A question regarding pixel size and the number of pixel

[deednets]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Just curious. Do you mean the A7IV or the A7RIV cropped?

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Glad you seem to have your answer now.

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

That’s exactly what I do. 1 landscape wide angle zoom and 1 portrait lens.

Deed

Happy shooting!

No, I meant the A7IV, the pixel are larger and for some silly reason I find this attactive to look at. More so than at the 60Mpx photos of the A7RV. I might actually downgrade and had been thinking about maybe getting either a GFX50 or an A7CII.

Will be off to India on Saturday, 4 lenses (an accident!) ... and see how it goes.

Deed

I have to say I don't understand at all what this could mean. How can tell looking at a picture how big the pixels are? You can see sharpness or a lack of, you can see excessive noise and clipped shadows and highlights. You can see a smooth or crunchy tonality. But how to you see different size pixels?

Have you subjected yourself to any kind of blind test to check whether you can really see a difference or whether it is simply your imagination? [No offence intended, I'm a believer that our perceptions are highly biased and we see/hear things all the time that don't stand up to objective testing. We unintentionally fool ourselves all the time].

Yes I accept that I may be utterly deluded, but when I look though my archives on Exire, I don't see the camera being used immediately, only if I dig deep. I could do a blind text with you? 100% crops, NO resizing, just plain pixel? I have done this with a number of people, privately, not on dpreview as such as whatever you write here finds objections, regardless of the matter.

Note: the images below were all taken with the same lens at the same aperture ... (I know, I know, thanks dpreview, NOT from a tripod in controlled environment, I hear you say ;-) )

These pics here have little artistic value, I get that, but please bear in mind that these shots are just crops ok? Colours vary, but what I like about some shots better than others is how they look TO ME!!!!



















And just for the fun of it: a night-shot taken in Udaipur, any blind guess what this was taken with?



Note: I understand that people are suspicious of singular examples, but, here is the thing: I don't just look at single shots, but thousands. Could of course post a few hundred here, a thousand (Greg, you paying attention??) and there still would be a "tripod rules" criticism (says somebody who has been here since 2002, different unrecoverable screen name before, so have see this argument over and over. When Thom Hogan was still a thing, he often used the term "pixel acuity" when talking about larger pixel ... long gone, being now replaced by other theories.

Deed

 

[deednets]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:




A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

 

[DavidMillier]

No, I meant the A7IV, the pixel are larger and for some silly reason I find this attactive to look at. More so than at the 60Mpx photos of the A7RV. I might actually downgrade and had been thinking about maybe getting either a GFX50 or an A7CII.

Deed

I have to say I don't understand at all what this could mean. How can tell looking at a picture how big the pixels are? You can see sharpness or a lack of, you can see excessive noise and clipped shadows and highlights. You can see a smooth or crunchy tonality. But how to you see different size pixels?

Have you subjected yourself to any kind of blind test to check whether you can really see a difference or whether it is simply your imagination? [No offence intended, I'm a believer that our perceptions are highly biased and we see/hear things all the time that don't stand up to objective testing. We unintentionally fool ourselves all the time].

Yes I accept that I may be utterly deluded, but when I look though my archives on Exire, I don't see the camera being used immediately, only if I dig deep. I could do a blind text with you? 100% crops, NO resizing, just plain pixel? I have done this with a number of people, privately, not on dpreview as such as whatever you write here finds objections, regardless of the matter.

Note: the images below were all taken with the same lens at the same aperture ... (I know, I know, thanks dpreview, NOT from a tripod in controlled environment, I hear you say ;-) )

These pics here have little artistic value, I get that, but please bear in mind that these shots are just crops ok? Colours vary, but what I like about some shots better than others is how they look TO ME!!!!









And just for the fun of it: a night-shot taken in Udaipur, any blind guess what this was taken with?



Note: I understand that people are suspicious of singular examples, but, here is the thing: I don't just look at single shots, but thousands. Could of course post a few hundred here, a thousand (Greg, you paying attention??) and there still would be a "tripod rules" criticism (says somebody who has been here since 2002, different unrecoverable screen name before, so have see this argument over and over. When Thom Hogan was still a thing, he often used the term "pixel acuity" when talking about larger pixel ... long gone, being now replaced by other theories.

