Best pixel quality ?

[bjn70]

Now try that same shot with the D850 with the same les and technique... you should see some difference.

24mp with AA filter to 36mp without AA filter is a big enough jump that you can see it if you look for it. Now to go 36mp to 46mp is a much smaller relative increase and harder to see.

I bought a D750 then a year later bought a D810. I shot some cityscapes and there was a difference but it wasn't mindblowing. On some other subjects i could see more difference.

 

[bjn70]

Well, I just scrolled around a bit, and looked at several of the D850 example pics at 100%. But honestly, I skipped most of the studio stuff, and went straight to the landscape scenes, mostly trying to see plant life... Leaves and branches from great distances.

And again, at the pixel level, it didn't look much, if any better than my 6D... When I get it just right of course

A d850 should be about as good at the pixel level as any other camera without an AA filter, but at the pixel level it will be more limited by the lens and user technique. I'm not sure that one sensor captures detail any better than another, I think the lens and user technique would be more critical to pixels than the sensor itself.

i've done a lot of pixel peeping to see what the detail capability of a sensor is, and then later to see if my lenses would resolve to the capability of the sensor. At the start I was using a D7200 which has tighter pixel pitch than even a D850. I had lenses that were capable of resolving to the capability of the sensor.

This pixel peeping stuff is difficult though. You have to have a subject that is just right. Trying to zoom in and see detail in far away foliage doesn't work.

Digital photography is not intended to show detail at the pixel level, the intent is to use several pixels limped together to create the detail in the final image. Viewing at 100% can be used to test lenses and such but it takes some practice to determine how to compare 2 different images. If you want to zoom in and see fine detail, you have to downsample the full image a bit, maybe to half as many pixels each direction. Take the downsampled image and you can view it at pixel level and see detail.

At my office I have 2 monitors, each 1920x1080. I made a background with my D810 to span both monitors and it shows as much fine detail as the monitors can display. That equates to an image that is 3840 wide and would have been 2560 high- about 10MP. Downsampled at 2:1 each direction that would have been a 40MP file. I actually created it by cropping from 2 images stitched together. Work backwards from what you are trying to achieve similar to how I did to see what file size you need to start with.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

I wonder if OP is seeing limits of his lens when using D850

The OP doesn't have a D850, but I sure wish I did ! ☺

- I am not surprised if the best solution would be modern camera without AA filter with lowest MPix number and high DR. Ofcourse more stitching as result to get same size of the print.

Trying Nikkor 200/2 on D850 @ ISO 64 could give an answer....

 

[Zolty]

OP wants per-pixel-sharpness....

I might be wrong, but in this case lower MPix sensor for a given lens might improve sharpness per pixel.

Cost beeing need for more stitching.

Maybe downsizing files from D850 would help, or different sharpening technique?

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

and compare the image sharpness...

If D850 looks better, you will need to stitch the same number of tiles...

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

• Tony Beach wrote:

Now, my primary concern / goals, are to make really BIG but of course, aesthetically pleasing prints, that can be pixel peeped from 6 inches. To that end, I really have no choice but to stitch images, especially with my old (beloved) dinosaur, the Canon 6D.... but even if I could afford a D850, 46mp's is not even close to what I want either (100-300+mp's) so Id still be having to stitch to make big enough images anyway.

Packing over 100 MP into an FX/135 format sensor is going to make the lens, support, and shooting conditions the weak points in image quality and not the quality of optimally exposed pixels.

Granted, it would take fewer images, which might be a little less work.... But not much, as Id still have to go through all the same steps. Maybe Id just be doing more 3 x 4's instead of 6 x 8's?

You're essentially looking at different formats when you stitch. When you start stitching frames together you are effectively using a larger format and a correspondingly longer focal length, so comparing fewer frames from a D850 to more frames from a 6D is the same as comparing a smaller format to a larger format.

Anyway, this morning I started looking more closely at 100% crops from the D850, and I hate to say it, but I'm not terribly impressed. Yes, I totally get the part about how they compare to other smaller MP camera when sized down, but that is not really important for my purposes. I was actually surprised at how well the pixels of my 7yr old 6D looked at 100% compared to the D850?

I'm curious about what you looked at. Looking at the DPR studio scene the D850 pixels at ISO 65 look marginally better than the 6D pixels at ISO 100. At ISO 100 the 6D pixels look marginally better. Regardless, the differences at the pixel level are so marginal as to be well within the margins of optimal exposure.

Thank you Tony. Well, I just scrolled around a bit, and looked at several of the D850 example pics at 100%. But honestly, I skipped most of the studio stuff, and went straight to the landscape scenes, mostly trying to see plant life... Leaves and branches from great distances.

