Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

Archive 2022 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Having owned the R6 (and many other 20MP cameras), and now owning the R5 (as well as previously owning the A7R IV), the higher resolution bodies allow for printing larger for sure, but the difference would really only be noticeable when viewing close up, and even then only on prints larger than about 24" on the long end. I like having the extra resolution when needed for that big print, or if I need to crop a significant bit and still have lots of resolution, but strictly speaking, I don't need it.

I used 24MP and lower resolution cameras my entire life until the last two years, and I haven't exactly noticed a massive difference in the quality of the prints, though occasionally you see it.

Feb 16, 2022 at 04:05 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Robin Smith wrote:
If you can't crop, then no one will know you didn't get the shot either.

I will know...the most important person. I will know the shots I could have gotten, but did not.

Feb 16, 2022 at 04:09 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Toothwalker wrote:
Back in the film days, there were DOF scales on lenses based on an acceptable circle of confusion diameter of 30 µm for the 35-mm format. This corresponds to an amount of information that can be captured with 1 megapixel. This DOF criterion was about fine for 10x15 cm prints, but with large prints people would notice that the DOF was not as deep as promised.

Then came the digital cameras. People started pixel peeping, and for some reason inspecting large prints from close up also became popular. DOF fell apart.

From a normal viewing distance, something like 6 Mp should...Show more →

What is "regular viewing distance"? Have you ever stopped and observed in galleries how people stand back and look at prints or paintings, and then come in close to see the fine details. I've seen this many times and in fact do it myself. Looking close provides a totally different experience than standing back and not being able to see some of the fine details captured.

This notion of "regular view distance" is used as a crutch by those that produce prints that cannot standup to being viewed for the fine details.

Feb 16, 2022 at 04:12 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

jj1804 wrote:
"I ... am not relaying on heavy crops."

"I don’t really "need" the high resolution..."

"...But then again, how often am I going to do this?"

"Only thing pulling me back is that I don't really need the resolution. It's a continues back and forth. On the one hand I kind of want the resolution on the other I don't need it. I'd estimate 98% of my prints are going to be A4 max."

"But something in my head keeps coming back to the R5 and tries to convince me that I need 45 Mp."

"Other differences/features of the R5 body over the R6 are "nice to haves" but not really necessary to me. The R6 is an almost perfect camera for my needs."

"Comment on why you chose the one over the other in regards to prints. Again, not interested in birding or heavy crops. It's all about the resolution and detail for prints. Please help me put a nail in that coffin for the foreseeable feature (as new bodies are always on the horizon)."

I think you are perhaps answering your own question. :-)

An aside regarding prints, since you asked. 154 ppi native image resolution for a print is lower than we would like, but... we typically interpolate the larger prints to get a higher range. There is some (widespread) thinking that a resolution of about 180 is high enough or big prints, though you could interpolate to a higher setting, too.

Another thing that people often overlook or get wrong: The super high resolution values are most important in small prints where the viewer tends to inspect them at much closer distances. I typically print at 360, especially with smaller prints.

Keeping the resolution this high becomes less important when the print is extremely large and unlikely to be viewed at nose-length distances in the real world. I know, photographers may do that. But if you go to a show of great photographic prints by whoever you regard as masters and seek out their really large prints... and inspect at nose-length distances... you'll discover that such prints, even the very, very good ones, are not razor sharp when viewed that way. I've seen this in wonderful original prints by a whole bunch of folks, from Ansel Adams to Avedon to Jeff Wall to Galen Rowell to lots of others. Especially Galen Rowell... ;-)*

(Yes, I do look very closely at work at exhibits, in part because I'm interested in the physical nature of the photographic medium — not because I'm looking for "flaws.")

If I'm reading your post correctly, you are saying – repeatedly — that the camera you have is actually working really well for you. You are also speculating that you may, maybe, sometime want to make a very small number of prints in roughly the 30" x 40" range.

I guess that if cost is no object and you really want the R5, it is a fine camera and it will work nicely for you. But I also think that maybe you are getting yourself a bit wound up in gear lust here. Hey, it happens to all of us. Don't let FOMO rule you! ;-)

Good luck,

Dan

In answer to the now-inevitable question of "why use prints as the yardstick?", that's what the OP asked about.