Deed

I want to stress I'm not trying to dispute you, just struggling to understand what you mean because I don't immediately grasp what you are getting at. What do you intend me to see in these pics?



--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:


A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

I've tried AF-C and eye detect a bit on my A7Riv. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I don't see the appeal. With AF-S you point your camera at what you want to focus on and it focuses. You half press the shutter to lock the focus and you then know for certain you have focused exactly where you want to. With AFC the focus doesn't lock, it is constantly hunting and changing and I have no idea when is the right moment to press the shutter to get a focused pic. The AF just feels so unconfident.



--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[deednets]

No, I meant the A7IV, the pixel are larger and for some silly reason I find this attactive to look at. More so than at the 60Mpx photos of the A7RV. I might actually downgrade and had been thinking about maybe getting either a GFX50 or an A7CII.

Deed

I have to say I don't understand at all what this could mean. How can tell looking at a picture how big the pixels are? You can see sharpness or a lack of, you can see excessive noise and clipped shadows and highlights. You can see a smooth or crunchy tonality. But how to you see different size pixels?

Have you subjected yourself to any kind of blind test to check whether you can really see a difference or whether it is simply your imagination? [No offence intended, I'm a believer that our perceptions are highly biased and we see/hear things all the time that don't stand up to objective testing. We unintentionally fool ourselves all the time].

Yes I accept that I may be utterly deluded, but when I look though my archives on Exire, I don't see the camera being used immediately, only if I dig deep. I could do a blind text with you? 100% crops, NO resizing, just plain pixel? I have done this with a number of people, privately, not on dpreview as such as whatever you write here finds objections, regardless of the matter.

Note: the images below were all taken with the same lens at the same aperture ... (I know, I know, thanks dpreview, NOT from a tripod in controlled environment, I hear you say ;-) )

These pics here have little artistic value, I get that, but please bear in mind that these shots are just crops ok? Colours vary, but what I like about some shots better than others is how they look TO ME!!!!









And just for the fun of it: a night-shot taken in Udaipur, any blind guess what this was taken with?



Note: I understand that people are suspicious of singular examples, but, here is the thing: I don't just look at single shots, but thousands. Could of course post a few hundred here, a thousand (Greg, you paying attention??) and there still would be a "tripod rules" criticism (says somebody who has been here since 2002, different unrecoverable screen name before, so have see this argument over and over. When Thom Hogan was still a thing, he often used the term "pixel acuity" when talking about larger pixel ... long gone, being now replaced by other theories.

Deed

I want to stress I'm not trying to dispute you, just struggling to understand what you mean because I don't immediately grasp what you are getting at. What do you intend me to see in these pics?

I can see that this is going into an argument I don't want to engage in.

My question: would you have any preference regarding those shots? If your answer is no, there is no difference whatsoever, then there is little point in prolonging this. My answer would be "yes" which you suggest is being triggered by some influence of whatever, but not real ... images 2, 3 and 5 crops were taken with cameras that use larger pixel ... 1 and 4 using the 60Mpx Sony A7RV.

You have a good week end! Friday here in New Zealand ;-)

Deed

 

[deednets]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:


A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

I've tried AF-C and eye detect a bit on my A7Riv. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I don't see the appeal. With AF-S you point your camera at what you want to focus on and it focuses. You half press the shutter to lock the focus and you then know for certain you have focused exactly where you want to. With AFC the focus doesn't lock, it is constantly hunting and changing and I have no idea when is the right moment to press the shutter to get a focused pic. The AF just feels so unconfident.

To start with: you use a different camera and secondly, I don't think we are on the same or similar page here, but, looking at your impressive signature, you must be on the right track and I don't really understand what I am talking about?? But with my current A7RV I find it North of Impossible NOT to get an eye in focus?? The odd eye-brow? Maybe, depending on whether the DOF is less than an inch, which I dislike ...

AF-S works for static subjects, which is what you shoot mainly. I shoot a wild mix of movement (like dogs at play) of portraits, used to do ballet shootings, AF-S might work for you regarding a gyrating dancer but not for me so much.

