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.
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 34MP 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.
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... 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 34MP 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.
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. ;-)
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 lots of others. (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.
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 lots of others. (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.
Good luck,
Dan
In answer to the now-inevitable question of "why use prints as the yardstick?", that's what the OP asked about.
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.
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.
Good luck,
Dan
In answer to the now-inevitable question of "why use prints as the yardstick?", that's what the OP asked about.
Feb 16, 2022 at 04:25 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #15866103 « Resolution for prints: R5 vs R6 »