*Rowell's big color prints, which are often quite lovely, have the grain the size of small insects. ;-)

And... I use two systems. One is a 50MP full frame system, since the images that I produce with it do at times get printed quite large. Sometimes really large. The other system is a 24MP APS-C system. I also sell/license prints made on it, and they look really good, too. I cannot go quite as large as I can with the FF system, but 20" x 30" is easy.

Edited on Feb 16, 2022 at 11:20 PM · View previous versions

Feb 16, 2022 at 04:25 PM

Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Feb 16, 2022 at 04:29 PM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Mike_5D wrote:
Maybe people who obsess over tiny details in an image are missing the point of the photograph as a whole.

I experience both the print as a whole as well as the details within the print. Both provide differing experiences.

It's like looking at a picture of the Mona Lisa and getting one experience, then looking closely at the painting and seeing all the different brush strokes and details...giving you another experience.

I once went into this gallery to look at some large prints from the Great Bear Rain Forest and was observing from the "regular viewing distance" of this one print and it was a fantastic image of the dense rain forest with all it's greenery. Moving in to view the print I noticed this bear fast asleep on a log...such a great capture. I would have totally missed the bear if I didn't look closely.

I guess it really depends on what one shoots. Portraits...I don't want to see every pimple. Detailed landscapes, bring on the details.

Feb 16, 2022 at 04:44 PM

Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

chez wrote:
What is "regular viewing distance"? Have you ever stopped and observed in galleries how people stand back and look at prints or paintings, and then come in close to see the fine details. I've seen this many times and in fact do it myself. Looking close provides a totally different experience than standing back and not being able to see some of the fine details captured.

This notion of "regular view distance" is used as a crutch by those that produce prints that cannot standup to being viewed for the fine details.

Some people walk up close, some people don't, but what makes a photo or painting great can be appreciated while standing back. In most cases anyway, there are of course exceptions.

That said, your question is important. I don't think there is a generally accepted definition of a "regular" or "normal" viewing distance, but I see it as the distance (or range of distances) that allows the viewer to appreciate the photograph in its entirety. Like when watching a movie. Few people walk up close to a movie screen, because they can no longer follow what is going on.

On the other hand, a concept that is clearly defined is the "perspectively correct" viewing distance. The angle of a print subtended to the viewer's eye should match the angle of the scenery subtended to the picture taking lens. A telephoto image should be viewed from faraway and a wideangle picture from nearby. If people would do this (nobody does), they would notice that there is no such thing as telephoto compression or wideangle perspective distortion.

Feb 16, 2022 at 05:00 PM

drimer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

jj1804 wrote:
Hi all

Long time lurker, first time poster. I bought my first camera in 2008 - a used 5D Classic. Took thousands of shots with it, traveled with it, dropped it, repaired it and still kind of love it. After buying the 24 TS-E II and shooting extensively with it on the 5D with the EE-S, I decided to upgrade to a used 5D II in 2014 due to live view and easier manual focus with the TS lens. University and a side gig as sports photographer took most of my attention away from the 5D II and 24 TS-E and I kind of left them unused for some years. Last year I became a father and thus picked up the R6 because the AF of the 5D II is just not up to todays standards. I love (almost) everything about the R6 and wish I'd have upgraded sooner.

This was my first purchase of a brand-new body. Although I got a good deal and I initially wasn't willing to spend the money for the R5, I keep catching myself side eyeing the R5. I shoot portraits of my son/wife and landscape, architecture, cityscapes. I never really cared about the technicalities of cameras and resorted to "pressing the shutter button" as the bodies at that time were all in the realm of 20 Mp and switching over to a D800 was not in the cards since I loved my 24 TS-E. Most threads on this board on the R5 are about birding, which I don't have either interest nor the lenses for. But I am really interested in the discussion about resolution and detail.

