (or even better 12kx9k) sensor. Sonys 100MP FF sensor will be very interesting to see in action for instance. And if you go to optyzcne.pl and check out their multisample shots from the S1r, you’ll get an appreciation for just how much information is lost by low resolution sensor sampling, (and just how far we have to go to get rid of sensor sampling effects on the final image.)

Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusion with how much information is lost when using a lower resolution sensor, but how much of that can you actually see when viewing an image? Does it only become apparent when you are told that one was shot at 8mp vs 100mp

If you displayed a 3x2ft image shot at 8mp vs 100mp and viewed at a suitable distance to appreciate the image. Would you really see a difference? Or is it only when you start looking at a

pixel peeping level

that is the exactly what it comes down to... viewing distance. This has been said so many times in the past on this forum and will continue to have this conversation pertaining to viewing distances & pixel peeping in the future.

Viewing distance of course plays a critical part , but I have found that very large prints seem to encourage folk to move closer to look at the fine detail I have a 72" wide panoramic photo framed on my living room wall { stitched from half a dozen A7rIII shots }.

It is a very detailed view from a mountain overlooking the area I live in . Folks reactions are typically wow look at the size of that , then they invariably move closer to see the fine detail . I think that "Where's Wally?" syndrome is part of human nature .

This has been my experience as well. As long as people perceive that "there is more", they will tend to move into the image. And if the detail is subjectively infinite (think contact prints from yesteryear) your eye/mind has a much easier time accepting the image as a window into another place/time. Something qualitative happens when there is no percievable limit.

And as I’ve said many times here, the days of images primarily being enjoyed as prints are long gone. Everyone I know uses screens where they can zoom into the picture to their hearts content, even my severely elderly parents. (And it’s a godsend to them as their eyesight is deteriorating). IPads {insert your own brand of choice} are fantastic for them, allowing them to enlarge images/text/buttons as they please. And they do. All the time.

There is no upper resolution limit any more when it comes to image viewing. All those formulas where you plug in image size and viewing distance (and CoC and...) are useless now. This plays havoc with assumptions about DOF, but also underlying processing such as sharpening.

I agree the ability to zoom in with the flick of a finger is both a boon and a bit of curse at times as any issues with your image can be seen in gory detail Viewing on devices that allow for such zooming is I assume the most popular way of looking at digital images , though I love large prints

I also make occasional large prints. Love the physicality of them, and if you hang them on a wall, being ever present will make them ingrained into your mind and memory.

It’s not an either/or proposition. But lets be clear about statistics here. Several billion new images are shared on the internet every day. So how many more images stay on phones or computers? A factor of hundred? A factor of thousand? Compared to that photo print volumes are completely negligeable. So generalizing about photographic needs based on (no cropping allowed!) prints, is intellectually dishonest, and only applies to an infinitesimally small number of images overall.

The thing is this, mainly exceptional pictures, pictures that speak directly to your brain, make it to a large print. Those pictures almost invariably will be seen as a whole from a distance. Because they engage the viewer and entice emotions. There is no need nor desire to zoom in to discover something relevant.

Ah, but you can turn that around, and have images which have a relatively small point of interest, and the majority of the canvas provides context and scale. In the film days, those images where mostly shot on slide film. They didn’t really work on the typical print sizes of the time anymore than they do on phone screens today.

They can be quite striking.

And they are rather the opposite of filling the frame with your subject.

(Even when you make an image along that school of thought, some really benefit not only from the impression of unlimited detail, but for instance Don’s Small Critters of Horror become even more so when you zoom into their mandibles....)

 Jonas Palm's gear list:Jonas Palm's gear list
Olympus E-M1
James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 5,018
Re: Not sure why 32Mp wouldn’t be okay...
1

LoneTree1 wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Kevin Sutton wrote:

Hi

Back in 2004, I used to shoot digital with an Olympus C-8080, which was an 8Mp 2/3 sensor camera (CCD sensor). At low ISO (50) the images were fine.

I still have my C-8080 , though it is in a box up in the loft of doom. As you say at low ISO it could give very decent results

Given the 4/3 sensor has 4x the area of a 2/3 sensor, along with the advances in sensor tech since 2004, I would imagine that image quality from a 32Mp 4/3 sensor would look fine, at least at base ISO.

Thoughts?

Cheers Kevin

The C-8080's big claim to fame wasn't the then (larger) sensor, it was the lens.

Yep, it had a good bit of glass on the front. My next P&S which also lives up in the loft the Sony R1 also had a cracking lens on it. Wonder what these kind of cameras would be capable of with today's tech

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling:
It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom. David Hume

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads