It could be the result of some sort of shift to a new type of sensor technology (allegedly a new type of Sony sensor), or simply offering something more to the user than they had before, rather than answering a market need for 200 megapixels.
I'm not a working pro myself so I won't speculate a lot, but I know a number of them just from my social circle here in NYC, and there's just a general sense of woe over the state of photography and how every image needs to be crafted so that it can be viewed on a phone screen (to say nothing of the declining relevance of images in favor of video and the rise of AI). How a 200 megapixel camera fits into that, I don't know. I think there will always be some kind of market for very high end specialty equipment, especially if the price is affordable (GFX is easily the most affordable medium format system out there, of the three that I'm aware of).
There are plenty of blind tests around that conclude large prints from low megapixel cameras e.g. 8MP are indistinguishable from prints from higher MP cameras.
Here's one example - Simon d'Entremont did a recent video where 8MP printed at 33" x 20" compared favourably to a 28MP image print. ?si=c0nZ5UIrH1TyxXml" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">?si=c0nZ5UIrH1TyxXml
Member G. Dan Mitchell has been espousing this for years based on his own blind test. The counter point to this is of course that in the future, framed printed work will very likely be replaced by e-ink displays or some other digital ink display. These displays are already available but are not yet cost effective for the average person. A 6K monitor is equivalent to approximately 20-24MP depending on aspect ratio. Of course the counter point to that is that up-resolution software technology will also improve. So maybe a 20MP MFT image, up rezzed to 40MP is more than enough?
I don't question that 180MP has advantages over a lower resolution - cropping ability, down sampling to reduce capture errors like moire etc, but my final conclusion - use what you like and go shoot! If you feel like you need 180MP go for it. If you need compact and weather proof, go for a 20MP MFT.
dakel wrote:
There are plenty of blind tests around that conclude large prints from low megapixel cameras e.g. 8MP are indistinguishable from prints from higher MP cameras.
Here's one example - Simon d'Entremont did a recent video where 8MP printed at 33" x 20" compared favourably to a 28MP image print. ?si=c0nZ5UIrH1TyxXml" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">?si=c0nZ5UIrH1TyxXml
Member G. Dan Mitchell has been espousing this for years based on his own blind test. The counter point to this is of course that in the future, framed printed work will very likely be replaced by e-ink displays or some other digital ink display. These displays are already available but are not yet cost effective for the average person. A 6K monitor is equivalent to approximately 20-24MP depending on aspect ratio. Of course the counter point to that is that up-resolution software technology will also improve. So maybe a 20MP MFT image, up rezzed to 40MP is more than enough?
I don't question that 180MP has advantages over a lower resolution - cropping ability, down sampling to reduce capture errors like moire etc, but my final conclusion - use what you like and go shoot! If you feel like you need 180MP go for it. If you need compact and weather proof, go for a 20MP MFT. ...Show more →
While I think that many people think that they need much higher sensor resolution than they actually need for their purposes, I wold not go so far as to say that 8Mp is indistinguishable from today's much higher MP images in large prints.
There are several parts to my observations about this.
1. Most people don't view their photographs very large. (I don't regard inspecting at high resolutions in LR as being the same as "viewing," which I think of as displaying photographs for themselves or others in prints or in electronic forms.) For web-sized images and prints made on the ubiquitous letter-size printers, 8MP is arguably plenty — and the difference between that source and even a 100MP miniMF sourced image is basically invisible to viewers.
2. You can make a truly excellent 20" x 30" print (hint: that's quite big) print from today's APS-C cameras, a 30" x 45" or larger from FF, and a bit bigger than that from miniMF. The odds are that few here are making 30" x 45" prints, much less even lager prints. But some are, so it is good that such gear exists.
3. For some high-end purposes — very large "fine art" prints, other kinds of extremely large reproductions, etc. — larger and extremely high resolution sensors will be at least somewhat better. And the potential optimization is not just limited to improved (slightly) detail, but it might include smaller noise "grain" and potentiallyslightly smoother gradients.