Deed

 

[marco1974]

Comparing "100% crops" from cameras of different total resolution is utterly pointless.

Comparisons should always be made at the same final display size, be that a physical print of a given size - e.g., 30x40cm or 60x80cm, or a resized image - e.g., 4K or 8K - to be displayed on-screen or projected.

 

[mujana]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:


A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

I've tried AF-C and eye detect a bit on my A7Riv. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I don't see the appeal. With AF-S you point your camera at what you want to focus on and it focuses. You half press the shutter to lock the focus and you then know for certain you have focused exactly where you want to. With AFC the focus doesn't lock, it is constantly hunting and changing and I have no idea when is the right moment to press the shutter to get a focused pic. The AF just feels so unconfident.

To start with: you use a different camera and secondly, I don't think we are on the same or similar page here, but, looking at your impressive signature, you must be on the right track and I don't really understand what I am talking about?? But with my current A7RV I find it North of Impossible NOT to get an eye in focus?? The odd eye-brow? Maybe, depending on whether the DOF is less than an inch, which I dislike ...

AF-S works for static subjects, which is what you shoot mainly. I shoot a wild mix of movement (like dogs at play) of portraits, used to do ballet shootings, AF-S might work for you regarding a gyrating dancer but not for me so much.

Exactly what I do. So AF-C for me (with GFX100II), for the same reason.

Deed

 

[JimKasson]

Yes I accept that I may be utterly deluded, but when I look though my archives on Exire, I don't see the camera being used immediately, only if I dig deep. I could do a blind text with you? 100% crops, NO resizing, just plain pixel? I have done this with a number of people, privately, not on dpreview as such as whatever you write here finds objections, regardless of the matter.

Note: the images below were all taken with the same lens at the same aperture ... (I know, I know, thanks dpreview, NOT from a tripod in controlled environment, I hear you say ;-) )

These pics here have little artistic value, I get that, but please bear in mind that these shots are just crops ok? Colours vary, but what I like about some shots better than others is how they look TO ME!!!!

If you are magnifying to 100% and viewing at 100% for all pixel pitches with no resizing, then you have not absorbed the lessons of this thread wrt comparing images at same print size.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

blog.kasson.com

 

[deednets]

Comparing "100% crops" from cameras of different total resolution is utterly pointless.

Comparisons should always be made at the same final display size, be that a physical print of a given size - e.g., 30x40cm or 60x80cm, or a resized image - e.g., 4K or 8K - to be displayed on-screen or projected.

Good Lord you know how often I have heard this "pointless" argument?

I tried to make a point - unsuccessfully - to illustrate with some examples why I like certain sensors better.

Trying to make this point is pointless, even when you show a 3000px or thereabouts file.

Gotta go.

 

[deednets]

Yes I accept that I may be utterly deluded, but when I look though my archives on Exire, I don't see the camera being used immediately, only if I dig deep. I could do a blind text with you? 100% crops, NO resizing, just plain pixel? I have done this with a number of people, privately, not on dpreview as such as whatever you write here finds objections, regardless of the matter.

Note: the images below were all taken with the same lens at the same aperture ... (I know, I know, thanks dpreview, NOT from a tripod in controlled environment, I hear you say ;-) )

These pics here have little artistic value, I get that, but please bear in mind that these shots are just crops ok? Colours vary, but what I like about some shots better than others is how they look TO ME!!!!

If you are magnifying to 100% and viewing at 100% for all pixel pitches with no resizing, then you have not absorbed the lessons of this thread wrt comparing images at same print size.

Clearly not. The pixel sizes of these images are different.

I posted these images and you can if you like print at the same size as the pixel I tried to set at 3000. Not sure why Capture One insisted to run one at 2700??

But: exactly what lesson was to be drawn if I grab those files and then print them at whatever dpi you like? Why does "printing" versus "looking at full resolution" here make a difference? e.g. 3000x2000px at 100% resolution viewed on a 4K screen versus printing these? Does printing not add more complications in the comparison?

In short: I thought that selecting 3000x2000 crop would be a good way to compare sensors, e.g. if I like it or not.

