On paper, 5MP looks like 13MP

[dreed]

This is an old post but a good one ...
https://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/

[kers]

1- I think it depends on the type of image- some images do not need many MP to work- especially baby pictures...
show it to anyone - but a pixel peeper - and they look at the baby not at the quality of the pixels)

2- 150dpi is for me the border - that would be in this case 13MP to 8mp - you need to come very close to see any difference

3 the photo is not taken with a 5MP camera but downsized from a 13MP camera- that means every pixel is a good one-

but in general it is true-
At the moment i have a 46MP d850 camera - and most of the images are hardly used at 46MP-
web is no1- HD quality

but...
I foresee a new era beginning about now, were 8K and more is displayed on screen by default.

[luxborealis]

This is an old post but a good one ...
https://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/

Thanks for posting, dreed. This needs to be shouted from the tops of all hills and malls - except it would put the photo industry out of business.

Warning - FF convert speaking - pixel-peepers may not understand this!
I have 16x20s hanging on my wall made from an old 5mp Minolta Dimage 7i - and they look great as their emotional content outweighs their technical perfection - but that’s what photography is about. Too many people who never make large prints are over-obsessed with pixel-level quality. They judge a photo at 100% on screen, then make a 1000-pixel web/phone version or a 4x6 print or put it in a photo book.

I now regularly leave my D800E behind and use my 1” sensor (20mp) RX-10iii and make 13” and 17” prints that look great! The 17” prints stand up to FF prints on the wall, where it counts, but show some difference when pixel-peeped. But pixel-peeping photographers don’t buy my work; “real” people do. More importantly, I feel incredibly liberated with the Sony, not having to carrying around many kg of gear, switching lenses, dust spots, etc. We have broken through and far surpassed the quality necessary for average and above average “serious” (but perhaps not professional) photographers.

I’m am often asked what camera to buy. My first question is, “How important to you are (a) fast action/indoor/night sports; (b) birds on the wing; (c) astrophotography; and (d) making mural-sized prints? I then ask them (e) how important is it to look professional? This usual draws a confused face.

If none of the above are important, and a phone camera is no longer cutting it, I steer them to a 1” sensor point-and-shoot like the various excellent Panasonic Lumix or, if they casually shoot wildlife or sports, the bridge-style Lumix (less expensive than the Sony). I shoot outdoor sports and wildlife with the Sony and have no problem capturing the peak of action, except with birds on the wing. The quality of 1” sensors is more than “enough” for the vast majority of uses - even largish prints and books; DR, pixels, sharpness, noise.

If they really want something that looks professional or answer “yes” to the other questions, I relent and suggest a low-end DSLR recommending they put money into lenses as they can upgrade the body later if they find they outgrow their first. It seems low-end DSLRs (on sale regularly) are less expensive than 4/3s or mirrorless, otherwise, I’d recommend them. The problem with DSLRs are the slow low-cost lenses. It’s difficult to convince someone of spending a few hundred $ more for a faster lens. The Sony...it’s an f/2.4 24mm to f/4 600mm. Imagine that on your FF! $$$

Bottom Line: The vast majority of people will never ever use the quality-potential of even an APS sensor camera. Many are consumed with what the pros use and are more interested in emulating them or they think (and are brainwashed into believing) that more camera = better pictures - then wonder why their pics are “Meh”. By far, the majority will never venture off P mode and AF except to use Scene programmes. Exposure Compensation will never enter their vocabulary nor will ETTR. They just want good pictures they can share on FB or show on their phone.

Thank goodness some will venture beyond, otherwise I’d have no customers for my workshops. It’s also great to see growing Camera club numbers, at least here in southern Ontario. But most are consumed with technical considerations and not the importance of emotional impact. In fact, technical-wise, most photos people take would benefit more from a little judiscious post-capture processing than from “more camera”.

One step at a time, I guess.

PS - I just entered the smartphone world with an iPhone 8 Plus. Love the portrait mode, dual 28mm and 56mm lenses and what the CameraPro app does in producing a RAW file and its HDR mode is phenomenal. I’m looking forward to actually working with the files in LR on my laptop to see just what can be done. Maybe I’ll be leaving the Sony behind more often!

Happy Christmas everyone and all the best in 2018!

[Alskoj]

Happy Christmas everyone and all the best in 2018!

Merry Christmas to you too!  Thanks for the great info on the Sony!  That would be a great all-in-one travel camera.