4. As to future increases in sensor resolution, some people always seem concerned that they will unnecessarily increase prices, produce more noise, diminish dynamic range, and otherwise diminish performance. But nearly three decades of sensor development have shown literally NO evidence that this is the case. Each new sensor generation has managed to increase resolution while improving noise and DR performance, and inflation-adjusted prices have stayed the same or dropped. The same trends have affected computers (for post processing) and storage performance and costs.
5 With #4 in mind, why not continue to increase resolution? If the costs are the same or lower and performance continues to improve, there may not be any good reason to halt sensor design progress.
And, as background to all of this, at every stage of sensor improvement there have been those who said "we don't need any more," often vociferously. I remember people saying this when sensors went from 3to 4 MP, to 6MP, to 8 MP, to 12MP and so on. Back then almost no one could imagine any rational reason for a 50Mp sensor, yet today it is clear that they are useful.
You can do a billboard sized print with a 24 megapixel sensor, but better to use a 40-50 megapixel one in case you need to do a bit of cropping. Just finished up a job making images for OOH placements (billboards, bus wraps, and stadium displays) and ad specs were 4-5k pixels on the short side.
Also recently produced several 40x60” fine art prints at 300 DPI, using a Z9 with 45 megapixels, and with some judicious upscaling was fine, but I would have preferred to start with a 100 megapixels file. I have experimented with the built in gigapixel AI upscaling feature in Photoshop and prefer the standard non-AI upscaling, because Gigapixel introduces too many weird artifacts, especially with people
dakel wrote:
There are plenty of blind tests around that conclude large prints from low megapixel cameras e.g. 8MP are indistinguishable from prints from higher MP cameras.
Here's one example - Simon d'Entremont did a recent video where 8MP printed at 33" x 20" compared favourably to a 28MP image print. ?si=c0nZ5UIrH1TyxXml" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">?si=c0nZ5UIrH1TyxXml
Member G. Dan Mitchell has been espousing this for years based on his own blind test. The counter point to this is of course that in the future, framed printed work will very likely be replaced by e-ink displays or some other digital ink display. These displays are already available but are not yet cost effective for the average person. A 6K monitor is equivalent to approximately 20-24MP depending on aspect ratio. Of course the counter point to that is that up-resolution software technology will also improve. So maybe a 20MP MFT image, up rezzed to 40MP is more than enough?
I don't question that 180MP has advantages over a lower resolution - cropping ability, down sampling to reduce capture errors like moire etc, but my final conclusion - use what you like and go shoot! If you feel like you need 180MP go for it. If you need compact and weather proof, go for a 20MP MFT. ...Show more →
Regarding the video: That's a lot of talk without showing the actual results. Why should we rely on random peoples perception instead of our own eyes? If his friends that were looking at the prints are not photographers, of course they probably can't see any difference. It doesn't mean it's not there.
This is absolutely no proof that they are "indistinguishable" for anyone else than those particular individuals.
Personally I don't print at all, but somewhere below ~20 mpix I start to see a difference on my 5k screen. That's enough for me not to want lower resolution. And this is without even zooming in at all (which I often do too, instead of walking up close to a print). When I compare 24 to 50 mpix (two of my cameras), the difference is staggering once you magnify a bit on screen. Also because the 50 mpix camera has no AA filter.
Regarding screen resolutions, from wikipedia on 5k resolution: “ 5K resolution refers to display formats with a horizontal resolution of around 5,000 pixels. The most common 5K resolution is 5120 × 2880, which has an aspect ratio of 16∶9 with around 14.7 million pixels …”
I just looked up one camera with approximately 20MP resolution, the old Canon 5DII. Its resolution is (5,616 × 3,744. So 5K should be reproducing 20MP images with virtually no up-resizing over the screen width, though(since most are 16:9 aspect ratio) they will not reproduce the full vertical content of the image. If you keep the full 3:2 aspect ratio and scale to the vertical size then you’ll have more than enough pixels and you’ll actually have to down-rez to make it fit.
