p.4 #1 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
"I'm utterly certain that you could not tell the difference at 13" x 19" between a 400MP image, a 100MP mini MF image, and an image from any of the current high MP FF systems."
Well, as I described, I *did* "that" test, and I could see the difference. Do I need to clarify that you wouldn't see it in shots of clouds, nor from 20 feet away? Everyone with a high-dpi smartphone will know the truth of it... Twenty years ago, I'd have printed out the two scenarios, taken macro shots, and posted them here. Now, typing a couple hundred letters is all the effort it's worth.
p.4 #2 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
Most of my images are documents of the nature, the present state of that specific place, that specific angle, that specific time of that specific year. So I am truly thrilled by high resolution photography. It can be the birds, plants, lichens, placing of stones, gravel, rocks, bird poo, a tree fallen far in the background, I never now for certain what the most valuable object will be.
Back in the days I got the Hasselblad for this purpose, later on the Linhof 9x12.
I never print, but peeping is the norm.
So there you are: At least one deviant that _really_ likes this development!
p.4 #3 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
ronno wrote:
To be clear, I am referring to the real world usefulness of this pixel shift tech; not whether or not a modern camera is worth the investment.
Cheers.
Both modern cameras and pixel-pitch technology have improved resolution. Why would one be useful in the real-world and not the other?
p.4 #4 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
gdanmitchell wrote:
The 102MP Fujifilm GFX camera has pixel dimensions of 11,648 x 8736. That's image resolution of about 613 pixels per inch on the horizontal dimension with no interpolation at all in an edge-to-edge print
The Fuji, like all bayer cameras, start their image processing chains fundamentally on interpolation. Why would that interpolation be less important than final-stage interpolation?
p.4 #5 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
aCuria wrote:
For an my use case, without a software api to process the images this is a dead feature
This is the only real concern I have, personally. I'm not terribly interested in OOC JPEGs. I wouldn't mind if the output was in a 'raw' file that was supported by third parties, or even just in Canon's DPP where a TIFF could be extracted, of course.
aCuria wrote:
Physically moving the camera robotically can provide a similar effect, probably a combination of pixel shift and automatically moving the camera would be even better
That could provide more resolution, but the basic function of capturing full 14-bits per channel on each pixel is unique to sensor-shift technologies. Instead of getting a 'mosaic' image as normal raw files contain, a 42-bit bitmap is possible, and demosaicing artifacts can be avoided.
p.4 #6 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
skid00skid00 wrote:
"I'm utterly certain that you could not tell the difference at 13" x 19" between a 400MP image, a 100MP mini MF image, and an image from any of the current high MP FF systems."
Well, as I described, I *did* "that" test, and I could see the difference. Do I need to clarify that you wouldn't see it in shots of clouds, nor from 20 feet away? Everyone with a high-dpi smartphone will know the truth of it... Twenty years ago, I'd have printed out the two scenarios, taken macro shots, and posted them here. Now, typing a couple hundred letters is all the effort it's worth.
Everyone has their own views and subjects they take and ways of displaying their photos. If one cannot see a difference in their subject, then I guess they don’t need this feature ( like so many other features in today’s cameras…very few use them all ). But it’s kind of rich for them to tell others they they can’t see a difference give they have zero idea of the subjects one shoots.
p.4 #7 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
chez wrote:
But it’s kind of rich for them to tell others they they can’t see a difference give they have zero idea of the subjects one shoots.
I hope you understand that I was quoting another poster? It's not clear in your reply... *I* can see the difference, and I think pixel shift is useful.
p.4 #8 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
skid00skid00 wrote:
I hope you understand that I was quoting another poster? It's not clear in your reply... *I* can see the difference, and I think pixel shift is useful.
