Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7      
8
       9       10       11       end
  

Fujifilm GFX 50S Images
  
 
molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #1 · p.8 #1 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
At this point, I'm regarding the non-response from molson as a tacit admission that the claim about perspective was wrong, and anyone who was thinking that the perspective issue is relevant to the comparison between formats may want to reconsider.


Either that, or molson has you on his "Hide Me" list, because he doesn't care to read vacuous, long-winded posts...



Nov 06, 2017 at 04:37 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #2 · p.8 #2 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
There are real, objective differences between various sensor formats that are worth understanding and considering, including between full frame and miniMF, but this isn't one of them.
n


Dan, do you think this may be because you're talking strictly about the sensor size's impact (in a lens-less theoretical sense), and I'm talking about the affect the change in focal length, lens design, and camera position required to get the same FOV has on the image?

EDIT: If you're ok with lopping off the top and bottom of the GFX image, then you can say camera position doesn't have to change.


Edited on Nov 06, 2017 at 05:32 PM · View previous versions



Nov 06, 2017 at 04:40 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #3 · p.8 #3 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


molson wrote:
Either that, or molson has you on his "Hide Me" list, because he doesn't care to read vacuous, long-winded posts...


Seems unlikely when "he" replied immediately to my post on the topic with essentially an ad hominem.

I'm standing by what I wrote until I see some explanation from you about where I'm actually wrong.

Actually, I'm right on this one.



Nov 06, 2017 at 05:25 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #4 · p.8 #4 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
Dan, do you think this may be because you're talking strictly about the sensor size's impact (in a lens-less theoretical sense), and I'm talking about the affect the change in focal length, lens design, and camera position required to get the same FOV has on the image?



In the post I responded to, the poster wrote:

One characteristic of the medium format cameras that's hard to get across in small web images is the different perspective you get using longer focal length lenses. With a wide lenses like the 23mm f4, you can capture a wide view without diminishing the size of your foreground subjects as much as you would with an equivalent angle of view on a miniature-format camera.

For example, in the vertical image I posted above (Gabriola Shoreline II) I would have needed an 18mm lens on my A7R II to get the same angle of view, but in order to keep the round rock in the image, I would have needed to get a lot closer to it - and in this instance, I would have gotten wet.

This perspective change is inherently neither good not bad, just different... but the more I get used to it, the more I like it.
...Show more

There are some accurate elements in that quote. For example:

- while the "perspective" doesn't change, you do get a narrower angle of view from longer lenses.

- wide angle lenses do, indeed, allow you to get closer to a primary foreground subject and simultaneously diminish the size of background elements — e.g. "capture a wide view without diminishing the size of foreground subjects."

The poster does understand a key fact that some others occasionally overlook — focal length choices have all kinds of implications beyond just getting closer to (or farther from) a subject, quite a few of which involve controlling the relationships between close and distant subjects.

However, the point in the second paragraph is wrong, whether as a result of a writing error (we all make them) or misunderstanding.

If you put lenses with the same angle of view on two cameras using different formats, by definition the size, etc. relationships between foreground and background subjects (e.g. — the "perspective") will be the same with both cameras if they are in the same camera position. In order to maintain those relationships you do not have to move the cameras — you have to keep them in the same position.

The reason I'm baffled by the poster's response to this is that this is a basic photographic concept that just plain isn't subject to debate. He seems to be experienced enough in photography to understand this. Anyone with two cameras that use different formats and two lenses that provide equivalent angles-of-view can easily confirm this.

Now, if you use lenses with different angles of view and then move the camera position to keep foreground subjects the same size, you will change the size relationships between these subjects, but that isn't what the poster was describing.

Anyone can make a mistake. (I recall when someone pointed out to me some years back that I was consistently mis-spelling "diffraction," and another occasion when someone set me straight on how effective apertures change when using macro lenses, for example. In this thread I made a mistake earlier by mistyping a focal length — I corrected it and acknowledged my mistake.) That's why I asked the poster to explain what I was misunderstanding about his post.