[Peter McLennan]

Terry, this camera (Sony RX10 nnn) has had my attention for a while now. My D800s serve me well but I would love a lighter, simpler kit. 
Not counting huge prints, what would you say are the major disadvantages of this camera?

[Ferp]

+1 to Terry. Some of my best images (content-wise) were shot in the early days of digital on a 5Mpxl point and shoot, and 13×19" prints look just fine next to recent images shot with many more megapixels. Of course the wide DoF you get with small sensors and very short focal length lenses helps.

[Jeffrey Saldinger]

Is there an assumption in this thread to this point that images will be printed without cropping the original capture?  If cameras with more MP offer opportunities for cropping to find desired compositions, does that change the conversation here?  My two full-frame cameras are 16 and 24 MP, and they allow me to make crops fairly small with respect to the full sensor size and still have enough pixels to make prints that work at my usual print size.

[Dave Rosser]

PS - I just entered the smartphone world with an iPhone 8 Plus. Love the portrait mode, dual 28mm and 56mm lenses and what the CameraPro app does in producing a RAW file and its HDR mode is phenomenal. I’m looking forward to actually working with the files in LR on my laptop to see just what can be done. Maybe I’ll be leaving the Sony behind more often!

Happy Christmas everyone and all the best in 2018!

Apparently all you need for a front page story see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42483201

Dave

[luxborealis]

Apparently all you need for a front page story see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42483201

Dave

Exactly my point. It’s not what ya got...

[Tim Lookingbill]

Exactly my point. It’s not what ya got...

After downloading and inspecting the amount of detail recorded in quite a few Raw and jpeg small sensor captures from iPhones to underwater P&S, I'll have to disagree with you when it comes to enlarging to poster size any of these noisy images no matter how many megapixels which is what this topic is about.

I'll take my 2006 6MP Raws from my Pentax K100D over any iPhone if I'm going to do print enlargements.

[Doug Gray]

There is one big, fat, serious flaw in the article.

Per kers' point, they didn't compare a print from a 5MP camera with a print from a 13Mp camera and that's what should have been done. Here's why.

The pixel spacing is 61% larger for the 5MP image and the Nyquist point is dropped 38%. What is ignored is that the original 13MP image already has a low pass filter applied to it in order to minimize Moire. This attenuates frequencies below Nyquist so that when you down-sample and lose that 38%, you are not losing that much spectral info. Most of it has already been thrown out when the light reaches the sensor by the optical LPF in order for the CFAs to do a decent job. A professional printer would up-sample to the native printer's requirements. And the only difference is that the LPF attenuated part of the image is fully lost. And that is a very difficult, tiny, part of a print.

And quite apart from the LPF, there are additional losses from the lens and aperture settings.

Comparing to a 5MP camera with its much heavier LPF, rather than a down-sampled 13MP image would produce noticeable differences for photographs that were sharply focused.

For that matter doing the same down-sampling of a 5MP camera image to a 2MP then up-rezing to print would also make prints that would be hard to distinguish. One could extrapolate that to suggest that a 13MP camera's image will print as good as a 2MP one.  Utter nonsense.

That said, MP specs are 90% marketing hype so I agree with the general thrust but the article is seriously flawed.

[luxborealis]

Terry, this camera (Sony RX10 nnn) has had my attention for a while now. My D800s serve me well but I would love a lighter, simpler kit. 
Not counting huge prints, what would you say are the major disadvantages of this camera?

Disadvantages...

• the IQ is there for books and prints up to 17” but the pixel peepers will find faults;
• some softening and distortion at the corners, not more than many Nikkor lenses I’ve used on my D800E, but more than Nikon’s best glass;
• close-up work can be a bit finicky until you learn which focal lengths work best for the magnification you are trying to achieve;
• low light and high ISOs are it’s Achilles heal;
• catching birds on the wing is difficult as it has trouble locking focus on small, fast-moving objects, although I’m able to capture outdoor sports (soccer, field hockey);
• to achieve maximum IQ you must shoot in raw and process.

This is, perhaps, not exhaustive and it may be rather revealing of the weaknesses. But, for all it’s flaws, it’s still a camera I enjoy taking just about everywhere. The D800E et. al. is still there and I do use it at times, but not when travelling.

Take one for a spin. As a bonus, the RX-10iv has much improved phase detection AF.

[luxborealis]

Is there an assumption in this thread to this point that images will be printed without cropping the original capture?