And again, at the pixel level, it didn't look much, if any better than my 6D... When I get it just right of course

It really depend on what difference you are looking for.

A D850 shot may look more noisy but would show more details (not necessarily sharper).

Did you look for other differences such as color accuracy, for example?

 

[FingerPainter]

OP wants per-pixel-sharpness....

Has OP actually said that? I see OP mentioning pixel quality, not pixel sharpness.

What does "per-pixel-sharpness" even mean?

I might be wrong, but in this case lower MPix sensor for a given lens might improve sharpness per pixel.

How do you measure sharpness per pixel? How does it affect sharpness of an image?

Cost beeing need for more stitching.

Maybe downsizing files from D850 would help, or different sharpening technique?

 

[John Crowe]

I won't take the time to read all these responses so I will simply say the 5DsR is your only real choice, and makes sense since you have Canon already.

Perhaps it is time for you to go to medium format, and the FUJI GFX series is the most ideal at this point. However I would wait a year or so for their 100MP, that is already developed, to come out.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

OP wants per-pixel-sharpness....

Has OP actually said that? I see OP mentioning pixel quality, not pixel sharpness.

What does "per-pixel-sharpness" even mean?

I might be wrong, but in this case lower MPix sensor for a given lens might improve sharpness per pixel.

How do you measure sharpness per pixel? How does it affect sharpness of an image?

Cost beeing need for more stitching.

Maybe downsizing files from D850 would help, or different sharpening technique?

I think OP means how the image looks at 100% crop and less pixel count would tend to look "sharper" but paradoxically at less resolution.

And, of course, you know that the sharpness is more "perceptual".

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Thank you Tony. Well, I just scrolled around a bit, and looked at several of the D850 example pics at 100%. But honestly, I skipped most of the studio stuff, and went straight to the landscape scenes, mostly trying to see plant life... Leaves and branches from great distances.

And again, at the pixel level, it didn't look much, if any better than my 6D... When I get it just right of course

It really depend on what difference you are looking for.

A D850 shot may look more noisy

Again, at base ISO, the D850 has less noise than the D750 or the 6D.




DXOMark

but would show more details (not necessarily sharper).

How could a camera that shows more detail be less sharp?




DPR

Did you look for other differences such as color accuracy, for example?

That's another rabbit hole for a different thread :^)

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

I won't take the time to read all these responses so I will simply say the 5DsR is your only real choice, and makes sense since you have Canon already.

The OP has no major investment in Canon.

Perhaps it is time for you to go to medium format, and the FUJI GFX series is the most ideal at this point.

He has stated that he can't afford medium format and imo would have no good reason to do so.

However I would wait a year or so

Waiting as opposed to taking pictures now?

for their 100MP, that is already developed, to come out.

Not going to happen.

 

[Chris Wolfgram]

OP wants per-pixel-sharpness....

Has OP actually said that? I see OP mentioning pixel quality, not pixel sharpness.

Yes, actually that is what I want.

I could be wrong but to me, these things are mostly the same.... Or at least, mutually important.

What does "per-pixel-sharpness" even mean?

Again, just viewing shots at 100% and seeing which look better... Less noise, and more detail.

I might be wrong, but in this case lower MPix sensor for a given lens might improve sharpness per pixel.

How do you measure sharpness per pixel? How does it affect sharpness of an image?

Cost beeing need for more stitching.

Maybe downsizing files from D850 would help, or different sharpening technique?

 

[Tony Beach]

OP wants per-pixel-sharpness....

Has OP actually said that? I see OP mentioning pixel quality, not pixel sharpness.

Yes, actually that is what I want.

All things equal, more MP will result in less sharpness at the pixel level, but then when you resize the larger MP file to match the smaller one you will see that the higher MP file is sharper.

I could be wrong but to me, these things are mostly the same.... Or at least, mutually important.

What does "per-pixel-sharpness" even mean?

Again, just viewing shots at 100% and seeing which look better... Less noise, and more detail.

Same as above.

Two more things here.

First, the quality of your lenses and technique have a lot of bearing on how your pixels are going to look.

Second, the issue of equivalence comes into play when you start comparing different numbers of frames used to achieve a FOV, or alternatively go for larger prints with the same number of frames from a higher MP camera. What I'm saying is that your DOF will change, so that means you will end up stopping down or opening up the lens more to achieve equivalence, and (all things being equal; which includes the lens, technique, and the sensor technology) equivalence tends to even the playing field.

This starts to look a lot to me like trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[John Crowe]

That is odd. He has been shooting huge prints with Canon so far, so he must have some Canon lenses. Actually he has at least $8000 in Canon lenses. His budget is around 6K, so a GFX is not out of the question. He did say large format was out of the question not medium format. In the past I have waited a couple of years to buy the specific equipment that I wanted and my photography never suffered while waiting.

