It seems that photographers have trained camera companies to make cameras at different megapixel levels. We tell them, "Numbers sell". They ask, "High ISO numbers? We say, "Yes!" They ask, "Dynamic range values?" We say, "15EV, NOW!" They ask, "Is 45mp okay?" So many whine, "61mp! 61mp! 61mp!!!" even though it is only a 15% improvement in resolution. Consumers have trained manufacturers what to market to us. The manufacturers, for their part, have decided how to market to us: buying social media influencers, including yt imaging channels. The JL effect, best accomplished with the left hand in the jeans pocket. The reason 45mp Nikon has become somewhat a "new standard" is 8K. The A7RV has a crop for 8K because it has too many mp. When comparing two different mp sensors, use the ratio of the mp for file sizes but take the square root of the ratio for resolution. The easiest way to see this is to consider the sensors needed for video: * 1080p: 3mp * 4K: 11mp * 6K: 24mp * 8K: 45mp Going from 11mp to 24mp, the mp more than doubles, but the resolution only increases by 50%. For the jump from the D800/D810 to the D850, the resolution change was too small for any Nikon lens to be okay with the D810 but inadequate with the D850. But people are good at convincing themselves that things matter, so it was a good opportunity to be pushed to upgrade lenses...

Thank you for the common sense analysis. Re: Dynamic range, I had thought (for a given sensor “age”) that a lower pixel-count had higher dynamic range because the pixels were physically larger, enabling it to collect more light. Eg: Nikon Z6ii vs Z7ii, both full-frame but 24.5 MP VS 45 MP. BUT, per DXOMARK, dynamic range is 14.4 eV vs 14.7 eV respectively, so it is indeed higher for the higher pixel-count sensor. Live and learn! Thank you for pointing that out.

Really wish Sony would have used the a7riii sensor in the new a7cr. I think the 61MP is overkill, and while I could occasionally see real detail, I found the a7riv a liability and routinely captured better images with the a7riii. Thinking of honestly picking up the a7riii again it produced such consistent images.

Interesting thoughts. I am curious, when you ran a studio, what percentage of your sales were bigger than say 16x20 or 18x24? Secondly, most photo printers print at 2400x1200 ppi which is 2.88 mega pixels. Not sure if you are printing your work the extra megapixels makes all that much difference. What am I missing here?

@summitbid

6 ай бұрын

My most common sizes were 30”x60”, 30”x40” and 40”x50”. I would also often make tryptics made of panels at the 30”x40” and 30x60 sizes. I also had to upscale my work for printing (I have a tutorial here: kzread.info/dash/bejne/gJZ8mbytgbDZc5s.htmlsi=xhXAEjB_xa0k5TI8 ) my understanding is that ppi stands for pixels per inch and that industry standard is 300. So at 300ppi a native 61mega pixel print is 31”x21”. You can obviously print larger and have it look good, but the closer you are to that “native” size the sharper it will look. Again my upscaling tutorial might help!

@RichardBO9

6 ай бұрын

@@summitbid Thank you. That was SO helpful. I have photos I have wanted to make tryptics out of. I kind of have an idea now how to do it.