Also I came here to find some relatively easy to follow examples,e.g. some images? But it was 100% words, a lecture I needed to absorb? You know that I have been lurking around here for more than 20 years, but this "lesson absorbing" without any samples? Is being used here with reckless abandon, but I will just trust what I like to look at, after all it's not a couple of A4 pages of text, but images as an end product.

Will leave it at that.

 

[JimKasson]

In short: I thought that selecting 3000x2000 crop would be a good way to compare sensors, e.g. if I like it or not.

Then you are stacking the deck in favor of 2000x3000 sensors and against any higher resolution sensor.

 

[DavidMillier]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:


A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

I've tried AF-C and eye detect a bit on my A7Riv. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I don't see the appeal. With AF-S you point your camera at what you want to focus on and it focuses. You half press the shutter to lock the focus and you then know for certain you have focused exactly where you want to. With AFC the focus doesn't lock, it is constantly hunting and changing and I have no idea when is the right moment to press the shutter to get a focused pic. The AF just feels so unconfident.

To start with: you use a different camera and secondly, I don't think we are on the same or similar page here, but, looking at your impressive signature, you must be on the right track and I don't really understand what I am talking about?? But with my current A7RV I find it North of Impossible NOT to get an eye in focus?? The odd eye-brow? Maybe, depending on whether the DOF is less than an inch, which I dislike ...

AF-S works for static subjects, which is what you shoot mainly. I shoot a wild mix of movement (like dogs at play) of portraits, used to do ballet shootings, AF-S might work for you regarding a gyrating dancer but not for me so much.

Deed

Just to be clear, I take pictures of things that don't move so I have a specific unmoving point I want to focus on.

I find using AF-S, that I point the centre focus point at the bit of the subject that I want in focus and half press. The camera immediately focuses and locks on. I know with 100% certainty that it the image is focused exactly as I want it.

When I use AF-C, I find that the point I want focused is constantly swimming in and out of focus as the camera tracks (presumably) small movements of my camera. I then find that I have to try and anticipate the moment when the focus system has achieved focus and trip the shutter at exactly the same moment. I find this constant shifting of focus in real time very disconcerting because it is perfectly possible to shoot a sequence of photos where every one has a slightly different focus.

I read a lot in reviews about the excellence of modern focusing systems. In almost all cases they talk about the camera's AF-C performance, it's magical ability to lock onto a spot and hang on to that focus no matter what the subject's movement through the frame. I love the sound of this capability, but my own experience is entirely different. Every camera I have tried in AF-C mode focuses like a 1990s camcorder: it is constantly adjusting the focus, swimming in and out of focus and never settles.

I think I must be doing something wrong. I'd quite like to know what. Until then, I will stick with AF-S because it is reliable and trustworthy.





--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[SrMi]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:


A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

I've tried AF-C and eye detect a bit on my A7Riv. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I don't see the appeal. With AF-S you point your camera at what you want to focus on and it focuses. You half press the shutter to lock the focus and you then know for certain you have focused exactly where you want to. With AFC the focus doesn't lock, it is constantly hunting and changing and I have no idea when is the right moment to press the shutter to get a focused pic. The AF just feels so unconfident.

To start with: you use a different camera and secondly, I don't think we are on the same or similar page here, but, looking at your impressive signature, you must be on the right track and I don't really understand what I am talking about?? But with my current A7RV I find it North of Impossible NOT to get an eye in focus?? The odd eye-brow? Maybe, depending on whether the DOF is less than an inch, which I dislike ...

AF-S works for static subjects, which is what you shoot mainly. I shoot a wild mix of movement (like dogs at play) of portraits, used to do ballet shootings, AF-S might work for you regarding a gyrating dancer but not for me so much.

Deed

Just to be clear, I take pictures of things that don't move so I have a specific unmoving point I want to focus on.

I find using AF-S, that I point the centre focus point at the bit of the subject that I want in focus and half press. The camera immediately focuses and locks on. I know with 100% certainty that it the image is focused exactly as I want it.