No, I was referring to the other poster that can see no use for this feature so no one else can make use of it.
p.4 #9 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
My take on it is that it's occasionally interesting for me when digitizing film, in that I can utilize just the higher resolution central area of my macro lens's field and still have a lot of pixels to work with when cropping and adjusting. I suppose I need to make explicit that I am not claiming this has commercial value, but I don't care about commercial value because I'm a programmer, not a photographer.
p.4 #10 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
snapsy wrote:
Both modern cameras and pixel-pitch technology have improved resolution. Why would one be useful in the real-world and not the other?
I know this is old, but a decent thread, so...
Are you a professional photographer? Do your clients ask for more Rez? Mine never do - since back in the day when I was shooting with the original 5D, Hasselblad backs with even less resolution, etc.,etc. The only thing I can think of is that now and then an art director wants to crop way into an image so it's useful to have more pixels there.
But to answer your question, in my opinion, the real reason to get a modern camera is for the auto focus, battery life and such - not for resolution or pixel shift or such.
As I said earlier, if people can shoot million dollar ad campaigns for Banana Republic, LV, etc etc in 2024 with a 20 megapixel 1Dx - and they end up printed on store walls and look gorgeous, printed in Vogue, Architectural Digest, billboards, etc...
(I am talking shooting for commerce here, which I do for a living.)
Anyway, I think IQ has been there for a long time now… Aside from a bit of dynamic range and focusing improvement, it's been there for years now. (aside from the fanatic pixel papers who will go berserk over a .25 stop difference in dynamic range on photons to photos)
p.4 #11 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
ronno wrote:
But to answer your question, in my opinion, the real reason to get a modern camera is for the auto focus, battery life and such - not for resolution or pixel shift or such.
Yes, but also yes. Something like pixel shift can be useful at the extremes. I also think that the 'we got along just fine without it before' position, while not lacking merit (since it is true, after all), does seem to lack imagination. The tool has to exist before folks can't remember what they did without it.
p.4 #12 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
johnctharp wrote:
Yes, but also yes. Something like pixel shift can be useful at the extremes. I also think that the 'we got along just fine without it before' position, while not lacking merit (since it is true, after all), does seem to lack imagination. The tool has to exist before folks can't remember what they did without it.
As I said I like the new tools - bit it's only for AF, better screens, buffers, card formats and the like for ME.
I like new tools as much as the next person, but we were originally discussing *pixel shift*, and I have yet to hear where this has come in handy in a way that clients would see it / care (without a magnifying glass.)
I spent 20 years living in NYC/London/Paris and been to so many museum & gallery shows - large prints from Richard Avedon, Ansel Adams, Henri-Cartier Breton, Annie Leibovitz, Sarah Moon, Steve McCurry, Irving Penn, Peter Lindbergh, Sebastião Salgado, Sally Mann, David Lachapelle etc etc ...and among the collectors, museum curators, gallery owners, the fans etc...no one gives a damn about the minutiae that drive people nuts in the forums.
re: "pixel shift can be useful at the extremes" such as...? (If not pixel peeping on a screen, and besides some museums wanting super high rez images of precious art...)
And thanks for engaging in this year old thread with me ;-)
p.4 #13 · R5 - 400 MEGAPIXELS Vs Sony A1 pixel shift
ronno wrote:
re: "pixel shift can be useful at the extremes" such as...?
I know this might just be another edge case but I'd like to share this point of view regardless. I have two fixed lens cameras, recently replaced the Ricoh GR3 with the 3x and since last year I own the Leica Q3. Both cameras offer crop modes, the Leica up to 90mm. The resulting image at the far end of the crop mode has 6MP. I know this is not in camera but thanks to modern software I can now upscale those low res shots to get usable prints up to A4.
I recently went down the pixel shift rabbit hole of the Fuji GFX cameras and have seen different comparisons between in camera and in post production. There seems to be no discernible advantage of using pixel shift in camera compared to doing it in post.
Whether pixel shift in camera or up-scaling in post production is a useful feature is up for debate and depends on the needs of the photographer. I really enjoy it as I too am a pixel peeper and see tangible benefits for my specific application. YMMV of course
