Bigger sensor

[rabanito]

A novice question

I own three cameras. One 6x6 analog, one digital 24x16 12 Mp and one 4/3
17x13 16 Mp.

Analog aside, I usually prefer the pictures taken by the 12 Mp camera, this could be for many reasons that might have little too do with the number of pixels

Now I've seen that there are small format cameras up to 36 MP (or maybe more?) 24x36 and asked myself if such a monster - never had one in my hand - would (other things being equal) make any difference to MY photography (Landscape, taking my time, "visualization", tripod etc). My end product are prints up to A3+ (13"x19")

Any opinions, experiences, advice?


Thanks in advance

[petermfiore]

...up to 13x19, 12MP is all that I need.


Peter

[degrub]

Unless one is pixel peeping, the consensus i have seen says 12-16 MPixels is adequate for that printing size at normal viewing range.

There were a few articles by Michael R. discussing the format size, pixels, etc. on the site. And endless debates. Jim Kasson, BJanes, and others are expert in this discussion. You might search for threads where they interjected. Jim has a website as well
https://blog.kasson.com/

In particular, take a look at the websites on his recommended list
https://blog.kasson.com/photographic-sites/

[faberryman]

Unless one is pixel peeping, the consensus i have seen says 12-16 MPixels is adequate for that printing size at normal viewing range.

A 13x19 image from a 12MP file, with no cropping, must be printed at roughly 225dpi, which many find inadequate, or upsized with interpolated data. Canon has a native print resolution of 300, which would require a 22MP file. Epson has a native resolution of 360 which would require a 32MP file.

[HSakols]

In real life the differences between printing at 180 dpi or 360 dpi become almost indistinguishable.  Still I like to print my small prints at 720 dpi as J. Schewe has recommended with Epson printers. 

I use both micro four thirds and a full frame Nikon, and like you I rarely print larger than 12 x 18 inches.  Where the larger sensor is a real joy is in the post process where I just have smoother control over my changes.  High lights and shadows are easier to control.  That said, I plan on Traveling to Latvia this summer where I will just bring my Olympus 16 mp.  The big sensor is for photographing piles of stilcks and rocks while it is mounted on a tripod and the ISO is set to 64. 

I was at a workshop in 2005 where this guy made a 24 + inch print using his point and shoot.  Comparing the print to that of high end cameras was surprising.  In a pinch one could get away with it but I wouldn't plan on much post processing control working with a tiny JPEG.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

A 13x19 image from a 12MP file, with no cropping, must be printed at roughly 225dpi, which many find inadequate, or upsized with interpolated data. Canon has a native print resolution of 300, which would require a 22MP file. Epson has a native resolution of 360 which would require a 32MP file.

13x19 is the new post-card size (i.e., 4x6). You can print it from an iPhone.

The "must" above is a huge hyperbole. I have printed (and sold for $1,000+) 30" x 40" prints from a P&S jpeg. I had a magazine cover and 24" x 36" prints (sold too) from an 8 Mpx camera. All done via Lightroom printing module.

[faberryman]

The "must" above is a huge hyperbole.

It is not hyperbole. It is math.

[Ivophoto]

Of course there is a difference!
Not so much in terms of printability, but in terms of used focal length, hence perspective, and DOF.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It is not hyperbole. It is math.

We are not looking at math, but images. Math is for tire kickers*

* For my non-English-as-first-language friends: tire kicker is someone who seemingly knows everything about something in theory (e.g., cars), and demonstrates it by asking a lot of seemingly knowledgeable questions while walking around the car and kicking its tires, but never buys it (or does something else in practice).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Of course there is a difference!
Not so much in terms of printability, but in terms of used focal length, hence perspective, and DOF.

Nope.

Both depend on the subject distance. DOF is a bit more complicated, though.

[Rob C]

I have both a D200 and a D700 which latter has 12mpx and, I think, the former 10mpx. Pinted up on A3+, I have absolutely no idea which camera gave birth to which image.

