Higher pixelcount camera vs superzoom question

[Tigersoul]

I'm an ameteur having some questions about the value of a higher-pixelcount sensor when coupled with a superzoom.

Preface: I want a light, one-lens system. I'm willing to sacrifice some quality. I take photos for fun, not for profit and I HATE the idea of flipping lenses on and off. I had a 5D, tried liking the practice and I ended up barely using it because it's heavy and lens-swapping sucks.

I'm considering the Fujufilm X-T30 II, comparing it to the more expensive Fujifilm X-T50. The T50 has a much higher pixelcount, 40 something instead of 20 something on the T30 II.

I'm curious at the idea of getting the T50 for the sake of:

1. Affording looser framing and as such routinely trim off the least sharp part of the images of a superzoom (corners, edges).

2. Being able to get closer in macro using digital tele and in the process also trim off the least sharp part of the image and getting a better result.

3. Getting extra reach from the long end of the superzoom, or staying at the max optical length available but once again: being able to trim off the least sharp parts of the image.

Is this a sound idea or just dumb thinking?

There are some things I'd have use for in the more expensive T50 as well. Stabilization may be nice if I miss creamy backgrounds enough to get ONE prime (which mostly not stabilized).

 

[ZilverHaylide]

I'm an ameteur having some questions about the value of a higher-pixelcount sensor when coupled with a superzoom.

Preface: I want a light, one-lens system. I'm willing to sacrifice some quality. I take photos for fun, not for profit and I HATE the idea of flipping lenses on and off. I had a 5D, tried liking the practice and I ended up barely using it because it's heavy and lens-swapping sucks.

I'm considering the Fujufilm X-T30 II, comparing it to the more expensive Fujifilm X-T50. The T50 has a much higher pixelcount, 40 something instead of 20 something on the T30 II.

I'm curious at the idea of getting the T50 for the sake of:

1. Affording looser framing and as such routinely trim off the least sharp part of the images of a superzoom (corners, edges).

2. Being able to get closer in macro using digital tele and in the process also trim off the least sharp part of the image and getting a better result.

3. Getting extra reach from the long end of the superzoom, or staying at the max optical length available but once again: being able to trim off the least sharp parts of the image.

Is this a sound idea or just dumb thinking?

There are some things I'd have use for in the more expensive T50 as well. Stabilization may be nice if I miss creamy backgrounds enough to get ONE prime (which mostly not stabilized).

I'd lean towards the XT-50, for the IBIS, the higher pixel count, and probably considerably better AF and tracking -- it's years newer than the X-T30ii.

To "trim off the least sharp part of the image" is not, in itself, usually a good rationale -- because the remaining sharper part of the image then has to be enlarged more to fill the frame, so it probably balances out equal.

But yes, if wanting some of the other benefits, and if the more central resolution of the lens is good enough that it can withstand the crop and greater enlargement, then yes, the extra pixels can help you get greater reach past where you otherwise would be limited. And for macro, you can be further away than you'd otherwise have to be, which gives you greater depth-of-field, also helps if photographing something skittish like some living insects.

 

[ahaslett]

I'm an ameteur having some questions about the value of a higher-pixelcount sensor when coupled with a superzoom.

Preface: I want a light, one-lens system. I'm willing to sacrifice some quality. I take photos for fun, not for profit and I HATE the idea of flipping lenses on and off. I had a 5D, tried liking the practice and I ended up barely using it because it's heavy and lens-swapping sucks.

I'm considering the Fujufilm X-T30 II, comparing it to the more expensive Fujifilm X-T50. The T50 has a much higher pixelcount, 40 something instead of 20 something on the T30 II.

I'm curious at the idea of getting the T50 for the sake of:

1. Affording looser framing and as such routinely trim off the least sharp part of the images of a superzoom (corners, edges).

2. Being able to get closer in macro using digital tele and in the process also trim off the least sharp part of the image and getting a better result.

3. Getting extra reach from the long end of the superzoom, or staying at the max optical length available but once again: being able to trim off the least sharp parts of the image.

Is this a sound idea or just dumb thinking?

There are some things I'd have use for in the more expensive T50 as well. Stabilization may be nice if I miss creamy backgrounds enough to get ONE prime (which mostly not stabilized).

I'd lean towards the XT-50, for the IBIS, the higher pixel count, and probably considerably better AF and tracking -- it's years newer than the X-T30ii.

