DaveB88 wrote:
The only meaningful screen test would be viewed at 8K imo. Even viewing at 4K is compromised in a true test.
I do my PP on Capture One at relatively lowly 4K but the tone and texture of materials is superior than the XT4. It is simply more true to life and believable. Then when you work with the files you find you can be quite aggressive with contrast and clarity slider if necessary but still maintaining believable surface texture for all materials in the photograph. This is simply not true of the 26mp sensor imo. It used to drive me crazy just trying to get wood looking like 'real' wood, metal like metal, stone like stone etc. This sensor provides a significant improvement in that area and would benefit pro Architectual and Product photographers imo.
I say to anyone considering the XT5, rent the camera out and try for yourself before you buy. Work with the full size RAW files. See for yourself.
With a high enough screen resolution — say somewhere close to 300 ppi or so — the limits of our vision are such that the screen is about as good as a print comparison. (Prints often use 300 or 360 image ppi resolution, though printers construct that image by using even smaller "dots" of individual colors.)
But this doesn't resolve the problem with the so-called 100% crops. We're still looking at a smaller portion of the original image from the higher MP sample!
One other thing: Because the higher MP sensors persuade us to print larger, we do tend to see things that we did not see at lower magnifications, especially if we look really carefully.
It is quite remarkable how our expectations have changed over the decades. There was a time when almost no one would seriously consider printing larger than maybe 11 x 14 from 35mm film. There were a lot of issues — partially the sharpness limits of the systems, partially that these cameras were often shot handheld, but largely the gigantic grain that would appear when magnifying the image more than that. (My point of reference has long been the larger Galen Rowell prints — beautiful photographs, but in the big prints they have absolutely gigantic grain!)
Today we take the image projected on the same 24mm x 36mm area (or an even smaller area in the case of APS-C) and magnify it by a much larger factor... AND we expect much higher quality that we saw in those old 11 x 14 prints. And, in fact, the quality of a 20 x 30 print from a APS-C sensor can rival that of an old print from a much larger film format. Most people, given a chance to look carefully a side-by-side 20 x 30 prints, would think that the APS-C sourced print is pretty much indistinguishable from a true MF film print.
Dec 24, 2022 at 12:28 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16127967 « I returned the X-T5 and kept the X-T4 »
