Phone> APS-C> FullFrame> MediumFormat - Printing A3 >No differences ? REALLY?

[AlainCh2]

Is this a quite honest answer, with proof to sustain it ?

I'm a DX 20Mp shooter now.
A guy that all his life has wanted to return to 6x6,
as I was shooting in my young years.

When my eyes got that Hasselblad....

.... well, you look at the pictures, not at the camera,
arent you?

.

( all my pics are printed A0, on a 65" 4K Monitor - You can tell if it's not sharp )

A0 = 145 x 83 cm

--
___.............................!............................ ___
Mid of French/Italian Alps - Hardiness Zone 8A
I Love all Carnivores, I have mostly Red Dioneas.
https://eu.zonerama.com/AlainCH2/1191151

 

[Droster]

It also actually speaks a lot about resolution. 20MP is fine. 24MP is still the "normal" and will continue to be for a good long while because it's plenty enough to do most things. There's no need to move on from 24MP as the generic sensor resolution. We are not demanding more out of those resolution, at least not until 8K becomes a norm.

He also goes on to talk about super resolution. It's still approximation, but by today's standards, it's very good at what it's doing.

 

[MoreorLess]

Is this a quite honest answer, with proof to sustain it ?

I'm a DX 20Mp shooter now.
A guy that all his life has wanted to return to 6x6,
as I was shooting in my young years.

When my eyes got that Hasselblad....

.... well, you look at the pictures, not at the camera,
arent you?

.

( all my pics are printed A0, on a 65" 4K Monitor - You can tell if it's not sharp )

A0 = 145 x 83 cm

I would imagine the phone image would give you quite a lot less latitude in terms of editing relative to the much larger sensors, seems like the kind of image which is well suited to it with pretty even lighting and not much need for heavy editting.

I do think APSC/A3, FF/A2 and MF/A1 is not a bad guide if you want to get optimal quality(not to say you can't go larger and it will not look good of course) and do not really push your editing that hard, the advantage of FF/MF will start to show up on images were your pushing things a bit further.

Personally thats one of the biggest differences I noticed when I moved to FF, I could push the skys in B&W prints much harder than I could on ASPC before noise became a big issue.

 

[Rene Gr]

He does a lot of these videos comparing lenses and sensors on very large prints. The end result is always that much less gear is needed to get satisfactory results. He advertised the Nikon Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 for landscape photography. And I have to agree most of the time.

However, sharpness is a difficult thing. E.g., the current autumn leaves in the distance are quite bright and easily bloom into neighboring pixels. This is a problem of the lens, and better lenses handle that better. Consequently, the image appears sharper. I think the biggest factor is the lens, not the resolution.

 

[jrtrent]

Is this a quite honest answer, with proof to sustain it ?

Interesting video. Thanks for the link.

I'm a DX 20Mp shooter now.
A guy that all his life has wanted to return to 6x6,
as I was shooting in my young years.

When my eyes got that Hasselblad....

.... well, you look at the pictures, not at the camera,
arent you?

.

( all my pics are printed A0, on a 65" 4K Monitor - You can tell if it's not sharp )

A0 = 145 x 83 cm

I print very few pictures, and never bigger than 4 X 6 inches. My computer screen is about 15" with 1366 x 768 resolution. Every format size I own (starting at 1/2.3") looks just fine.

 

[Scottboarding]

Really great video! I think it's easy to get caught up in test charts and dynamic range measurements when in the real world most cameras perform excellently. Considering the state of AI noise reduction and upresing mixed with most photos being viewed downsized and posted online, sensor size and resolution have never been more meaningless. There's absolutely still reason to buy full frame and medium format cameras, but a camera with a smaller sensor is far from inadequate for most uses.

 

[sybersitizen]

Assuming a typical printer will have trouble printing at resolutions higher than about 300PPI - and eyes might have trouble seeing resolutions higher than that - we're talking about something like 16MP with A3. So ... yes, differences in detail could be indistinguishable.

 

[bjn70]

I saw that and I thought it was very interesting.

I did have a hard time believing that the large print sizes didn't show different detail with the different file resolutions but I don't see any reason for the guy to misrepresent anything.