I went down that technicalities-rabbit-hole while researching the R6. "Only" 20 Mp seemed quite low to me and would not have been an update over my 5D II. I initially wished for 30 as in the R or 5DIV as an upgrade over my old camera. As I later learned 20 vs 30 Mp is only a 20% (6700/5500) increase and not 50% as I falsely assumed. The 45 Mp of the R5 seemed overkill for me as I didn’t need to double my resolution over my 5D II and wasn't willing to spend twice as much for the R5 over the R6. But wait, 8192/5472 is "only" a 50% increase and this puts it (in my mind at least) in a reasonable upgrade path over my previous body.

I don't do 8K video and am not relaying on heavy crops. I have a pretty decent lens kit with my 24 TS-E II, 35 1.4L II, 40 2.8, Tamron 85 1.8, 100L and the RF 70-200/4. I want to keep my bodies a long time and have a slight feeling of buyers remorse regarding the R6 or FOMO looking at that beautiful R5 resolution. It seems kind of irrational because I don’t really "need" the high resolution but it sure is great to download samples online and pixel peep trough those huge files. Having the possibility to print another 60x90cm print in 232 instead of 154 ppi seems, at least on paper (or monitor), better to me.

Another potential use case for all that resolution could be DSLR MILC-Scanning of my 120 negatives. Although I don't have a Mamiya 7 with those beautiful lenses and their incredible resolution prowess, increasing working distance and taking one shot of a 120 negative instead of stitching 3 shots together sure does sound like a faster process as well. But then again, how often am I going to do this?

I have a M1 Max MacBook Pro with enough processing power and disk space. I have good lenses and a sturdy tripod to make use of the resolution of the R5. Only thing pulling me back is that I don't really need the resolution. It's a continues back and forth. On the one hand I kind of want the resolution on the other I don't need it. I'd estimate 98% of my prints are going to be A4 max. (family pictures for albums, framing) but it sure is enticing to at least have the option to print really big once in a while in superb quality. The faster and easier MILC-Scanning process is another, albeit minor, factor in this back and forth.

Is the difference in resolution (232 vs 154 ppi) really that noticeable from a normal viewing distance? I argued in my head that it is not and I'd rather spend the difference between those two bodies on the upcoming RF 35 1.2L (it will eventually come…). But something in my head keeps coming back to the R5 and tries to convince me that I need 45 Mp.

Other differences/features of the R5 body over the R6 are "nice to haves" but not really necessary to me. The R6 is an almost perfect camera for my needs. If I could have the R5 sensor in the R6 body for 3k$ I'd have bought that instead. But at almost twice the price it is still a debate in my head I haven't completely settled and it keeps popping up once in a while. My R6 looks no different from a new camera and has about 4000 shots. I feel like if I'd sell it now and buy the R5 my financial loss wouldn't be that great as it's a like new camera still. But as said previously something in my mind hasn't clicked yet to pull the trigger on the R5.

TL;DR: Comment on why you chose the one over the other in regards to prints. Again, not interested in birding or heavy crops. It's all about the resolution and detail for prints. Please help me put a nail in that coffin for the foreseeable feature (as new bodies are always on the horizon). Thank you for reading....Show more →
Hi!

$2000 is a lot of money, especially when you're still looking for more glass. I have an R5, but I crop frequently and heavily for sports images. If I were in your shoes, I'd keep using the R6. If you encounter a project, trip, or scene where you believe resolution is paramount, the R5 can be rented or the 5DsR can be purchased for around $1000 used. For not much over $2500 you could pick up a used Fuji GFX 50R and GF 50mm and out-resolve anything in 35mm; the acuity is certainly higher than my R5 for various reasons (and I happen to like the 4/3 aspect ratio). Not recommending you do that, just pointing out that the price gap is indeed substantial.

IMHO, stick with the R6 unless you start regularly printing above 20x30 inches.

Feb 16, 2022 at 11:14 PM

jj1804
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

I can't reply to any one of you individually but I read trough all of the comments and appreciate every input you all gave me, thank you!

It seems to me that those people who actually print large are mostly happy with less than 45 Mp, which sounds promising. I know that I have a hard case of GAS and FOMO regarding the R5. Typing all of my thougths out was kind of cathartic and showed me that, as I stated in my first post, I don't really need the 45 Mp. It would be nice to have, sure, and the large prints would come out technically better. Question remains if I actually benefit or, better yet, can make good use out of all the resolution.