When I use AF-C, I find that the point I want focused is constantly swimming in and out of focus as the camera tracks (presumably) small movements of my camera. I then find that I have to try and anticipate the moment when the focus system has achieved focus and trip the shutter at exactly the same moment. I find this constant shifting of focus in real time very disconcerting because it is perfectly possible to shoot a sequence of photos where every one has a slightly different focus.

I read a lot in reviews about the excellence of modern focusing systems. In almost all cases they talk about the camera's AF-C performance, it's magical ability to lock onto a spot and hang on to that focus no matter what the subject's movement through the frame. I love the sound of this capability, but my own experience is entirely different. Every camera I have tried in AF-C mode focuses like a 1990s camcorder: it is constantly adjusting the focus, swimming in and out of focus and never settles.

I think I must be doing something wrong. I'd quite like to know what. Until then, I will stick with AF-S because it is reliable and trustworthy.

That is not my experiece with latest Nikon, Sony, and Canon cameras.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

No, I meant the A7IV, the pixel are larger and for some silly reason I find this attactive to look at. More so than at the 60Mpx photos of the A7RV. I might actually downgrade and had been thinking about maybe getting either a GFX50 or an A7CII.

Deed

I have to say I don't understand at all what this could mean. How can tell looking at a picture how big the pixels are? You can see sharpness or a lack of, you can see excessive noise and clipped shadows and highlights. You can see a smooth or crunchy tonality. But how to you see different size pixels?

Have you subjected yourself to any kind of blind test to check whether you can really see a difference or whether it is simply your imagination? [No offence intended, I'm a believer that our perceptions are highly biased and we see/hear things all the time that don't stand up to objective testing. We unintentionally fool ourselves all the time].

Yes I accept that I may be utterly deluded, but when I look though my archives on Exire, I don't see the camera being used immediately, only if I dig deep. I could do a blind text with you? 100% crops, NO resizing, just plain pixel? I have done this with a number of people, privately, not on dpreview as such as whatever you write here finds objections, regardless of the matter.

Note: the images below were all taken with the same lens at the same aperture ... (I know, I know, thanks dpreview, NOT from a tripod in controlled environment, I hear you say ;-) )

These pics here have little artistic value, I get that, but please bear in mind that these shots are just crops ok? Colours vary, but what I like about some shots better than others is how they look TO ME!!!!









And just for the fun of it: a night-shot taken in Udaipur, any blind guess what this was taken with?



Note: I understand that people are suspicious of singular examples, but, here is the thing: I don't just look at single shots, but thousands. Could of course post a few hundred here, a thousand (Greg, you paying attention??) and there still would be a "tripod rules" criticism (says somebody who has been here since 2002, different unrecoverable screen name before, so have see this argument over and over. When Thom Hogan was still a thing, he often used the term "pixel acuity" when talking about larger pixel ... long gone, being now replaced by other theories.

Deed

I want to stress I'm not trying to dispute you, just struggling to understand what you mean because I don't immediately grasp what you are getting at. What do you intend me to see in these pics?

I can see that this is going into an argument I don't want to engage in.

My question: would you have any preference regarding those shots? If your answer is no, there is no difference whatsoever, then there is little point in prolonging this. My answer would be "yes" which you suggest is being triggered by some influence of whatever, but not real ... images 2, 3 and 5 crops were taken with cameras that use larger pixel ... 1 and 4 using the 60Mpx Sony A7RV.

You have a good week end! Friday here in New Zealand ;-)

Deed

I assume you mean this as some kind of blind test. There is no exif on this sequence of photos which suggests that is your intention.

What are you asking me if I have preferences about? Sharpness, detail, noise, aberrations, colour etc etc or something else?

Call me dense if you like, but I really need a little more explicit guidance from you as to what I am supposed to be comparing. As you have now supplied some information about the cameras used, I at least have something to compare.

I will look and report back my thoughts...

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

No, I meant the A7IV, the pixel are larger and for some silly reason I find this attactive to look at. More so than at the 60Mpx photos of the A7RV. I might actually downgrade and had been thinking about maybe getting either a GFX50 or an A7CII.

