In this video I go over image resolution and how it affects the work I do in making large prints. We specifically take a look at the difference between a 60x40in prints made with the Fujifilm GFX100s and the Fujifilm XT4
I've been a pro for 40 years. If you wanted to print large in 1982 you shot on 5x4 or 10x8. If you want to print large now it's the same 100 megapixels will do the job. That's obvious. The point is that most average people don't print 40 x 60 inches and don't need 100 mega pixels. I shot with 8mp professionally 20 years ago my clients never complained. I now use 16mp and its more than enough for my work. I don't see the point in this video. Secondly if you do print 40 x 60 why would you want to view it close up. I also paint. I paint 2 meters x 1.5 meters in oils. I don't paint it to be viewed close up if I did you would see the brush strokes. I paint it to be viewed from a distance. You can't see the brush strokes. The point is 12 megapixels is good enough for most people and 90 % of applications.
You are right for web publishing and simple printing 12-26mpx is enough resulotion. PPI and DPI are different theme. PPI is the resulotion of the photo. DPI is the resulotion of the printing device. In same low dpi printing device you cant see the difference between 12mpx and 102mpx. But if you print it with printind device with high resulotion in one photo you can see the eyes of the girl in other photo you can see the eye lashesh one by one. So if someone needs printing or web quality 26 mpx is more than enough. But if you want to shot something for high resulotion printing or big printing. More megapixels matters.
Back in the film days I started of with Nikon f3, f4 and finally F5. But my passion was photographing air planes ( military and civilian) and classic cars. I started making large prints 16x20 and larger. They looked decent but not great. Mid 90s I lost my mind and purchased a RZ67. Mind blown, the pro who printed my stuff was amazing. Being able to put my nose 12 inches away and perceive all that detail. Fast forward to now, In the past few years I have gotten back into photography with a Sony a6000 it’s been great. But I rented a Sony a7r IV and couple of those lenses. My subjects were some trains, there is a dude around me who has one those new epson printers . I’d say prints up to 11x 14 no big deal. But when you get up there 16x20 and larger where you are trying to see all detail, MP does make a difference . My goal is to choose a new camera and start hitting all air museums and static displays. I love large prints and don’t stick to regular viewing distances. I am up in them trying to read gauges and dials. There is a huge difference in detail capture between 24mp aps-c and 60mp ff and it will show up in large prints.
Before the Chris Hau video, I printed a 12 mp Sony A7s3 print at 300dpi and A2 size ( I used the new enhancement feature in camera raw to boost it to twice the size & 48mp. I usually print with the 60mp A7r4 & at A2.I did notice a difference! (The A7r4 had more detail).So I’m a little suss on it!
In the real world it all depends on how well the photographer knows how to use their camera. On RU-vid it all depends on the narrative the youtuber has to get you to watch their video.
We have to be aware, that very high resolution is only utilized with very good lenses at optimal settings. 100 mp at 3:4 means that the lens needs to deliver a resolution of 4300 line pairs per picture height - that's more than most usual lenses can offer. And of course even for large prints, you should consider the viewer's distance. Human eye can approximately distinguish an angle of 1/60 degree. For 40 inch print height and 3 m distance that gives only around 1200 pixels of height... So, to enjoy the resolution of the GFX 100s you'll need to come quite close the the print. But I am not saying that this is useless. I have a large print of a photo which I had taken with the highres tripod mode of my Olympus and a very good lens. This hangs in a galley where I have to pass directly along the picture. And I enjoy to see the details of any of the many seagulls on a larger beach scene... But if I had taken the same image free hand with less resolution, I wouldn't bother to put it to the very same place.
I don’t think any company these days prints billboards with 2 megapixel image! I work with large format printers everyday, we print everything for instore drop panels, vinyl banners for the side of semi trailer trucks, large wall mount self adhesive graphics, indoor/outdoor posters and billboards etc etc, everything is printed at least 300dpi sometimes 600dpi, with around 4-6 passes, the bigger the file and the more information the file has the less interpolation the Printers RIP software is needed too upscale the image. U cannot avoid image interpolation but the less u do the better the outcome.
Well I defer to your expertise but when I was able to get up close and personal with some billboard photos a few years ago the printers I spoke to said the resolution needed based on the dot sizes being printed was around 2MP. All the better though if more resolution is needed.
