Sharp photos are 1a, and over discussed.

[Chris Wolfgram]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

Then, you have a lot of folks talking a bunch of deep, technical jargon, most of which, I'm too ignorant to follow anyway lol

Just impress me with an amazing photo gallery. Then, if the gallery is the kind of stuff I mostly shoot, but it's blowing mine away, now you will really have my attention ! Of course in the end, even when I do stumble across photo pages that really catch my eye (which I do find pretty often) most of the time, I'd say that 1) they are probably just a lot more skilled photographer than I am, and 2) they are either living in, or traveling often to, tropical places with LOTS of really cool, striking birds.

Pretty much "never" do I see a gallery of the kind of stuff I shoot, and think, "Oh, well it's just better because they have this camera or that lens". Ha ! That is probably not true.

 

[Rene Gr]

Where is your gallery?

 

[A74Me]

Where is your gallery?

in his signature, turn on signatures at bottom of page.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

Where is your gallery?

in his signature, turn on signatures at bottom of page.

I didn't even realize this could be turned on or off. Might explain why some folks couldn't find me link... Thank you.

 

[ishwanu]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' might make it hard to find disagreement.

What does '1a' in the subject line mean?

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' makes it hard to find any disagreement.

Well sure, and I totally believe this is the vast majority of the uses of digital images today, not to say that they are not still capable of producing some very nice prints as well

What does '1a' in the subject line mean?

In college courses, the first semester of a multiple semester course is called 1a. It's the beginners class

 

[All Bushs Fault]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' makes it hard to find any disagreement.

Well sure, and I totally believe this is the vast majority of the uses of digital images today, not to say that they are not still capable of producing some very nice prints as well

What does '1a' in the subject line mean?

In college courses, the first semester of a multiple semester course is called 1a. It's the beginners class

When I was in college a long, long time ago, it was English 101 and so forth.

So, it sounds like to me the nomenclature as you wrote it indicates the first thing is to get your photos sharp i.e. 1a, so let's not discussed that further. I could be reading that incorrectly.

Well, I shoot with a 60 & 100 MP camera and wish I had more MPs. I do not print my images. I view them on a 4k monitor although I had anticipated an affordable 8k by now. I buy the best lenses I can afford. I can tell the difference from this generation of gear to the last.

I believe the term "sharp" can encompass subjectivity as in "sharp enough". For example, take a lens that is sharp corner to corner but not uniformly sharp. To me those corners and edges are sharp enough for me.

There's room for everyone in the Realm of Sharp. Not sure why there is such a backlash regarding "sharp".

 

[J A C S]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' makes it hard to find any disagreement.

Well sure, and I totally believe this is the vast majority of the uses of digital images today, not to say that they are not still capable of producing some very nice prints as well

It is the vast minority in my case, like zero.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' makes it hard to find any disagreement.

Well sure, and I totally believe this is the vast majority of the uses of digital images today, not to say that they are not still capable of producing some very nice prints as well

What does '1a' in the subject line mean?

In college courses, the first semester of a multiple semester course is called 1a. It's the beginners class

Yea, I like sharp too, but my point was, that has really gotten to be the easy part. I think way back in the day, to get really sharp high quality images, required super expensive, high quality lenses. But I feel like nowadays, most mid grade lenses from all the major players are capable of making images sharp enough that folks can't tell the difference between photos from these mid grade, and super expensive expensive ones, most especially when sized down for digital viewing.

I should have said I was mostly talking about long birding lenses like the Canon 800 F11, 200-800, and the 150-600 Sigmas and Tamrons, and similar lenses from other manufacturers..... As compared to shots taken with Big Whites, or other $10K or $15K lenses.

When I was in college a long, long time ago, it was English 101 and so forth.

101 and 1a are the same thing

So, it sounds like to me the nomenclature as you wrote it indicates the first thing is to get your photos sharp i.e. 1a, so let's not discussed that further. I could be reading that incorrectly.

Well, I shoot with a 60 & 100 MP camera and wish I had more MPs.