Deed

I have to say I don't understand at all what this could mean. How can tell looking at a picture how big the pixels are? You can see sharpness or a lack of, you can see excessive noise and clipped shadows and highlights. You can see a smooth or crunchy tonality. But how to you see different size pixels?

Have you subjected yourself to any kind of blind test to check whether you can really see a difference or whether it is simply your imagination? [No offence intended, I'm a believer that our perceptions are highly biased and we see/hear things all the time that don't stand up to objective testing. We unintentionally fool ourselves all the time].

Yes I accept that I may be utterly deluded, but when I look though my archives on Exire, I don't see the camera being used immediately, only if I dig deep. I could do a blind text with you? 100% crops, NO resizing, just plain pixel? I have done this with a number of people, privately, not on dpreview as such as whatever you write here finds objections, regardless of the matter.

Note: the images below were all taken with the same lens at the same aperture ... (I know, I know, thanks dpreview, NOT from a tripod in controlled environment, I hear you say ;-) )

These pics here have little artistic value, I get that, but please bear in mind that these shots are just crops ok? Colours vary, but what I like about some shots better than others is how they look TO ME!!!!









And just for the fun of it: a night-shot taken in Udaipur, any blind guess what this was taken with?



Note: I understand that people are suspicious of singular examples, but, here is the thing: I don't just look at single shots, but thousands. Could of course post a few hundred here, a thousand (Greg, you paying attention??) and there still would be a "tripod rules" criticism (says somebody who has been here since 2002, different unrecoverable screen name before, so have see this argument over and over. When Thom Hogan was still a thing, he often used the term "pixel acuity" when talking about larger pixel ... long gone, being now replaced by other theories.

Deed

I want to stress I'm not trying to dispute you, just struggling to understand what you mean because I don't immediately grasp what you are getting at. What do you intend me to see in these pics?

I can see that this is going into an argument I don't want to engage in.

My question: would you have any preference regarding those shots? If your answer is no, there is no difference whatsoever, then there is little point in prolonging this. My answer would be "yes" which you suggest is being triggered by some influence of whatever, but not real ... images 2, 3 and 5 crops were taken with cameras that use larger pixel ... 1 and 4 using the 60Mpx Sony A7RV.

You have a good week end! Friday here in New Zealand ;-)

Deed

I assume you mean this as some kind of blind test. There is no exif on this sequence of photos which suggests that is your intention.

What are you asking me if I have preferences about? Sharpness, detail, noise, aberrations, colour etc etc or something else?

Call me dense if you like, but I really need a little more explicit guidance from you as to what I am supposed to be comparing. As you have now supplied some information about the cameras used, I at least have something to compare.

I will look and report back my thoughts...

I've now looked at the images. Beyond saying that I like the colours and tones of all of them, I don't have much else to report.

Educate me: what do you see as different between the cameras?



--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

Comparing "100% crops" from cameras of different total resolution is utterly pointless.

Comparisons should always be made at the same final display size, be that a physical print of a given size - e.g., 30x40cm or 60x80cm, or a resized image - e.g., 4K or 8K - to be displayed on-screen or projected.

I don't entirely agree.

It is pointless if you care mainly about image quality at a certain output size. But it is relevant if your interest is in pixel peeping. You do sometimes see differences in image quality at the pixel level when scanning images at 1:1. People interested in this style of viewing care about that.

That is not my thing, I see the purpose of image making to be the whole composition. Image quality considerations are merely a means to an end: what gear do I need to present the whole image at the size I want without introducing unpleasant artefacts and softness. I don't really bother that much with subtle differences in image quality, what I care about is the impact of the whole composition.

But there are lots of people don't see it like that. Digital photography and digital viewing tools offer an alternative take. They are not so interested in the composition, rather they are interested in exploring the image and examining the small details zoomed in close. For those people, pixel level quality matters.

That's not really the spirit of photography to me, but each to their own.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[mujana]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:


A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

I've tried AF-C and eye detect a bit on my A7Riv. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I don't see the appeal. With AF-S you point your camera at what you want to focus on and it focuses. You half press the shutter to lock the focus and you then know for certain you have focused exactly where you want to. With AFC the focus doesn't lock, it is constantly hunting and changing and I have no idea when is the right moment to press the shutter to get a focused pic. The AF just feels so unconfident.