What about 8k montors? Also from wikipedia: “8K resolution refers to an image or display resolution with a width of approximately 8,000 pixels. 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) is the highest resolution…”
That is approximately enough to display the full width of a 40MP image with no meaningful up/down-rez needed. (And, again, should you wish to see the full 3:2 aspect ratio you’ll actually have to down-rez to fit it to the screen.)
50MP slighlty exceeds the horizontal pixel dimensions of a 50MP sensor when cropping to 16:9 and losing a lot of the vertical pixel dimension, but displays without that issue if you show the full image.
SGinNorcal wrote:
For me, the biggest change going from 50 to 100Mp Gfx was in cropping. Of course I try to compose the photo I want without it. But sometimes you don't have close enough MFD or long enough reach. As resolution goes up, so does the ability to crop. At some point, its going to be limited by optics but it doesn't seem we are there yet. Maybe with 180Mp, we will see the point where the image runs out of optical resolution before sensor resolution, but we aren't there yet. I guess that is the practical limit of resolution, when your optics are the limiting factor....Show more →
Have you tested this?
shoot 32mm on the 100MP and see what f/l you need for the 50MP camera to produce a slightly better image with the same lens.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Regarding screen resolutions, from wikipedia on 5k resolution: “ 5K resolution refers to display formats with a horizontal resolution of around 5,000 pixels. The most common 5K resolution is 5120 × 2880, which has an aspect ratio of 16∶9 with around 14.7 million pixels …”
I just looked up one camera with approximately 20MP resolution, the old Canon 5DII. Its resolution is (5,616 × 3,744. So 5K should be reproducing 20MP images with virtually no up-resizing over the screen width, though(since most are 16:9 aspect ratio) they will not reproduce the full vertical content of the image. If you keep the full 3:2 aspect ratio and scale to the vertical size then you’ll have more than enough pixels and you’ll actually have to down-rez to make it fit.
What about 8k montors? Also from wikipedia: “8K resolution refers to an image or display resolution with a width of approximately 8,000 pixels. 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) is the highest resolution…”
That is approximately enough to display the full width of a 40MP image with no meaningful up/down-rez needed. (And, again, should you wish to see the full 3:2 aspect ratio you’ll actually have to down-rez to fit it to the screen.)
50MP slighlty exceeds the horizontal pixel dimensions of a 50MP sensor when cropping to 16:9 and losing a lot of the vertical pixel dimension, but displays without that issue if you show the full image....Show more →
Someone with your experience really should know that downsampling greatly increases sharpness per pixel. A camera with an AA filter doesn't give very good "per pixel sharpness" at 100% view on a screen. And we're not even talking about zooming in, which I suppose everyone do now and then (equivalent to looking closer on a printed image).
How about looking on your own screen instead of reading wikipedia?
Makten wrote:
Someone with your experience really should know that downsampling greatly increases sharpness per pixel. A camera with an AA filter doesn't give very good "per pixel sharpness" at 100% view on a screen. And we're not even talking about zooming in, which I suppose everyone do now and then (equivalent to looking closer on a printed image).
How about looking on your own screen instead of reading wikipedia?
I completely agree. I've proven this to myself by shooting the same lens on my 100mp GFX100S II and 50mp A1 II, then downsizing the 100mp file to 50mp and comparing the images on a high resolution monitor. I just ignore Wikipedia and the many naysayers.
Makten wrote:
How about looking on your own screen instead of reading wikipedia?
That is ironic on multiple levels. I don’t know how you do these things, but I view Wikipedia, this website, the photographs I post-process, and other sources of information… on a screen, Do you have someone print them out for you first? ;-)
Also, since I don’t have the pixel dimension of various screen formats (4k, 5k, 8k, etc,) or of various types of camera sensors memorized, I prefer to confirm the facts. Maybe you don’t?
Based on years of personal experience I could have, like you, posted an unsubstantiated subjective claim. Instead I looked up and shared relevant facts… which you conveniently ignored as you try to divert the discussion to some nonsense about how I use screens or to your suggestion that I may not understanding how up- and down-rezzing works.