Yes, there is that assumption of no/minimal cropping, for good reason, too. One of the fundamentals of high image quality is to make the most of the sensor/film by carefully composing so that cropping is not needed or kep to an absolute minimum, except when there is no other way to capture the scene. There are times when one may crop to achieve a different aspect ratio (1:1, 16:9), but the idea is to make full use of one of the two dimensions to achieve it.

I crop the 20mp RX-10iii when I’m shooting sports and cannot physically get closer or need the extra “space” around players to properly track the action. In my case, the photos won’t be used for posters, but for 8x10s or smaller.

[Jeffrey Saldinger]

Yes, there is that assumption of no/minimal cropping, for good reason, too. One of the fundamentals of high image quality is to make the most of the sensor/film by carefully composing so that cropping is not needed or kep to an absolute minimum, except when there is no other way to capture the scene. There are times when one may crop to achieve a different aspect ratio (1:1, 16:9), but the idea is to make full use of one of the two dimensions to achieve it.

I crop the 20mp RX-10iii when I’m shooting sports and cannot physically get closer or need the extra “space” around players to properly track the action. In my case, the photos won’t be used for posters, but for 8x10s or smaller.

Yes, I agree, Terry.

But I add (in a friendly, collegial way, of course) that where you say “One of the fundamentals of high image quality...”  perhaps it could be expressed in a less absolute way by saying instead “One of the fundamentals of getting maximum print quality beyond certain sizes...”   I recently cropped something from its native 4928x3280 to 1500x1000 and got a 9-3/4x6-1/2 print from it.  It was shot on the street with a 55mm prime some distance from the subject.

[Peter McLennan]

Disadvantages..Take one for a spin. As a bonus, the RX-10iv has much improved phase detection AF.

Thanks, Terry.  I can deal with most of those issues.  The bottom line is that you'll take the Sony nearly everywhere, but leave the D800 behind unless you're after the last word in IQ.  Me, I've been using my phone for that.    The Mk IV with the new focus system is tempting.  Too bad Sony couldn't include the ND filter inside that awesome Zeiss lens. For exterior day video, ND is a must-have.  Next time I'm in a city, I'll definitely take a test drive. 

Thanks!

[hogloff]

Yes, there is that assumption of no/minimal cropping, for good reason, too. One of the fundamentals of high image quality is to make the most of the sensor/film by carefully composing so that cropping is not needed or kep to an absolute minimum, except when there is no other way to capture the scene. There are times when one may crop to achieve a different aspect ratio (1:1, 16:9), but the idea is to make full use of one of the two dimensions to achieve it.

I crop the 20mp RX-10iii when I’m shooting sports and cannot physically get closer or need the extra “space” around players to properly track the action. In my case, the photos won’t be used for posters, but for 8x10s or smaller.

Sorry...but I don't buy this. There are many situations where you cannot "carefully compose" in the camera and these images require cropping in post to obtain the composition you visualized. I just got back from Morocco and I'd say the majority of my images require cropping in post as shooting the scenes in active medinas just do not give you the time and space to carefully compose exactly what you want in the camera.

Here is an image which I shot inside the Fes medina which required cropping to achieve my vision for this image. I had people all around me and if I waited for everything to clear, the moment would be gone.

As far as making 13x19 prints from a 5mpix camera...well I guess you either have different subject matter than me or different definition of quality.

[langier]

Photography is more importantly about pictures, less so about pixels, IMO. With good gesture, light & color, with a little craft, great photos are possible.

My colleague is a wiz with the iPhone, iPad and his little G15 or whatever the iteration he has now. Seldom does he shoot in raw, yet he understands the craft of photography and his vision and presentation of his work runs circles among his peers, many with 40-50-60 years of practice and craft, including well-accomplished students of Ansel Adams and some of the top West Coast genera. His peers are not simply hobbyists or clubbers looking for a pat on the back. Many of his work have been featured in several museum exhibitions and printed large, 20x30, and hung next to my work with a D800. They held their own. Pictures, not pixels!

[GrahamBy]

Thanks for posting, dreed. This needs to be shouted from the tops of all hills and malls - except it would put the photo industry out of business.

Bravo... it's content before pixels. There are so many great photos that were shot on 35mm Tri-X... that would not have been improved by better resolution. It may be that there was some sort of sweet spot there in balancing enough detail with enough impressionistic "flou".

[hogloff]

Bravo... it's content before pixels. There are so many great photos that were shot on 35mm Tri-X... that would not have been improved by better resolution. It may be that there was some sort of sweet spot there in balancing enough detail with enough impressionistic "flou".