To "trim off the least sharp part of the image" is not, in itself, usually a good rationale -- because the remaining sharper part of the image then has to be enlarged more to fill the frame, so it probably balances out equal.

But yes, if wanting some of the other benefits, and if the more central resolution of the lens is good enough that it can withstand the crop and greater enlargement, then yes, the extra pixels can help you get greater reach past where you otherwise would be limited. And for macro, you can be further away than you'd otherwise have to be, which gives you greater depth-of-field, also helps if photographing something skittish like some living insects.

I'd choose the 40Mpix newer body too, but I'd start by looking at zooms across systems and thinking about use cases. No point buying a better camera to use a weak lens. There are only a handful of superzooms I'd consider using.

I crop from 61Mpix with my A7CR, especially when using a prime. I view my 100/2.2 as a 100/2.5-4 (it improves a lot by f2.5).

With my 20Mpix MFT bodies, I'm very relaxed changing lenses in the field because of the high resistance to sensor dust. Some people love the OM 12-100/4 Pro, but it's a bit heavy for me without a foot. Now the 12-45/4 plus 40-150/4 Pro lenses would make a great pair.

A

 

[Tigersoul]

I'm an ameteur having some questions about the value of a higher-pixelcount sensor when coupled with a superzoom.

Preface: I want a light, one-lens system. I'm willing to sacrifice some quality. I take photos for fun, not for profit and I HATE the idea of flipping lenses on and off. I had a 5D, tried liking the practice and I ended up barely using it because it's heavy and lens-swapping sucks.

I'm considering the Fujufilm X-T30 II, comparing it to the more expensive Fujifilm X-T50. The T50 has a much higher pixelcount, 40 something instead of 20 something on the T30 II.

I'm curious at the idea of getting the T50 for the sake of:

1. Affording looser framing and as such routinely trim off the least sharp part of the images of a superzoom (corners, edges).

2. Being able to get closer in macro using digital tele and in the process also trim off the least sharp part of the image and getting a better result.

3. Getting extra reach from the long end of the superzoom, or staying at the max optical length available but once again: being able to trim off the least sharp parts of the image.

Is this a sound idea or just dumb thinking?

There are some things I'd have use for in the more expensive T50 as well. Stabilization may be nice if I miss creamy backgrounds enough to get ONE prime (which mostly not stabilized).

I'd lean towards the XT-50, for the IBIS, the higher pixel count, and probably considerably better AF and tracking -- it's years newer than the X-T30ii.

To "trim off the least sharp part of the image" is not, in itself, usually a good rationale -- because the remaining sharper part of the image then has to be enlarged more to fill the frame, so it probably balances out equal.

But yes, if wanting some of the other benefits, and if the more central resolution of the lens is good enough that it can withstand the crop and greater enlargement, then yes, the extra pixels can help you get greater reach past where you otherwise would be limited. And for macro, you can be further away than you'd otherwise have to be, which gives you greater depth-of-field, also helps if photographing something skittish like some living insects.

I'm not sure whether superzooms generally, and mine specifically (I'm looking at a Tamron 18-300) has good enough central resolution to withstand the crop for this strategy to be sound. That I guess was kind of the central part (no pun intended) of my question.

I know superzooms are generally considered "weak glass", but I've been through the route of a heavy full frame camera and a whole bag of lenses and while the lenses were sharp, I rarely used the camera due to the inconvenience. This is why I'm looking for a single-lens solution. Or at the very most: a superzoom + a 50mm prime.

 

[Tigersoul]

I'd choose the 40Mpix newer body too, but I'd start by looking at zooms across systems and thinking about use cases. No point buying a better camera to use a weak lens. There are only a handful of superzooms I'd consider using.

I crop from 61Mpix with my A7CR, especially when using a prime. I view my 100/2.2 as a 100/2.5-4 (it improves a lot by f2.5).

With my 20Mpix MFT bodies, I'm very relaxed changing lenses in the field because of the high resistance to sensor dust. Some people love the OM 12-100/4 Pro, but it's a bit heavy for me without a foot. Now the 12-45/4 plus 40-150/4 Pro lenses would make a great pair.

A

Yeah, I'm moving away from the changing-lens-game. I tried that and while I had sharp lenses for sure, I rarely used the camera. The inconvenience is just not working out for me, which is why I am moving toward a single-lens solution from which I want to juice out as much as I can. I MIGHT get a 50mm prime too, but that's where the line goes for me and lenses

 

[ahaslett]

I'd choose the 40Mpix newer body too, but I'd start by looking at zooms across systems and thinking about use cases. No point buying a better camera to use a weak lens. There are only a handful of superzooms I'd consider using.

