May I ask two questions?
When I went from 12 MP to 24 MP I could see some advantage to 24 MP in A2-size prints. I see very little advantage going from 24 MP to 39 MP at A2 (16x23"). So I feel that 12 MP are pretty much OK for 16x23" and 16MP or so may be really good for that print size. What is your take on that?
Reason for asking: It is about the size of prints desktop printers can make, and it is about 16MP 4/3 cameras can produce. Ctein said in an interview on LuLa that 16 MP from APS-C is good enough for A2.
The other question is, do you see benefits going to higher resolution on full frame (24x36)?
Reason for asking: Some guys (like Jim Kasson, myself and others) have done some research and came to the conclusion that small pixels will give better reproduction. It would be interesting to hear your view. Is the Nikon D810 the summit, or just a plateau on the way to a summit far away?
Hello Erik,
I do agree with everything you said, we just have to remember that "good enough" does not mean "best possible". I am sure that we would be able to see improvements on an A2 print from a 36MP file on a side by side comparison against another from a 16MP file... if we print both on a smooth glossy paper and look closely. On a matte textured paper the differences would be less noticeable or negligible. Without the side by side comparison I definitely agree the 16MP would be more than good enough.
About going to higher resolutions on FF (24x36mm), I can only guess, but I think we will see benefits. First because I tend to believe that we can still extract more "juice" of our current lenses. Surely optical problems can make our 36MP camera capture only a level of detail equivalent to, lets say, 24MP. But that same lens on an hypothetical 72MP camera may be able to render, lets say, 48MP level of detail. I think the limitations are not like a brick wall but more like a gear problem that makes you car loose a percentage of the power.
Besides, as you said, there is the software side of the coin that may be able to extract more detail from a larger amount of data (even if apparently redundant). I am still a bit skeptical about using deconvolution sharpening for other forms recovery that are not related to motion, I believe that it does not work consistently varying from image to image. But, admittedly, I have not tested it properly.
At this moment, as I print large images for living, I want more resolution for sure... until the day I could not see a difference on a 44x66" print!
BTW, last week I received some files from an IQ180. Studio shots, portraits, properly lighted, camera on a tripod, Schneider glass... The client ordered some A1 prints but I gave him a free 44x58" just because I wanted to see that file printed on that size. It was surely the best print on that size (from a single click) that I ever saw, but honestly I saw some room for improvement.
Regards.