To start with: you use a different camera and secondly, I don't think we are on the same or similar page here, but, looking at your impressive signature, you must be on the right track and I don't really understand what I am talking about?? But with my current A7RV I find it North of Impossible NOT to get an eye in focus?? The odd eye-brow? Maybe, depending on whether the DOF is less than an inch, which I dislike ...

AF-S works for static subjects, which is what you shoot mainly. I shoot a wild mix of movement (like dogs at play) of portraits, used to do ballet shootings, AF-S might work for you regarding a gyrating dancer but not for me so much.

Deed

Just to be clear, I take pictures of things that don't move so I have a specific unmoving point I want to focus on.

I find using AF-S, that I point the centre focus point at the bit of the subject that I want in focus and half press. The camera immediately focuses and locks on. I know with 100% certainty that it the image is focused exactly as I want it.

When I use AF-C, I find that the point I want focused is constantly swimming in and out of focus as the camera tracks (presumably) small movements of my camera. I then find that I have to try and anticipate the moment when the focus system has achieved focus and trip the shutter at exactly the same moment. I find this constant shifting of focus in real time very disconcerting because it is perfectly possible to shoot a sequence of photos where every one has a slightly different focus.

I read a lot in reviews about the excellence of modern focusing systems. In almost all cases they talk about the camera's AF-C performance, it's magical ability to lock onto a spot and hang on to that focus no matter what the subject's movement through the frame. I love the sound of this capability, but my own experience is entirely different. Every camera I have tried in AF-C mode focuses like a 1990s camcorder: it is constantly adjusting the focus, swimming in and out of focus and never settles.

I think I must be doing something wrong. I'd quite like to know what. Until then, I will stick with AF-S because it is reliable and trustworthy.

That is not my experiece with latest Nikon, Sony, and Canon cameras.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

Agree. And for me the AF-C on the latest GFX cameras, while certainly not at Sony level, are perfectly adequate for my usage (not shooting very fast moving subjects/sports, etc.). In fact this was an important factor when I bought into Fuji MF; AF-C didn’t disappoint me at all. On the contrary.

 

[mujana]

3. Larger sensors do not have to be enlarged as much as smaller sensors to obtain the same print size and thus larger sensors disguise the noise more effectively than smaller sensors.

4. If you have a variety of sensor sizes using the same pixel size and technology, there is no noise or dynamic range benefit from cropping the larger sensor down to the same size as the smaller sensors. Results will be the same as if you used a smaller sensor to shoot the image.

5. Improvements gained from using larger sensors are real, but incremental. There is no "blowing things out of the water" difference between sensors, but a smooth and gradual improvement that is worthwhile if you are printing large enough to be able to see the differences.

Thank you for that! My suspicions were going in the same direction, in fact I have been down the rabbit hole of LARGER pixel - viewed at 100% - I find more appealing that smaller, but higher numbered pixels, e.g. in my case I found the 24Mpx RX1 images, viewed at 100% nicer to look at than the RX1RII's results. Likewise, I found the 33Mpx A7RIV images more appealing than the 60Mpx images ...

Rabbit hole alright, but, here's the thing: I have images to look at, share, debate and then the odd dino agrees ... and then the debate goes, like here on this forum: but, if you print at equal size, the more pixel the merrier ... (must check the spelling of "merrier" ... later).

When I look at my images, I normally view them at the output size intended. In my case the maximum is now double the 12" square format = 24" at the long end in a 8x4 aspect ratio. At 300dpi I need 12x300=3600 - or 7200px for the "over 2 pages view" so not really a contender for the largest print possible. (Also not talking about the 240Mpx elephant here...).

Thanks again I think I will simply put this to bed, except: I have some interst in the 50Mpx GFX50! Might buy one and see how I can cope with the AF issues, those models might have? And then just use 2 lenses, one portrait, one landscape, like in the olden days.

Deed

I haven't experienced any issues with the AF of my 50s but I think it depends on your needs and expectations.