I would have acknowledged a mistake if he had pointed out what it was. He didn't. I'm confident that I'm correct about this.

Dan


Edited on Nov 06, 2017 at 05:59 PM · View previous versions


Nov 06, 2017 at 05:42 PM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #5 · p.8 #5 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
Actually, I'm right on this one.


Got to be a first for everyone.

:-)



Nov 06, 2017 at 05:42 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #6 · p.8 #6 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
In the post I responded to, the poster wrote:

There are some accurate elements in that quote. For example:

- while the "perspective" doesn't change, you do get a narrower angle of view from longer lenses.

- wide angle lenses do, indeed, allow you to get closer to a primary foreground subject and simultaneously diminish the size of background elements — e.g. "capture a wide view without diminishing the size of foreground subjects."

The poster seems to understand a key fact that too many forget — focal length choices have all kinds of implications beyond just "getting closer" to (or farther
...Show more

I get that. I even tested my Leica Q just now using the 50mm crop setting against my 63mm on the GFX and my feet are in the exact same spot to get the same image when considering the long/horizontal ends of the sensor. However, if I need the extra image areas the 4:3 GFX sensor format gives me on top and bottom, then on full frame I will have to back up to get it (and in the process get more in the frame horizontally, too).

I agree his second paragraph is wrong. If anything, the compromises in lens design required for an 18mm on full frame versus 23 on the GFX will cause the 18mm full frame shot to be more distorted at the edges (foreground) of the frame, thereby causing the objects closer to you to appear elongated/larger.

In my posts, though, I was trying to move past your discussion with the previous person to make the point that moving to a larger sensor does indeed affect the spacial quality of the image due to changes in the focal length and design of the lens required to keep the same FOV. It sounds like you agree with that statement, but may simply not be interested in discussing it



Nov 06, 2017 at 06:06 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #7 · p.8 #7 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


Meanwhile, some photos taken with the GFX 50S + 63mm f/2.8





© highdesertmesa 2017

  GFX 50S    GF63mmF2.8 R WR lens    63mm    f/2.8    1/180s    100 ISO    0.0 EV  





© highdesertmesa 2017

  GFX 50S    GF63mmF2.8 R WR lens    63mm    f/2.8    1/125s    250 ISO    0.0 EV  




Nov 06, 2017 at 06:32 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #8 · p.8 #8 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
I get that. I even tested my Leica Q just now using the 50mm crop setting against my 63mm on the GFX and my feet are in the exact same spot to get the same image when considering the long/horizontal ends of the sensor. However, if I need the extra image areas the 4:3 GFX sensor format gives me on top and bottom, then on full frame I will have to back up to get it (and in the process get more in the frame horizontally, too).

I agree his second paragraph is wrong. If anything, the compromises in lens design
...Show more

Quick response...

I'll start with the part that is directly related to the point I've been trying to clarify. Thanks for agreeing with me on this in your second paragraph. I'm quite certain about how this works, too.

Regarding your first paragraph... I'm actually a big fan of the 4:3 ratio, too. In fact, it is my personal preference and the default for my photography, all of which is done on cameras with 3:2 ratios! Yes, I crop them, and I set up my cameras to show the 4:3 aspect ratio when possible. The 4:3 ratio is one plus factor for me when I consider the miniMF option — an option I have decided is not for me right now, but which I have not ruled out in the future. (Since I've written more about
my thinking on this topic elsewhere, I won't elaborate here.)

About your third paragraph... I never have disputed the fact (yes, "fact") that sensor size differences do have an objective and measurable effect on image quality, and that the image quality effect of larger sensors is objectively to improve it. As to not being interested in discussing that more general topic, I've discussed it quite a bit. I avoided "going there" in this part of discussion only because it is a larger topic than the one I was trying to straighten out. (There's a bit on this in the post I link to earlier in my reply.)

Take care,

Dan



Nov 06, 2017 at 08:08 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #9 · p.8 #9 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
Quick response...