I posted this same rambling text on the canonrumors forum and someone there gave good input. I'll copy and paste it into here, so you don't have to go over there to search for the thread:

jd7 said: (...) That said, if you get closer to the image there are some details which I think could be a little bit sharper. eg leaves on some trees. Is that because I started with a 20 MP image? Is it due to the printing process and it wouldn't have looked any different if I'd started with a 45 MP image, bearing in mind the printer, the ink and the type of paper all have an impact on how the printed image looks (eg my images are printed on metallic paper, which has its advantages but I think tends to...Show more →

and my response to the quoted answer from user jd7:

(...) Last Friday I went out to shoot the sun setting over our oldtown. I didn't bring my tripod since the R6 has IBIS and I tend to shoot more and different angles without a tripod. I couldn't take as much time as I did before we had a baby and I wanted several different angles. I was quite happy with some pictures but then later noticed at home @100% that the DOF of some images is not quite there. Might have had to set the camera up on the tripod and use a bit of tilt to influence the...Show more →

I keep my R6 for the time being. I'll try to be as pragmatic and financially responsible as I can and will print one of those "imperfect" shots from last friday in 24x36 and hang it opposite to the toilet in the bathroom and will have enough time to consider if I need better quality prints this large or not. Thank you to everyone who chimed in so far and am happy to hear further thoughts on the quotes above. Have a nice day

Feb 17, 2022 at 05:48 AM

Ferrophot
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

FWIW I have two 24" x 36" prints made off a JPEG from an XTi and a 7D. Both stand close inspection. I also look at my images with a 27" screen and I find the 20mp of the 6D and R6 don't leave me wanting more detail or sharpness. Moderate cropping from the 3 x 2 format to 16 x 9 produces no visible degradation.
I did not have a burning desire for the R5, those big files would have consumed my 1 Tb hard drive and back-ups real quick.
If I made my money as a photographer I would want the best and most versatile equipment, R5 and R3, but for me as a hobbyist I did not think the big guns were necessary. Gee, even the R6 is over kill.

Feb 17, 2022 at 08:15 AM

Robin Smith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

I miss shots all the time, because they don't come out the way I saw them, or because in the end I just didn't like the result, or those times when you are driving along and see a fantastic view, but are unable to stop as there is no hard shoulder, or when you do stop, you find there is too much vegetation to actually get the shot you saw. Then there are all the shots I couldn't get because I don't have an 800mm lens with me etc. etc. Life is full of missed opportunities, but with photography I think not having 45 MP is a minor one. I don't beat myself up on the shots I miss and certainly not because I don't have a high resolution image, particularly since what is considered high resolution has been changing over the last 10 years. I find I am happier this way, but of course not everyone is the same.

Feb 17, 2022 at 10:11 AM

TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Yeah a 1TB drive would be pretty full after about 40,000 R5 raw files, it goes quickly.

Feb 17, 2022 at 10:40 AM

tkbslc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Honestly going far beyond 150DPI for a larger, high-quality print is taking you into placebo territory. You might think the difference is obvious, but it's probably all in your head (or you are viewing it more closely than anyone else ever will). You could do 16x24 at 150DPI with an 8MP sensor and 24x36 at 150DPI with a 20MP sensor. 150DPI wall prints look great!

If you go even larger, like 40x60, then you can even get away with as low as 75 or 100 DPI because people will have to stand back 5-6' to view it. I'd not hesitate to print a quality photo at 40x60 with 20MP even though it is 90DPI. People were doing this back when 20-21MP was considered incredible high resolution.

(For smaller prints, you DO want higher DPI, because they will be viewed closely. I'd want 300 for a 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 or a photo book. People will be viewing those up close. Luckily, we also hit that threshold at about 8MP.)

OP if you want to test out the difference, you could make two 18x12" prints at the two DPI and see what they look like.