BTW, regarding so-called “per pixel sharpness” of raw files, perhaps you have not heard, but most photographers who use raw apply this thing called “sharpening.” You might want to look into this. I am sure that you can find out more… by looking it up on your screen. ;-)
I think everyone that takes photos should get into printing. It’s easier to understand the relationship between resolution, DPI and print size and not fall into these endless theoretical arguments.
A 45-50 mp sensor will produce a beautiful 300 DPI print at 20x30”. Try to upscale it to 40x60”, and you fall into a battle between upscaling softness, sharpening and noise. If you want to print higher than 300 DPI, then you’ll need to find a shop and print process that can do that, and it won’t be cheap. Most people are going to view your images online at 1000 pixels across on Instagram or 72-100 dpi on a website, not magnified 200%. It would be like inspecting the sharpness of a billboard sized print from a few feet away.
Personally find 100 megapixels to be the sweet spot for printing large and commercial work. I’d rather have a faster flash sync speed and autofocus than more megapickles, but I suppose that doesn’t grab attention as much on forums
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is ironic on multiple levels. I don’t know how you do these things, but I view Wikipedia, this website, the photographs I post-process, and other sources of information… on a screen, Do you have someone print them out for you first? ;-)
Also, since I don’t have the pixel dimension of various screen formats (4k, 5k, 8k, etc,) or of various types of camera sensors memorized, I prefer to confirm the facts. Maybe you don’t?
Based on years of personal experience I could have, like you, posted an unsubstantiated subjective claim. Instead I looked up and shared relevant facts… which you conveniently ignored as you try to divert the discussion to some nonsense about how I use screens or to your suggestion that I may not understanding how up- and down-rezzing works.
BTW, regarding so-called “per pixel sharpness” of raw files, perhaps you have not heard, but most photographers who use raw apply this thing called “sharpening.” You might want to look into this. I am sure that you can find out more… by looking it up on your screen. ;-)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Regarding screen resolutions, from wikipedia on 5k resolution: “ 5K resolution refers to display formats with a horizontal resolution of around 5,000 pixels. The most common 5K resolution is 5120 × 2880, which has an aspect ratio of 16∶9 with around 14.7 million pixels …”
I just looked up one camera with approximately 20MP resolution, the old Canon 5DII. Its resolution is (5,616 × 3,744. So 5K should be reproducing 20MP images with virtually no up-resizing over the screen width, though(since most are 16:9 aspect ratio) they will not reproduce the full vertical content of the image. If you keep the full 3:2 aspect ratio and scale to the vertical size then you’ll have more than enough pixels and you’ll actually have to down-rez to make it fit.
What about 8k montors? Also from wikipedia: “8K resolution refers to an image or display resolution with a width of approximately 8,000 pixels. 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) is the highest resolution…”
That is approximately enough to display the full width of a 40MP image with no meaningful up/down-rez needed. (And, again, should you wish to see the full 3:2 aspect ratio you’ll actually have to down-rez to fit it to the screen.)
50MP slighlty exceeds the horizontal pixel dimensions of a 50MP sensor when cropping to 16:9 and losing a lot of the vertical pixel dimension, but displays without that issue if you show the full image.
This pretty much matches my experience. I had always assumed FF had better image quality than APS-c and M4/3 until I did my own controlled testing. I specifically shot the same image at optimal aperture in good light using different formats and it is really hard to see a difference between16mp and 44mp files when displayed at full screen size on a 4k 28 inch screen. All bets are off when zooming to 100 per cent or printing different sizes, but the screen is usually the limiting factor when viewing images at full screen size.
sungphoto wrote:
I think everyone that takes photos should get into printing. It’s easier to understand the relationship between resolution, DPI and print size and not fall into these endless theoretical arguments.
I strongly agree with you about getting into printing. It makes this stuff much more grounded in reality — less “theoretical,” as you say.