For some reason he has eliminated the 5DS R in favour of the D850, which means an investment in all new lenses.

Just want the OP to be aware that there are alternatives to a D850.

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

Thank you Tony. Well, I just scrolled around a bit, and looked at several of the D850 example pics at 100%. But honestly, I skipped most of the studio stuff, and went straight to the landscape scenes, mostly trying to see plant life... Leaves and branches from great distances.

And again, at the pixel level, it didn't look much, if any better than my 6D... When I get it just right of course

It really depend on what difference you are looking for.

A D850 shot may look more noisy

Again, at base ISO, the D850 has less noise than the D750 or the 6D.

The noise comparison normalizes the per pixel noise into per sensor module noise. It does not really represent what you see at the 100% crop.

DXOMark

but would show more details (not necessarily sharper).

How could a camera that shows more detail be less sharp?

Less contrasty image looks less sharp even though it may have more line pairs.

To be fair, I realize, I'm mixing up acutance with sharpness; what we perceive as sharpness is really acutance...

DPR

Did you look for other differences such as color accuracy, for example?

That's another rabbit hole for a different thread :^)

Indeed, my bad :-(

 

[FingerPainter]

OP wants per-pixel-sharpness....

Has OP actually said that? I see OP mentioning pixel quality, not pixel sharpness.

Yes, actually that is what I want.

I could be wrong but to me, these things are mostly the same.... Or at least, mutually important.

What does "per-pixel-sharpness" even mean?

Again, just viewing shots at 100% and seeing which look better... Less noise, and more detail.

Well then, you will have to deal with the seeming paradox that the image with the smallest pixels may look the least sharp at pixel level, but the sharpest when comparing the same portion of the same sensor size (assuming the same lens is used in each case).

 

[mostlyboringphotog]

OP wants per-pixel-sharpness....

Has OP actually said that? I see OP mentioning pixel quality, not pixel sharpness.

Yes, actually that is what I want.

I could be wrong but to me, these things are mostly the same.... Or at least, mutually important.

What does "per-pixel-sharpness" even mean?

Again, just viewing shots at 100% and seeing which look better... Less noise, and more detail. - bold added

You are most likely seeing more acutance than more detail - you need to compare the line pair chart to be sure that you are seeing more detail.

I might be wrong, but in this case lower MPix sensor for a given lens might improve sharpness per pixel.

How do you measure sharpness per pixel? How does it affect sharpness of an image?

Cost beeing need for more stitching.

Maybe downsizing files from D850 would help, or different sharpening technique?

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

A D850 shot may look more noisy

Again, at base ISO, the D850 has less noise than the D750 or the 6D.

The noise comparison normalizes the per pixel noise into per sensor module noise. It does not really represent what you see at the 100% crop.

Not sure what that means.

There is no D850 noise issue at ISO 64. What is much more relevant is the capability for a low noise shadow push, which landscapers do all the time in post to bring up a low exposure taken to include the sun in the frame without it looking like a thermonuclear explosion:


DPR

The D850 manages to maintain black with no loss of contrast, no weird colors and no banding better than any other camera at any price. Just a light pass with a good NR and we're back to near total lack of grain.

 

[coudet]

A D850 shot may look more noisy

Again, at base ISO, the D850 has less noise than the D750 or the 6D.

The noise comparison normalizes the per pixel noise into per sensor module noise. It does not really represent what you see at the 100% crop.

Not sure what that means.

There is no D850 noise issue at ISO 64. What is much more relevant is the capability for a low noise shadow push, which landscapers do all the time in post to bring up a low exposure taken to include the sun in the frame without it looking like a thermonuclear explosion:

And most of the other options don't offer ISO 64. Z7 shows banding that isn't present on the D850. IMHO, overall image quality of the D850 @ ISO 64 is going to be hard to beat.

This thread got sidetracked somewhere along the way. OP asked about making huge prints that can be examined up close, that means highest resolution. I don't understand why D750 or Canon 6D are even mentioned in this thread.

 

[Leswick II]

D850 offers good ISO's over 6400. But, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with your 6D + good optics. You can stitch till you are blue in the face and make great images. My friend from Vancouver, BC has one, so I'm aware what's possible. But, in case others didn't say, it's not the size of the image but it's the image. Hmmm, maybe you're just having GAS attack.

Granted, D850 is a superb camera and with exception of higher ISO's, my silly and ancient D610 is capable of doing similar stuff. And yes, good images require good photographer.....and good camera is helpful.