I'll start with the part that is directly related to the point I've been trying to clarify. Thanks for agreeing with me on this in your second paragraph. I'm quite certain about how this works, too.

Regarding your first paragraph... I'm actually a big fan of the 4:3 ratio, too. In fact, it is my personal preference and the default for my photography, all of which is done on cameras with 3:2 ratios! Yes, I crop them, and I set up my cameras to show the 4:3 aspect ratio when possible. The 4:3 ratio is one plus factor for me
...Show more

Thanks for the reply and the link to your article. The crop factor really is a big deal like you say. It killed me on full frame to have to crop my images and lose so much of it.





Nov 06, 2017 at 09:19 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #10 · p.8 #10 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
Thanks for the reply and the link to your article. The crop factor really is a big deal like you say. It killed me on full frame to have to crop my images and lose so much of it.


It is a deal, but perhaps not as big of a deal as we might initially think. It bothered me, too — and still does a little bit — but a few objective data points relieved me of my concerns.

1. Even after cropping, I can make very big and very good prints from photographs made using my 50MP DSLR system.

2. The difference, in terms of crop factor, as you probably read in my article, is actually a lot smaller than people tend to realize. I believe that many folks think of the miniMF sensor as being quite a bit larger than the FF sensors, but in crop factor terms the difference is much smaller than that between full frame and 1.5x or 1.6x cropped factor sensors. (Details in a chart in the article.)

3. Given that the improvement in the quality of photographs from this difference is, while real, going to be quite small (I've compared prints), the downsides (for me) of moving away from my FF system and the lenses that I rely on outweigh the pluses (real, but not huge) of the current 51MP miniMF systems. As I like to write, YMMV.

On the plus side, it is an inconvenience to deal with my almost-certain 4:3 crop of my 3:2 FF exposures, especially when composing in the optical viewfinder. (The rear display does let me show only the 4:3 area.) For me, as a person who prefers 4:3, a system that works natively in that mode (such as miniMF and micro-four-thirds) does appeal.

What would persuade me to move to miniMF? (Aside from Fujifilm giving me a system? Not that I'd say no! ;-) A few things;

1. A real sensor resolution advantage over the highest resolution full frame systems. That may happen at some point — there have been rumors of a 100MP miniMF sensor, for example.

2. An expanded set of lenses from Fujifilm that come closer to meeting my needs. The current lenses are quite good, from all I've heard, but they don't give me what I need for the sort of photography I do. I need high quality zoom lenses covering the equivalent of around 16mm to at 300mm in angle-of-view terms. And, yes, I understand that this isn't as much of a factor for some. (I probably could come closer to finding what I need for the Pentax 645z or a higher MP successor.)

3. Improvements to Fujifilm's excellent 1.5x cropped sensor mirrorless cameras that get the AF system and system latency into a performance range where I can feel comfortable using them for subjects such as birds in flight.

Dan



Nov 06, 2017 at 10:01 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #11 · p.8 #11 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
It is a deal, but perhaps not as big of a deal as we might initially think. It bothered me, too — and still does a little bit — but a few objective data points relieved me of my concerns.

1. Even after cropping, I can make very big and very good prints from photographs made using my 50MP DSLR system.

2. The difference, in terms of crop factor, as you probably read in my article, is actually a lot smaller than people tend to realize. I believe that many folks think of the miniMF sensor as being quite a bit larger
...Show more

Not in any particular order:

--> I think 100 MP will be good for reducing moire on these very sharp Fujifilm GF lenses. Me personally, I don't really "need" 100 MP. 50 MP is a nice balance. Heck, even the resolution of the 5D Mk IV would have been fine if they had left off the AA filter (what were they thinking?). Another issue at 100 MP will be the exaggerated effects of camera movement on image sharpness. With the GFX at 50 MP, I have to be careful handholding even the 63mm at 1/125 sec. The GF 110mm is nearly unusable for me without a tripod. Even shutter speeds approaching 1/500 sec can still sometimes have motion blur. The 120 with OS was is much more practical. So if they move to 100 MP, I think putting stabilization into every new lens and every version II of their current GF lenses will be required.