I crop from 61Mpix with my A7CR, especially when using a prime. I view my 100/2.2 as a 100/2.5-4 (it improves a lot by f2.5).

With my 20Mpix MFT bodies, I'm very relaxed changing lenses in the field because of the high resistance to sensor dust. Some people love the OM 12-100/4 Pro, but it's a bit heavy for me without a foot. Now the 12-45/4 plus 40-150/4 Pro lenses would make a great pair.

A

Yeah, I'm moving away from the changing-lens-game. I tried that and while I had sharp lenses for sure, I rarely used the camera. The inconvenience is just not working out for me, which is why I am moving toward a single-lens solution from which I want to juice out as much as I can. I MIGHT get a 50mm prime too, but that's where the line goes for me and lenses

The Tamron is a relatively heavy lens - 620g. I have a Sony 90/2.8 macro at 605g and that’s tiring to carry around - doable for me but noticeable. To some extent it depends where the weight is. My 35/1.2 is 910g, but more towards the body, so less leverage.

Different reviews rate the Tamron differently, so you might want to read several. They agree it’s sharp in the centre, but cropping will reduce that, as you say, as well as reducing depth of field and making noise more visible, and the effect of diffraction too.

If you don’t crop the Tamron, the reviews agree it has quite weak edges.

Not sure we have sufficiently similar priorities for me to say more.

A

 

[Phaser]

I would not expect the Tamron 18-300 or Sigma 16-300 to resolve 40MP of detail on a APS-C sensor. The zoom ratio is too high to expect that.

There is one Superzoom for Full Frame (Sony E-mount) that I know of that does really great on a 42MP sensor, and that's the Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III RXD. It even does quite well on a 61MP sensor.

Traveling with the Tamron 28-200mm and the Sony a7RV - DustinAbbott.net

Photographer Dustin Abbott shares a travel review of the Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 RXD and answers the question of it can handle 61MP.

dustinabbott.net

 

[ZilverHaylide]

I would not expect the Tamron 18-300 or Sigma 16-300 to resolve 40MP of detail on a APS-C sensor. The zoom ratio is too high to expect that.

There is one Superzoom for Full Frame (Sony E-mount) that I know of that does really great on a 42MP sensor, and that's the Tamron 28-200mm F2.8-5.6 Di III RXD. It even does quite well on a 61MP sensor.

https://dustinabbott.net/2023/10/traveling-with-the-tamron-28-200mm-and-the-sony-a7rv/

Even if the superzoom lenses the OP might buy might not reap the full benefit of the extra pixels, I can still see several general reasons for choosing the higher resolution sensor, plus one particularly relevant to X-Trans:

1) many lenses are increasingly relying on digital correction of distortion, and other faults such as lateral chromatic aberration. More pixels means the opportunity for the camera or post-processing software to better (more smoothly) correct those flaws, without introducing artifacts.

2) unless the lens is utter garbage, a higher-res sensor can "pull" more detail than a lower-res sensor can, most of the time, from the exact same lens. That's because the system quality (for which MTF is usually the metric) is the product of the quality of its components (lens and sensor). You can see that empirically in some of the tests of Canon lenses at OpticalLimits.com, when they (sometimes) test the same lens on both high- and lower-megapixel sensors, and the resolution figures are (mostly) higher on the higher-resolution sensor.

3) historically, Fuji X-Trans color filter sensors have sometimes generated strange artifacts (i.e. foliage "worms"), especially with some PP software such as Lightroom. While some of the improvement in recent years may have come from algorithm improvements, I also think that higher-megapixel sensors make artifacts less likely to be visible.

 

[A74Me]

i have the tamron 18 300 that i use on my a6700, its a good lens. not exactly small but i use my 18 135 for a general walk around lens.

 

[Tigersoul]

Now that I have it, I agree. Doing 2x digital tele however i still very useful and plenty sharp for basic things like Instagram or for viewing at a screen. So: nope, not getting the full pixel count for sure, but it's a very usable feature.

 

[Tigersoul]

I now own the combo discussed but it's too soon to make any definitive conclusions yet. Just a few days in. What I do know, is that the 2x tele is a very enjoyable feature and the outcome is sharp enough to be usable for many things. Maybe not huge print, but creative shooting? Sure thing!

 

[Tigersoul]

Same usage here. It's not light but it can do a lot of things.