Are we saying we can't have both content and pixels? After all when we have a lot of pixels...we can always throw some away...but when we are wanting pixels...making them up adds nothing to the image.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

A few points...

The test was made using an 13 MP image. Technically, it means that is has the MTF of the original 13 MP image. Downscaling the 13 MP image, detail will be lost but fine detail contrast will be maintained.

The results don't really surprise me. I normally print at 16"x23"  and at that size I have seen little difference between 12MP and 24MP, albeit I would normally be able to tell the prints apart. So, I feel that 12 MP is perfectly good for 16"x23" prints.

I do have a 16"x23" print from a six MP camera on my wall, and that picture lacks detail. But, it can still be a nice image.

I did a comparison recently:

• Downsize a 42 MP image to 10.5MP
• Upsize the 10.5MP image to 42MP
• Print both side by side (pretty large)

The 10.5 MP image actually looked sharper, that was probably because Photoshop applies some sharpening after downsizing. But I also felt the downsized image was more brittle.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for posting, dreed. This needs to be shouted from the tops of all hills and malls - except it would put the photo industry out of business.

Warning - FF convert speaking - pixel-peepers may not understand this!
I have 16x20s hanging on my wall made from an old 5mp Minolta Dimage 7i - and they look great as their emotional content outweighs their technical perfection - but that’s what photography is about. Too many people who never make large prints are over-obsessed with pixel-level quality. They judge a photo at 100% on screen, then make a 1000-pixel web/phone version or a 4x6 print or put it in a photo book.

I now regularly leave my D800E behind and use my 1” sensor (20mp) RX-10iii and make 13” and 17” prints that look great! The 17” prints stand up to FF prints on the wall, where it counts, but show some difference when pixel-peeped. But pixel-peeping photographers don’t buy my work; “real” people do. More importantly, I feel incredibly liberated with the Sony, not having to carrying around many kg of gear, switching lenses, dust spots, etc. We have broken through and far surpassed the quality necessary for average and above average “serious” (but perhaps not professional) photographers.

I’m am often asked what camera to buy. My first question is, “How important to you are (a) fast action/indoor/night sports; (b) birds on the wing; (c) astrophotography; and (d) making mural-sized prints? I then ask them (e) how important is it to look professional? This usual draws a confused face.

If none of the above are important, and a phone camera is no longer cutting it, I steer them to a 1” sensor point-and-shoot like the various excellent Panasonic Lumix or, if they casually shoot wildlife or sports, the bridge-style Lumix (less expensive than the Sony). I shoot outdoor sports and wildlife with the Sony and have no problem capturing the peak of action, except with birds on the wing. The quality of 1” sensors is more than “enough” for the vast majority of uses - even largish prints and books; DR, pixels, sharpness, noise.

If they really want something that looks professional or answer “yes” to the other questions, I relent and suggest a low-end DSLR recommending they put money into lenses as they can upgrade the body later if they find they outgrow their first. It seems low-end DSLRs (on sale regularly) are less expensive than 4/3s or mirrorless, otherwise, I’d recommend them. The problem with DSLRs are the slow low-cost lenses. It’s difficult to convince someone of spending a few hundred $ more for a faster lens. The Sony...it’s an f/2.4 24mm to f/4 600mm. Imagine that on your FF! $$$

Bottom Line: The vast majority of people will never ever use the quality-potential of even an APS sensor camera. Many are consumed with what the pros use and are more interested in emulating them or they think (and are brainwashed into believing) that more camera = better pictures - then wonder why their pics are “Meh”. By far, the majority will never venture off P mode and AF except to use Scene programmes. Exposure Compensation will never enter their vocabulary nor will ETTR. They just want good pictures they can share on FB or show on their phone.

Thank goodness some will venture beyond, otherwise I’d have no customers for my workshops. It’s also great to see growing Camera club numbers, at least here in southern Ontario. But most are consumed with technical considerations and not the importance of emotional impact. In fact, technical-wise, most photos people take would benefit more from a little judiscious post-capture processing than from “more camera”.

One step at a time, I guess.

PS - I just entered the smartphone world with an iPhone 8 Plus. Love the portrait mode, dual 28mm and 56mm lenses and what the CameraPro app does in producing a RAW file and its HDR mode is phenomenal. I’m looking forward to actually working with the files in LR on my laptop to see just what can be done. Maybe I’ll be leaving the Sony behind more often!

Happy Christmas everyone and all the best in 2018!