--> Yes. Lens lineup. This was the reason I got rid of my first GFX system and went back to Canon (before coming back when they discounted the GFX systems recently). I'm going to be first in line for the GF 250mm and 1.4x converter, but this still leaves a big gap at 400mm/full frame. The saving grace that brought me back to the GFX was knowing the adapters that supported both autofocus and IS were coming out soon. My Techart adapter should arrive this Friday, and I'm dying to use the Canon 100-400 II on the GFX. I know that from about 150-400 there will be some increased vignetting in the corners (it already vignettes a lot on full frame at the widest apertures), but bumping it to f/8 and cropping just a little should work fine. I love the 100-400 (both versions) and without it, I'm losing half the shots I could be taking. And if for some reason, I'm not happy with it adapted on the GFX, then I'm going to get a cheap 80D body and use it alongside the GFX until the GF 250 is released (or until the 5Ds Mk II comes out).

--> The autofocus performance of the 5DsR is stellar. Those dual-processors really make the 100-400 II lightning fast. It felt much faster on the 5DsR than it did on the 5D Mk IV, but that could have been just my perception.

--> The differences between the 5DsR and the GFX as far as image quality are not so much about how identical images from different-sized-but-same-megapixel sensors look when printed at the same size, it's more the fact that I can make a better-looking image from the GFX RAW files to begin with – an image that is more visually rich and appealing. The GFX sensor is better "film" so to speak. I've never forgiven Canon for failing to match the IQ of the original 5D (stunning color + a weak AA filter) with every subsequent release. The original 5D had what I would describe as a rainbow of colors on demand, and the colors rarely turned to mud even with heavy edits in Lightroom. And even though it's only 12 MP, the files have a stunning perceived sharpness. The 5D Mk IV comes close, but again – that AA filter made it DOA for me.

--> I don't shoot wildlife. And if I shot birds in flight, I don't think I'd be letting go of a Canon body for a very long time.



Nov 06, 2017 at 11:55 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #12 · p.8 #12 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


The concern about a higher MP sensor being more subject to motion blur is not warranted.

In the worst case, the image quality will not be degraded by the higher MP sensor. It ideal cases it may be better.

There is no more blur in an print from a 100MP sensor than in a print from a 50MP sensor. The magnitude of the motion blur is identical in both cases, though I suppose you might say that the higher MP system images it more accurately.

Our mileage apparently does differ when it comes to the 5DsR, as I find the quality of the raw files to be excellent and the quality of prints made with it to be outstanding. If I used Nikon or Sony I'm sure I'd say the same about their high MP full frame systems, since I have seen excellent prints from both.

Dan



Nov 07, 2017 at 03:39 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #13 · p.8 #13 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
I suppose you might say that the higher MP system images it more accurately.


As I understand it, a higher MP sensor (given the same sensor size) is less capable of freezing the motion of a moving object since the moving subject tracks across more photosites in the same timeframe. Are you saying that, "No, a higher MP sensor may instead be more capable of recording motion blur."? There is no such thing as motion blur until the capture device fails to freeze the subject motion on the recorded image. You're split your hairs the wrong way here. I'm not sure why you would disagree with me, then come back and agree with me (as some sort of "maybe") from an odd perspective.

gdanmitchell wrote:
Our mileage apparently does differ when it comes to the 5DsR, as I find the quality of the raw files to be excellent and the quality of prints made with it to be outstanding.


I don't think our mileage differs. I am not stating that the 5DsR cannot make outstanding prints. Some of my favorite images I shot on the 5DsR. I'm saying that in conditions where the 5DsR sensor falls short, the GFX sensor gives me more flexibility and a higher potential for developing a more visually-pleasing image in Lightroom. If the 5Ds Mk II were out today (assuming a 60 MP sensor with the 5D Mk IV technology and no AA filter), then I think the gap in image processing flexibility would be more on par with the GFX.