Back when I did landscapes, I was a mp freak myself. And since my 6D only made a measly 20mp's, I ended up doing a lot of stitching ! Rarely did I not do at least 2 x 2's. But I did up to 4 x 4's to make 200mp images. And if you haven't done stitching yourself, I have to say, it's surprisingly easy AND is not near so tricky with moving water, clouds, etc. So often, it worked when I didn't think it possibly could. Sometimes, it required just a little brushing

I do not print my images. I view them on a 4k monitor although I had anticipated an affordable 8k by now. I buy the best lenses I can afford. I can tell the difference from this generation of gear to the last.

I believe the term "sharp" can encompass subjectivity as in "sharp enough".

Again, sharp enough that nobody can tell the difference after sizing down to fill a large portion of a 4K screen, generally about 3 to 5mp's.

For example, take a lens that is sharp corner to corner but not uniformly sharp.

Well that mattered more to me as a landscape photographer. Not at all as a bird and wildlife guy.

To me those corners and edges are sharp enough for me.

There's room for everyone in the Realm of Sharp. Not sure why there is such a backlash regarding "sharp".

I'm not so sure their is "such a backlash" lol

Most the guys here seem perfectly happy to argue about what lens is sharper, all day long.

It's mostly just me saying it doesn't really matter much, or at all, for the way most of us use our images.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' makes it hard to find any disagreement.

Well sure, and I totally believe this is the vast majority of the uses of digital images today, not to say that they are not still capable of producing some very nice prints as well

It is the vast minority in my case, like zero.

So your saying, you print every single photo you ever take ???

 

[J A C S]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' makes it hard to find any disagreement.

Well sure, and I totally believe this is the vast majority of the uses of digital images today, not to say that they are not still capable of producing some very nice prints as well

It is the vast minority in my case, like zero.

So your saying, you print every single photo you ever take ???

I say that I do not have a screen with 3 to 5 mp only.

 

[Ruby Rod]

I'll play devil's advocate. We use a lot of rules for resolution, DOF and viewing distance that derive from old film practice. Specifically, that images should be viewed no closer than their diagonal. The maximum circle of confusion for sharpness assumes that rule. On top of that, most people shot 35mm film and that format is really pretty lousy compared to medium and large format. Owners of high end 35mm cameras don't want to hear it, but go back and look at most of the film work of the past and the conclusion is pretty clear. Our standards weren't as high as we like to think, but it was as good as we could do.

OK, so here we are today. Images are mostly viewed on screens, with the feature (curse) of being able to zoom in almost indefinitely. The equivalent of standing a couple feet away from a highway billboard. People like to zoom in, to pixel peep or just to see what they can see. The use case is just plain different than the past.

So, I contend (tongue in cheek) that todays ultra sharp images are just barely good enough, if that. Sharpness and resolution will continue to rise and people will eagerly buy the latest and greatest.

If it really bugs you, you can always fuzz it up in post!

Sharp or not, I think a huge number of very fine images are being made today. More or less than in the past? Not sure; the total volume is certainly higher, but per person? Some of the carefully constructed social imagery of the past (think W. Eugene Smith) is no longer being done because there are other ways to tell those stories. OTOH, birds and wildlife are better than ever. A lot of excellent portraits are being done. Most of this stuff benefits from being sharp. Personally, if I can't be good, I at least try to be sharp!

 

[Rene Gr]

Pretty much "never" do I see a gallery of the kind of stuff I shoot, and think, "Oh, well it's just better because they have this camera or that lens". Ha ! That is probably not true.

Now I found your signature. Sorry, but it turns off here all the time, and I was searching in your profile. Maybe link it from there too?

Those images are indeed very good, nice to watch, and sharp enough for Flickr. I assume they are reduced in size, so I cannot really judge the printing quality for really huge prints. For online media, they are excellent. But that is no surprise. Your gear adds up to the thousands. And the R7 is a capable camera.

I agree with you that I rarely think it's the camera when I see photos that are clearly better than mine. Most of the time, it is better location, moment, light or composition. Most photographers should improve their vision and technique before upgrading their gear.

On the other hand, new gear offers new options. You simply cannot get your wildlife shots with a point and shoot camera.

 

[D Cox]

I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp ...

I think the qualifier of 'shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp' makes it hard to find any disagreement.

Well sure, and I totally believe this is the vast majority of the uses of digital images today, not to say that they are not still capable of producing some very nice prints as well

What does '1a' in the subject line mean?