That's my reality of the matter.

Rob

[faberryman]

We are not looking at math, but images. Math is for tire kickers*

* For my non-English-as-first-language friends: tire kicker is someone who seemingly knows everything about something in theory (e.g., cars), and demonstrates it by asking a lot of seemingly knowledgeable questions while walking around the car and kicking its tires, but never buys it (or does something else in practice).

The LR print module hides all the math so you don't have to worry about it. Some prefer not to have to deal with the math. The math doesn't bother me. I don't kick the tires on my printer. I print with it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The LR print module hides all the math so you don't have to worry about it. Some prefer not to have to deal with the math. The math doesn't bother me. I don't kick the tires on my printer. I print with it.

Here we agree 100%. Just print it and don't worry about the math is all I say.

At the same time, saying that one "must" have a 22 or 32 Mpx camera to print 13x19 is clearly not true.

[faberryman]

At the same time, saying that one "must" have a 22 or 32 Mpx camera to print 13x19 is clearly not true.

You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I specified the dpi which would make the statement true, again without resizing. But I understand your point. It is certainly possible to make a 13x19 print with a few megapixels.

[Ivophoto]

Nope.

Both depend on the subject distance. DOF is a bit more complicated, though.

About DOF: I talk about film equivalent DOF, deviated from the COC. Larger sensor, longer lens to have the same image angle: shallower DOF by given aperture. Correct?

About perspective: I’m a bit unclear in my statement, correct.
A 35mm in FF and a 35mm in APSc will create same DOF at same distance, but to get the same image ratio (not sure if it is the correct English term) you need to move your camera, hence changing the perspective.

If you want to (and you want to) keep the same image angle in order to keep the same perspective, you need to use 23mm on an APSc, this gives a change in DOF.

Yes?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Yes?

That is a rather old debate, so I am not inclined to rehash it.

On this very site, there are articles, starting with Michael Reichmann's ones, that explore the subject, just search for DOF. One of the first articles on the subject is this one:

https://luminous-landscape.com/dof/

[Ivophoto]

That is a rather old debate, so I am not inclined to rehash it.

On this very site, there are articles, starting with Michael Reichmann's ones, that explore the subject, just search for DOF. One of the first articles on the subject is this one:

https://luminous-landscape.com/dof/

Agree, it’s an old debate, no need to rehearse.

I was just thinking loud that the main difference in sensor format is DOF ( for prints in terms of resolution up to A3 I don’t see a difference)
And DOF is related to COC and this is depending to the distance you look at your image and the size of it. I was in that corner. No bother. Especially not for landscape photographer who wants all sharp.

Cheers.

[rabanito]

When photographing landscapes I don't want "everything sharp" unconditionally

Some things I want sharp, some maybe less sharp. Many times I have to recur to PS to, say, separate planes by blurring a little

It depends on the motive, I guess

[Ivophoto]

[quote author=Ivophoto link=topic=128432.msg1087852#msg1087852
 
Especially not for landscape photographer who wants all sharp.



When photographing landscapes I don't want "everything sharp" unconditionally

Some things I want sharp, some maybe less sharp. Many times I have to recur to PS to, say, separate planes by blurring a little

It depends on the motive, I guess

Ok. You do your blurring in PP?

I make portraits on 8x10”. A good understanding of DOF and COC (circle of confusion) is key to make the most out of it.
The article referenced by Slobo is effectively a good explanation , Tx for the link, Slobo, it’s more clear than the tedious explanation in the Focal Press encyclopedia.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When photographing landscapes I don't want "everything sharp" unconditionally

Some things I want sharp, some maybe less sharp. Many times I have to recur to PS to, say, separate planes by blurring a little...

That is true.

It is a basic fallacy that landscape photography needs "everything sharp." Different level of sharpness for different planes is what creates the depth, a 3-D effect (btw, "slightly less sharp" doesn't mean "blurred" or even "unsharp"). The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.