Nov 07, 2017 at 05:18 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #14 · p.8 #14 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
As I understand it, a higher MP sensor (given the same sensor size) is less capable of freezing the motion of a moving object since the moving subject tracks across more photosites in the same timeframe. Are you saying that, "No, a higher MP sensor may instead be more capable of recording motion blur."? There is no such thing as motion blur until the capture device fails to freeze the subject motion on the recorded image. You're split your hairs the wrong way here. I'm not sure why you would disagree with me, then come back and agree with me
...Show more

The motion blur versus MP issue tricks a lot of people. One error may be that they presume that a lower density sensor doesn't record the blur. That isn't correct. It samples it a a lower rate, but the components of the blur still a) spread across the same angle of the image and b) they don't line up precisely with the vertical/horizontal photo site array in ways that would constrain the blur to individual photo sites.

So, in both cases (higher and lower MP sensors) the blur affects the data recorded by adjacent photo sites that fall within the width of the blur. Consider what happens when you make equal sized prints from both. In the worst case, the amount of blur is exactly the same, though the higher MP version will render it more precisely. (That doesn't make it more blurry!) In the best cases — where you control the blur or in the extremely unlikely case that the blur is minor an perfectly within the angle occupied by a single row of photo sites — the higher MP version can produce a bit more resolution.

This might be easier to understand if I had the time and inclination to generate a graphic representation, but the result is: When it comes to motion blur a print of a given size from a higher MP system is never worse than a print at that size from a lower MP system, and when the sources/recording of the image minimize or eliminate the blur the higher MP system can be better.


I don't think our mileage differs. I am not stating that the 5DsR cannot make outstanding prints. Some of my favorite images I shot on the 5DsR. I'm saying that in conditions where the 5DsR sensor falls short, the GFX sensor gives me more flexibility and a higher potential for developing a more visually-pleasing image in Lightroom. If the 5Ds Mk II were out today (assuming a 60 MP sensor with the 5D Mk IV technology and no AA filter), then I think the gap in image processing flexibility would be more on par with the GFX.


"YMMV" is simply my way of acknowledging that a difference of opinion may exist. Here, I acknowledge the objective superiority of larger sensors when all else is equal, but I remain unconvinced regarding the magnitude of the difference and its effect on photographic output. Some, including you, have come to a different conclusion, and I understand that.

And don't think I haven't tried to convince myself that I should get a miniMF system! ;-)

Dan



Nov 07, 2017 at 06:23 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #15 · p.8 #15 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


gdanmitchell wrote:
The motion blur versus MP issue tricks a lot of people. One error may be that they presume that a lower density sensor doesn't record the blur. That isn't correct. It samples it a a lower rate, but the components of the blur still a) spread across the same angle of the image and b) they don't line up precisely with the vertical/horizontal photo site array in ways that would constrain the blur to individual photo sites.

So, in both cases (higher and lower MP sensors) the blur affects the data recorded by adjacent photo sites that fall within the width
...Show more

Your motion blur explanation is over my head a bit. Why does everyone who moved to the 5DsR swear they need higher shutter speeds to keep from seeing motion blur in their images?

Re: 5DsR vs GFX, I guess my mileage does vary I really feel like Canon will knock it out of the park with the Mk II version. For most 5DsR users, this might be a great reason to avoid the move to a larger sensor system.

Part of the GFX experience to me admittedly is pixel peeping. I hate that term, though. It's like "chimping" and is most often used in a derogatory context. I find viewing the GFX files at 1:1 and even 2:1 to be a cathartic experience and is part of why I enjoy shooting it so much.

As a separate topic, I wish there were a better term to apply than "miniMF" – mini seems like a slight, particularly in light of the "full" in "full-frame". I wish we could have 6x7, 645, and then ___ some other number-oriented name.