I’d add one more thing: I think it is equally important to go to museums and exhibits to see great work by great photographers and get an idea of what it really looks like. That also helps check a lot of the nonsense seen on forums, posted by people who don’t have this real-world frame of reference.
Agreed. I was fortunate to see the Irving Penn retrospective at the Met Museum in 2017 (with one of his hand painted backdrops on display), and the sharpness and depth of his original prints blew my mind. Also got to see the Garry Winogrand exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum a bit after that.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I strongly agree with you about getting into printing. It makes this stuff much more grounded in reality — less “theoretical,” as you say.
I’d add one more thing: I think it is equally important to go to museums and exhibits to see great work by great photographers and get an idea of what it really looks like. That also helps check a lot of the nonsense seen on forums, posted by people who don’t have this real-world frame of reference.
sungphoto wrote:
Agreed. I was fortunate to see the Irving Penn retrospective at the Met Museum in 2017 (with one of his hand painted backdrops on display), and the sharpness and depth of his original prints blew my mind. Also got to see the Garry Winogrand exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum a bit after that.
I’m trying to recall where I saw an extensive Penn exhibit some years back. I _think_ it may have been at the Met in NYC, but it also could have been at the Getty in LA. It was a revelation — absolutely beautiful little prints. I’ve seen Winograd’s work a few times including at SFMoMA. There are others, too.
There are several reasons that I think people really should see prints. First and foremost, that is the form in which these photographers presented their work. to see it in a book or online is OK but not nearly what they had in mind. (I had an eye-opening experience with that the first time I saw Jeff Wall’s prints in person. I knew about him from books and didn’t really get it — and then I saw a show in person and was absolutely blown away.)
Another reason is technical — to see what real prints actually look like. I think that a lot of people might be shocked to find out that some of the greatest photographers’ work is not necessarily razor sharp at nose-length distances… and it doesn’t matter. Small prints often are, but big prints often are not. I’m not against sharp prints — I aspire to make them. But it has become something of a fetish that doesn’t align with real photography. (Look at some of the large prints from Ansel Adams sometime, for example.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
That is ironic on multiple levels. I don’t know how you do these things, but I view Wikipedia, this website, the photographs I post-process, and other sources of information… on a screen, Do you have someone print them out for you first? ;-)
Also, since I don’t have the pixel dimension of various screen formats (4k, 5k, 8k, etc,) or of various types of camera sensors memorized, I prefer to confirm the facts. Maybe you don’t?
Based on years of personal experience I could have, like you, posted an unsubstantiated subjective claim. Instead I looked up and shared relevant facts… which you conveniently ignored as you try to divert the discussion to some nonsense about how I use screens or to your suggestion that I may not understanding how up- and down-rezzing works.
BTW, regarding so-called “per pixel sharpness” of raw files, perhaps you have not heard, but most photographers who use raw apply this thing called “sharpening.” You might want to look into this. I am sure that you can find out more… by looking it up on your screen. ;-)
You posted "facts" that are false and you tried to argue that increased resolution makes no difference at a certain screen resolution. You are only proving that you don't understand how it works and you've never actually checked for yourself.
sungphoto wrote:
Most people are going to view your images online at 1000 pixels across on Instagram or 72-100 dpi on a website, not magnified 200%.
Some of us actually view our own images at full resolution, and don't give a crap about results posted online.
Edit: Also, why is printing the norm? I have zero interest in having my photos on paper. Why should I print them? I never look at them again when they are finished, and I never display them to anyone else. A good screen gives better colors and the possibility to zoom in as much as you want without losing resolution to a redundant printing process.
Yet, I'm NOT arguing that everybody else should ditch their printing and start using their screens. But that is exactly what the printing advocates are doing, but the other way around. As if your opinions are a little bit better. YOUR way is the only way.
Well you can't view the whole of even my Xt5 imzges on any monitor in general use, let alone 180mpx, unless you crop a lot so printing is the only actual use for it.
Peering at parts of a magnified image is occasionally useful, but hardly worthspdnding lots of money on. 10x8 cameras were available and presumably a few people found them useful, but hardly worth mass production.