 

[A74Me]

not a very chalenging test. shoot some outdoor portraits and some landscapes with blue sky and you will see a bigger variation.

 

[Ron Poelman]

IQ/ sharpness is a function of viewing distance, not the tool used.
It's 2023.
Try 55" of OLED or a phone screen as the viewing weapon of choice.

--
Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?

 

[Richard M Nikon]

After shooting the Z8 at f/13, I wonder why Nigel used f/27 on the Hasselblad.

The 0.79 crop factor of the latter would dictate the use of about f/16.

This would affect depth of field and resolution.

 

[jiberlin]

• Printsize is in first a function of pixel count and viewing distance,
• On 'easy' scenes every modern digital 'image producing gear' gives good results
• With difficult scenes (low light, harsh contrast, etc) there are differences
• The 'imaging device' is only one part of the system and the differences (in IQ) between cameras of different manufacturers are very small
• With the good gear available today, the lenses makes the difference

The while discussion which 'imaging device' gives the best IQ is pointless. The crucial point is how it is used and what is important for the user.

• Some people do not want to carry a camera, they are happy with a phone.
• Some people want a (very) small camera, they are happy with a compact.
• Some wants a long (equiv) focal length with compact lenses, they are happy with APS-C.
• Some wants a FullFrame for better low-light or use of legacy lenses, the are happy with FullFrame.
• And some want the highest available pixel count, they are happy with (cropped) MediumFormat.

 

[MCLV]

IQ/ sharpness is a function of viewing distance, not the tool used.
It's 2023.
Try 55" of OLED or a phone screen as the viewing weapon of choice.

 

[MCLV]

Is this a quite honest answer, with proof to sustain it ?

I'm a DX 20Mp shooter now.
A guy that all his life has wanted to return to 6x6,
as I was shooting in my young years.

When my eyes got that Hasselblad....

.... well, you look at the pictures, not at the camera,
arent you?

.

( all my pics are printed A0, on a 65" 4K Monitor - You can tell if it's not sharp )

A0 = 145 x 83 cm

 

[1cb]

I tried to print a few friends phots on A3 (13x19) - not good results.

iphone or galaxy, unless you use the pro-mode, 11x14 is the best you can get out of a phone.

 

[MCLV]

I tried to print a few friends phots on A3 (13x19) - not good results.

iphone or galaxy, unless you use the pro-mode, 11x14 is the best you can get out of a phone.

 

[bjn70]

I could push the skys in B&W prints much harder than I could on ASPC before noise became a big issue.

I have not tried comparing full frame and APS-C files in that way but it makes sense to me.

Since the comparison included a cellphone, I've noticed that I can't do much with cellphone images beyond what the phone has already done to them.

 

[1cb]

I tried to print a few friends phots on A3 (13x19) - not good results.

iphone or galaxy, unless you use the pro-mode, 11x14 is the best you can get out of a phone.

A3 dimensions are 297 x 420 mm, i.e. 11.7 x 16.5 inches. Prints in that video contain some white border so the actual long side might be in the range of 14-15 inches.

ok makes sense. my printer calls 13x19 A3+

 

[john isaacs]

He does a lot of these videos comparing lenses and sensors on very large prints. The end result is always that much less gear is needed to get satisfactory results. He advertised the Nikon Z 24-200 f/4-6.3 for landscape photography. And I have to agree most of the time.

However, sharpness is a difficult thing. E.g., the current autumn leaves in the distance are quite bright and easily bloom into neighboring pixels. This is a problem of the lens, and better lenses handle that better. Consequently, the image appears sharper. I think the biggest factor is the lens, not the resolution.

I traded my 24-200 for the 24-120 f/4. I really did not like that lens.

 

[Fujiuseruk]

I tried to print a few friends phots on A3 (13x19) - not good results.

iphone or galaxy, unless you use the pro-mode, 11x14 is the best you can get out of a phone.

Where as I have printed many A3+ from my phone and P950 and they have been just fine . Even exhibited and sold some , so I guess we all have different ideas of what’s good enough.




P30pro been printed for local exhibition



--
It’s all about the zoom