Nov 07, 2017 at 06:55 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #16 · p.8 #16 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
Your first explanation is over my head a bit. Why does everyone who moved to the 5DsR swear they need higher shutter speeds to keep from seeing motion blur in their images?


Because they are confused. ;-)

Re: 5DsR vs GFX, I guess my mileage does vary I really feel like Canon will knock it out of the park with the Mk II version. For most 5DsR users, this might be a great reason to avoid the move to a larger sensor system.

This relates to my observation that everyone should stop and be patient before making any major switches or upgrades based on the appearance of some new thing. When company A brings out a new thing, it usually isn't long before company B does, too. And company B's new thing often temporarily outdoes company A's thing... until the next company A new thing arrives! Over time, they all generally move forward at similar rates.

Part of the GFX experience to me admittedly is pixel peeping. I hate that term, though. It's like "chimping" and is most often used in a derogatory context. I find viewing the GFX files at 1:1 and even 2:1 to be a cathartic experience and is part of why I enjoy shooting it so much.

Pixel peeping is often a worthwhile endeavor, and we can learn interesting things from it. I just learned something interesting about sharpening methodology from a friend this week, and pixel peeping confirms the effectiveness of his ideas.

However, for me the proof is in the print.

As a separate topic, I wish there were a better term to apply than "miniMF" – mini seems like a slight, particularly in light of the "full" in "full-frame". I wish we could have 6x7, 645, and then ___ some other number-oriented name.

"3344" or something could work, I suppose, but in the meantime "miniMF" is really useful and straight forward: These really are smaller than MF sensors that are not FF. (You could actually regard the "mini" as an advantage — excellent image quality that exceeds that of MF film, but in a smaller package than the original film systems.)

How about "megaFF?" ;-)

Dan


Edited on Nov 07, 2017 at 09:00 PM · View previous versions



Nov 07, 2017 at 07:01 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #17 · p.8 #17 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


Or how about "fuller frame"?


Nov 07, 2017 at 08:04 PM
flash
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #18 · p.8 #18 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
[
Your motion blur explanation is over my head a bit. Why does everyone who moved to the 5DsR swear they need higher shutter speeds to keep from seeing motion blur in their images?


Because they're looking at a larger "print". If the print size is the same the effect of motion blur is the same. When you look at a higher res file at 100% you're effectively looking at a larger print. Any effect of motion blur will be enlarged.

Gordon



Nov 08, 2017 at 09:02 AM
molson
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.8 #19 · p.8 #19 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


highdesertmesa wrote:
As a separate topic, I wish there were a better term to apply than "miniMF" – mini seems like a slight, particularly in light of the "full" in "full-frame". I wish we could have 6x7, 645, and then ___ some other number-oriented name.


It only seems to be a handful of resentful people who don't have one and are stuck with their little miniature-format cameras that refer to it as "miniMF"



Nov 08, 2017 at 03:12 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.8 #20 · p.8 #20 · Fujifilm GFX 50S Images


^^^

Ad hominem much? ;-)

- - -

Back on topic...

flash wrote:
Because they're looking at a larger "print". If the print size is the same the effect of motion blur is the same. When you look at a higher res file at 100% you're effectively looking at a larger print. Any effect of motion blur will be enlarged.

Gordon


This is correct. Basically, if you use a camera with a higher resolution so that you can make larger prints than you now produce* you have to pay attention to all of the things that you have always had to pay attention to that affect the maximum print size. These include the full range of things that can affect print resolution, including camera stability, lenses, aperture choice, focus, subject motion, sharpening and other post-processing work, and so on.

But if you compare at the same size (e.g — not 100% magnification crops from different resolution sensors) there will be no difference in the amount of motion blur. The ideal way to see this is to make prints. You can also verify by viewing same-size jpgs on-screen, but that does introduce some variables that might affect what you see.


Edited on Nov 08, 2017 at 07:30 PM · View previous versions



Nov 08, 2017 at 04:01 PM
1       2       3              7      
8
       9       10       11       end






FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3              7      
8
       9       10       11       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password