Take a high quality photo of yours and resize it to 4176x2784 pixels. This will be your R5 analog and will print at 232 DPI at 12x18". Then resize the same photo to 2772x1848 and print the same size. It will be 154 DPI and be your r6 analog. Now put both at a comfortable viewing distance on the wall and see if you can tell the difference. You'd want to go with a larger test print like 12x18, because as a I said above, if you make it small you will naturally view it more closely and that's not a fair comparison for wall prints.

Feb 17, 2022 at 10:40 AM

johnvanr
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

I’m always in awe when I zoom in on images taken with a high resolution camera on the screen, but all the prints I actually have in the house were taken with cameras with 16-18 megapixels, even the ones cropped in, and they look absolutely fine.

Feb 17, 2022 at 11:30 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

tkbslc wrote:
Honestly going far beyond 150DPI for a larger, high-quality print is taking you into placebo territory. You might think the difference is obvious, but it's probably all in your head (or you are viewing it more closely than anyone else ever will). You could do 16x24 at 150DPI with an 8MP sensor and 24x36 at 150DPI with a 20MP sensor. 150DPI wall prints look great!

If you go even larger, like 40x60, then you can even get away with as low as 75 or 100 DPI because people will have to stand back 5-6' to view it. I'd not hesitate...Show more →

This post is a mix of stuff I agree with and stuff that doesn't hold up, in my experience.

I agree with the suggestion to make sample prints of crops from prints that were scaled to larger sizes. This is a good way to get a more accurate idea of how image sharpness/detail and pixelation will end up in the full size print.

On the other hand, for people who actually do make a lot of large prints (outside the billboard, etc. space) the idea that a 75 ppi (pixels per inch, different from dpi or dots per inch) image resolution will be acceptable doesn't hold up. Yes, if you look at a print from many feet away you will not see the pixelation at 75 (or even lower in certain cases) ppi, but if you are making what we might call (for lack of a better term) a "fine art print," that's not going to cut it.

Or perhaps what this poster is suggesting is that an image with a low native ppi resolution could be interpolated to a higher ppi resolution for printing? For example, if you were to simply enlarge an image to the point that it would end up at 75 ppi without interpolation... but then interpolate to get the ppi resolution to 180 or higher... the pixelation at 75 ppi would be masked by that and, at least with some subjects, the resulting sharpness of the image would be sufficient.

A rule of thumb is to use a print resolution of at least 180ppi, and higher if possible... but you can get there via interpolation in many situations.

There are two potential issues with printing an image so large that you end up with extremely low ppi resolutions:

1. Close enough inspection – even normal degrees of close inspection by regular viewers — will reveal visible pixelation. "Up-rezzing" (interpolating to a higher ppi resolution) in the right way can deal with this issue — e.g. take that 100 ppi image and upr-rez it to 180ppi or higher before printing.

2. The image may not be sharp enough, simply because that's what happens when a small source image is magnified many times over, whether it is originally a digital or analog capture. The boundaries here are quite subjective and depend on things as varied as the type of subject, the paper you print on, and more.

Finally... none of this seems relevant to our OP's question, and I think the OP has said as much.

Dan

One other little thing. I'm reading comments about "viewing at 100%" here that need one additional comment. Here's a thought experiment. Let's say that you use the same lens, the same settings on the cameras, and photograph the exact same subject with a 20MP camera and a 50MP camera. Let's say that you inspect them both at "100% magnification." Which will appear sharper? Why? ;-)

Feb 17, 2022 at 11:42 AM

AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

I'd definitely rather have 20mp than 45mp file size. But calculating it I found you could put about as many 5DsR raw files on a 4tb drive as rebel XT jpegs (mostly used jpegs on rebel XT) on the 200gb drive I got back then. Similar cost for the 2 drives at different times 4tb probably even cheaper now than the 200gb then . Kind of surprising. So 45mp isn't unmanageable although 20mp easier imo

Feb 17, 2022 at 11:44 AM

TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

1TB external drives are about $50 these days, hardly a show stopper and almost the cost of a good SD card. I get a good chuckle every time someone mentions how much all that extra storage is going to cost to go to a higher resolution body.