I shoot mostly static subjects using AF-S with a single central point and the focus-halfpress-hold-recompose method. I never use the modern AF-C, tracking, eye detect and so on, that the newest cameras are so good at. Same goes with my Sony and m4/3 cameras. I never experience any focusing issues with any of these cameras - but at the same time I never experience any of the benefits of modern focusing systems such as the ability to accurately hold focus on fast moving subjects.

I'm old school enough to still be amazed and impressed that autofocus exists at all!

You see this is how people tick differently: when I used Fuji I used AF-S exclusively, now, with Sony I use AF-C exclusively. The difference? I now often only take one photo or 2, not 12 or 14 to make sure I had one that was in focus. This could on occasion get annoying, when NONE were in focus:


A Fuji shot, the best out of a series ...

Seriously don't want to go back to that! But the lure of a GFX50 certainly is there ...

Deed

I've tried AF-C and eye detect a bit on my A7Riv. Maybe I'm not doing it right but I don't see the appeal. With AF-S you point your camera at what you want to focus on and it focuses. You half press the shutter to lock the focus and you then know for certain you have focused exactly where you want to. With AFC the focus doesn't lock, it is constantly hunting and changing and I have no idea when is the right moment to press the shutter to get a focused pic. The AF just feels so unconfident.

To start with: you use a different camera and secondly, I don't think we are on the same or similar page here, but, looking at your impressive signature, you must be on the right track and I don't really understand what I am talking about?? But with my current A7RV I find it North of Impossible NOT to get an eye in focus?? The odd eye-brow? Maybe, depending on whether the DOF is less than an inch, which I dislike ...

AF-S works for static subjects, which is what you shoot mainly. I shoot a wild mix of movement (like dogs at play) of portraits, used to do ballet shootings, AF-S might work for you regarding a gyrating dancer but not for me so much.

Deed

Just to be clear, I take pictures of things that don't move so I have a specific unmoving point I want to focus on.

I find using AF-S, that I point the centre focus point at the bit of the subject that I want in focus and half press. The camera immediately focuses and locks on. I know with 100% certainty that it the image is focused exactly as I want it.

When I use AF-C, I find that the point I want focused is constantly swimming in and out of focus as the camera tracks (presumably) small movements of my camera. I then find that I have to try and anticipate the moment when the focus system has achieved focus and trip the shutter at exactly the same moment. I find this constant shifting of focus in real time very disconcerting because it is perfectly possible to shoot a sequence of photos where every one has a slightly different focus.

I read a lot in reviews about the excellence of modern focusing systems. In almost all cases they talk about the camera's AF-C performance, it's magical ability to lock onto a spot and hang on to that focus no matter what the subject's movement through the frame. I love the sound of this capability, but my own experience is entirely different. Every camera I have tried in AF-C mode focuses like a 1990s camcorder: it is constantly adjusting the focus, swimming in and out of focus and never settles.

I think I must be doing something wrong. I'd quite like to know what. Until then, I will stick with AF-S because it is reliable and trustworthy.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

Agree that AF-S is very accurate, but would you also choose this for moving subjects?

 

[mujana]

Comparing "100% crops" from cameras of different total resolution is utterly pointless.

Comparisons should always be made at the same final display size, be that a physical print of a given size - e.g., 30x40cm or 60x80cm, or a resized image - e.g., 4K or 8K - to be displayed on-screen or projected.

I don't entirely agree.

It is pointless if you care mainly about image quality at a certain output size. But it is relevant if your interest is in pixel peeping. You do sometimes see differences in image quality at the pixel level when scanning images at 1:1. People interested in this style of viewing care about that.

That is not my thing, I see the purpose of image making to be the whole composition. Image quality considerations are merely a means to an end: what gear do I need to present the whole image at the size I want without introducing unpleasant artefacts and softness. I don't really bother that much with subtle differences in image quality, what I care about is the impact of the whole composition.

But there are lots of people don't see it like that. Digital photography and digital viewing tools offer an alternative take. They are not so interested in the composition, rather they are interested in exploring the image and examining the small details zoomed in close. For those people, pixel level quality matters.

I don’t think it has to be either this or that; I’m interested in both.

That's not really the spirit of photography to me, but each to their own.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)