In college courses, the first semester of a multiple semester course is called 1a. It's the beginners class

This is American usage. In England, we have "terms", not semesters. Three terms in a year.

The course I was on had a Preliminary examination in general science, which could (if you were clever) be taken at school before you went to college. Once you passed that, you could proceed to the various courses in different science subjects (chemistry, zoology, botany, etc).

Arrangements vary with different subjects. For instance, many art students take a Foundation course at the beginning, which has an emphasis on basic drawing. Unfortunately nowadays many of the teachers are themselves very weak at drawing. They think that because Marcel Duchamp didn't draw but concentrated on ideas, it is OK for them (who have no ideas) to evade the difficulty of drawing.

Don

 

[Hans Z]

I do agree with you in principle Chris, we have enough quality now. But I still like the ability to zoom in on pictures shown on a 75" 4k TV. I actually do that quite often when I go display old pictures, note that this is different from the editing phase where I believe most people zoom in to 100% or more. I have recognized that almost no one active on DPReview seems to watch images in that way. Instead most people refer to printing as the prime motivation to have more megapixels. Another aspect is that the Bayer sensor interpolates so you don't really get the full color quality in each pixels.

Lately I am capturing more and more with video instead, where the megapixels matter even less, so perhaps this will moderate my GAS.

 

[Ruby Rod]

I'm sitting here next to my big old Canon printer, but I print way less than I used to, and that wasn't all that much. Not many people look at prints these days; it's a less relevant use case. A good printer will exceed the color gamut of most monitors. Most people still barely get to sRGB, so if you shoot/process with any larger color gamut, the printer is your best display choice.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

That's true only when you don't consider cropping. The big whites will let you crop more for sure. When you are at the limit of having the feathers resolved and you crop a little, you can definitely tell even on a small screen. A superzoom lens like a Nikon 180-600 (in such situations) will look quite different than a 600 f/4, with regard to sharpness.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

That's true only when you don't consider cropping.

I think it's true even with some cropping. How much, is probably variable. Of course as I'm always saying, the less cropping, the better, with any lens. Which Is why I shoot with a 1280mm equivalent combo.

The big whites will let you crop more for sure.

Which is good, because you will probably have to crop more, maybe a lot more.... Unless it's an 800 F5.6 on a crop body camera... Which Nikon does not even make in the Z series anyway.... Which is too bad, as the PF 800 F6.3 looks really nice. But no more primes for me anyway.

When you are at the limit of having the feathers resolved

If you are at that limit 1) your kit is probably not long enough, and 2) you probably need to get closer.

and you crop a little, you can definitely tell even on a small screen. A superzoom lens like a Nikon 180-600 (in such situations) will look quite different than a 600 f/4, with regard to sharpness.

But anything in the 600mm range is not very "super" and for myself, would always need a TC.

Anyway, I stand by what I'm saying, understanding that their will be some exceptions.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Surely, it's not that subject sharpness is the only standard that matters in bird photography and a consumer prime or zoom is just as good as an exotic...is it?

 

[JasonTheBirder]

.....IMPO, of course. I've just come to believe that "most" of our modern Mirrorless bodies, and many of the new lenses designed for them are capable of making shots which are plenty sharp enough for digital viewing, even on a nice, large 4K screen. And when I say "plenty sharp enough", I mean to say, that shrunk down to 3 or 5 mp, nobody will be able to tell what photos came from what lens, and this is "even" including $10-$16K Big Whites, or comparable lenses from the other big names.

That's true only when you don't consider cropping.

I think it's true even with some cropping. How much, is probably variable. Of course as I'm always saying, the less cropping, the better, with any lens. Which Is why I shoot with a 1280mm equivalent combo.

The big whites will let you crop more for sure.

Which is good, because you will probably have to crop more, maybe a lot more.... Unless it's an 800 F5.6 on a crop body camera... Which Nikon does not even make in the Z series anyway.... Which is too bad, as the PF 800 F6.3 looks really nice. But no more primes for me anyway.

When you are at the limit of having the feathers resolved

If you are at that limit 1) your kit is probably not long enough, and 2) you probably need to get closer.

Disagree with that. There will always be some cases where there will be a bit of a compromise and a sharper lens means the difference between a 4 star and a 3 star shot of a rarer bird. Makes a real difference IMO.