Case in point: https://www.amazon.com/Toshiba-HDTB410XK3AA-Canvio-Portable-External/dp/B079D359S6?creative=9325&camp=1789&tag=dealnewscom&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&th=1&ascsubtag=bt5txm18dv65h1f2lkldJgcEPD75zYI9

A 6TB RAID set up with a NAS costs quite a bit less than something like the RF 800mm lens.

Alternatively, you could have 2TB Amazon Glacier storage for around $12 a month, about what Amazon Prime costs a month.

Feb 17, 2022 at 02:53 PM

jj1804
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Honestly, if one doesn't buy a 4k USD camera because they can't afford a 50$ harddrive to store their pictures on, one might have to reevaluate their priorities. This would definitely not keep me from buying the R5. One can also use a cheaper SD card instead of the CF Express card if cost is THAT prohibitive.

I appreciate the discussion and everyones opinion on resolution in prints. It seems like one has to see for themselves if they can fully appreciate a higher ppi vs a lower, if they can discern it at "normal" viewing distance (whatever that is) or if they get up close to inspect more detail.

@tkbslc: that would be an interesting experiment. If I'd have a printer at home I'd certainly try and do that.

Feb 18, 2022 at 03:43 AM

TeamSpeed
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

You don’t really need a printer to do a resolution evaluation test though. If you had both the R5 and R6, you could take the same photo of an object, crop down to that object on both, then resample each to something large like 13x19 at 300DPI. Then you view both new files at 100% to see which looked more detailed or just generally better.

This is the same basic effect you would get with a print between the two, or as close as you can get to such a test without a printer. Of course each situation is different, the crop factor might be different, print sizes might be different, and even the print driver/printer/print medium matters.

People these days love to get in close to an image that is displayed, so higher resolutions are desirable for that. Especially if the subject matter is very entertaining.

Feb 18, 2022 at 05:48 AM

ilkka_nissila
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6

Toothwalker wrote:
Back on topic: The angular resolution of a normal human eye is one minute of arc, which translates to 1/3400 of the viewing distance. For my 50x75 cm prints viewed from a distance of 1 m, this corresponds to 4.5 Mp of perceptible information. I need 18 Mp for a viewing distance of 50 cm, etc. A higher print resolution does not increase perceived sharpness. (These numbers are based on a normal or average human eye. People with exceptionally sharp vision may benefit from more pixels.)

These figures seem plausible to me. However, as you say there is some variability in how well people can see detail, and even greater variability in how much people care about slight differences.

When viewing prints there are two typical scenarios for me. In one, the print is on a wall and I look at it at such a distance as it presents itself in whole. The positioning of the print relative to chairs and hallways dictates the typical viewing distances and thus whether differences in resolution can be seen. I can say that for prints on my walls, none of them would show signficant differences between 45 MP and 24 MP, for example, in such a way that the difference would be meaningful to the viewer at normal viewing distances (the largest prints are A2).

However, the other scenario is that I look at the print in my hands at reading distance away. For me this is typically around 20 cm, whereas if I do a Google search on the topic, 15 inches or about 40 cm distance is suggested. I am used to reading small printed text and this requires the shorter reading distance. In hand I view prints at 20-30 cm distance away and here I can clearly see the difference in the source material between 45 MP and 20-24MP (assuming a reasonable print size such as A4 for hand-held viewing). If I view a larger (A3 or A2) print at 20 cm away, I can see the limitations of cameras with 35mm sensors, especially at medium to high ISO, and for this type of viewing a medium format camera and highly controlled technique might be more suited. I feel the difference in applicability between 45MP and 20-24MP sensors in 35mm format is fairly narrow, and most of the time I do use the smaller resolution because it reduces my editing burden.

But, in practice, in most scenarios it doesn't make a lot of difference for me. I can see that someone who shoots nature as primary subject and may need to crop and if they can avoid excessively high ISO, they'd probably choose the higher resolution most of the time.

I think it's way below in the list of priorities. Things were worse before 20-24MP cameras came about and for example at 6 MP the limitations were quite obvious.

Feb 18, 2022 at 06:36 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.