adamdewilde Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
sebboh wrote:
i never understand this thinking, more megapixels are nice because they look better at every size. small prints look better and big prints look better even when using a crappy lens. all else being equal i would always choose more megapixels.
the problem is nobody usually offers the same camera with different sensor options so there is always tradeoffs in price, features, and/or usability. i agree with michael's philosophy in general, so i'm perfectly willing to sacrifice a little resolution for a more enjoyable camera to use (i usually stitch if i want to maximize resolution anyway). i just get annoyed when people argue that high resolution sensor will make your lenses look bad, which is provably false! all your lenses will look better than they did with a lower resolution, sure you'll be able to see more of their weakness by pixel peeping, but the photos will still look better (which is what matters). if knowing that if you magnifying the output of your lens enough it shows soft corners or bits of CA causes gear dissatisfaction you should see how bad it looks when you magnify the lower res images by the same amount.
moving back closer to topic. 42mp is a noticeable improvement over 24mp, but its only like a 30% improvement in line resolution so it's not a giant improvement. this too me is an important argument – the difference between 24mp and 36mp is a little past the threshold of noticeability, 24mp versus 42mp is a bit more obvious but still not a huge gain. to double the line resolution of a 24mp sensor you need 96mp. yes, the a7r will produce more detailed prints and probably better tonal transitions, but only by a small amount. if that small little bit is the most important thing for your work you probably shouldn't get a leica because they will never be updating sensors fast enough to stay at the top of the resolution race....Show more →
Yes, I've had this discussion about prints to someone who said they bought an A7RII to print big.. I'm more interested in the mentality of people who buy high MP sensors. My point about the R lenses was that you wouldn't want to use them on a high MP camera, if there are lenses that look better on the sensor. I think if I were doing large prints and I had a 50mp 5DsR I'd probably grab an Otus over a 50/1.4 USM. Simply because it's going to look more stunning with the Otus lens. Unless of course you didn't care about soft corners and the nasty little things that show up from using uncorrected lenses.. But heck at web viewing or for 8x10 prints the 50/1.4 is fine. Zeiss wouldn't have built the Otus lenses if there wasn't a demand for them from the higher MP cameras hitting the streets. I know "future proofing" a lens is marketing hype, but if you buy high mp to print big, older lenses will disappoint.
Again, we don't have to print big.. But I'd reckon you buy high MP to print at max resolution, no? Else why not get an A7sII? Easier on the workflow, and better overall colors (subjective). Actually the A7s sensor is closer to what I'd like to see out of Sony then what I'm seeing from their 24,36,42mp sensors.
And 12mp to 42mp is almost double print size
|