The crazy thing about this debate is that we are talking very high resolutions on a platform (RU-vid) where no one can actually see what that resolution looks like. I have a 50R and it takes a nice photo, it definitely has a different look from my x pro 3. I was at a hands on event for the 100S a couple of weeks ago and it’s actually smaller than the 50R by about a half inch in length. If you have the chance to shoot with one of there cameras you can see the difference in image quality. But in the end I think that all the photographers from the past who we look to for inspiration never had these tools at their disposal. So, just take the picture. An image doesn’t have to be tack sharp to be a successful image.
I call BS on cropping as an argument for choosing higher MP. Plan your shoot, stand in the right place or use different glass. And allow for the fact that most images are viewed from a distance; that's why billboards only need about 2MP. Shoot the same image on low- and high-MP cameras, don't crop, don't pixel-peep and view from 3 x the length of the longest edge and the differences will be less apparent, if noticeable at all. Oh; and with the right blend of light, subject and composition the resolution is irrelevant.
I think he specificly shot images that wouldn't show the enhancement of a larger sensor/higher mp camera. And then did manipulations and edits to help the low MP file. The justification being he can make it look just as good. I also think he did it for pure clickbait knowing it would get a lot of play on RU-vid. Accurate doesn't matter if you get lots of hits. Like the media.
Great video. I had done my own tests on lower resolition cameras and proved this myself. Your comparison of your daughter photos even on youtube is night and day. Even when you displayed the actual photos briefly I could tell the difference. I don't need and could not justify the GFX but I will own a Sony A74 one day. I crop a lot. Being able to crop in and still have good resolution is a dream.
"If you start cutting or cropping a good photograph, it means death to the geometrically correct interplay of proportions. Besides, it very rarely happens that a photograph which was feebly composed can be saved by reconstruction of its composition under the darkroom’s enlarger; the integrity of vision is no longer there." ~Henri Cartier-Bresson That's how i handle it for >3 decades. Even with 6 MP, i rarely crop. Mostly love to shoot film, though.
I completely agree with your point of view. Too many people argue that large prints are only viewed at a distance. But the category of gallery/exhibition prints doesn't adhere to this rule. In a gallery, I will habitually walk up to a print and look at the quality close up. I think anyone who takes photos seriously and prints their own work will do that. Gallery prints should be able to withstand close-up examination. However, for social media and for small prints even up to A3 (which is the normal use for most of today's hobbyists), most current cameras and premium smart phones are very capable and sufficient. That is not the same as saying they are "just as good" as a 102mp sensor, when the latter is in capable hands.
I'm sure i am missing something. IF two people take two pictures, exact same scene, NO cropping. One with a X-T4 and the other GFX 100S. NO CROPPING, and just print say, 20x30 inch. I am darn sure the pictures would be virtually the same. One picture in one room and another picture in another room. My wife would NOT be able to say which was which. I have in my room a 30x40 inch taken with an X-T1 and its fantastic.
I have printed 40x60 prints from my old Nikon D300. They were very good, good enough for me. Yes the more resolution you have more you can crop, dough. But realistically I take my image as I want them and not imagine how many different crops I can get from them. I do the cropping with zoom and my feet while taking the shot. In very rare instances I need to crop that much to get the image I want. That being said. I do understand the need for extra resolution in group images where every face needs to be perfect sharpness. That is not something you can get with a lower resolution. But you can print 40x60 of a couples portrait with 12mp, and the customer would be very happy with the image. The photographer is the one obsessed with sharpness of every single hair in the picture. The customer looks at their face and likes their impression or not, they rarely care about the one single hair that is not sharp.
You completely missed the point of this video.. The point of this video was to show how there was a noticeable difference between a 12 and 102 mix cameras prints. No one said that 12 mpx 40x60 prints can't be acceptable, they just won't be as good as a 102 mpx camera. The 102 mix with obviously look better and SOME people will care. Some people have high standards and some don't
@@burritobrosvideos8060 It is you who actually missed the point of my comment. I never claimed extra resolution does not make a difference. All I said is that other than some specific cases, for me and for majority of the clientele, (not the photographer but the person who actually pays for the shoot) the difference in quality of the prints is not important.
@@bariti86 and again you missed my point. People with standards WILL NOTICE the difference. Also, your original comment has no purpose being with this video because this videowas just made to spread the truth about megapixels and their purpose. So you just keep making pointless comments again and again
@@burritobrosvideos8060 people with standards? Trust me people have been getting married and have their pictures taken with digital cameras way before any 102mp camera existed. They may notice the difference in close inspection but they do not care about the pixel level clarity. It is not the camera that makes the picture it is the photographer. Trust me "people with standards" would prefer a good 12mp picture to a shitty 102mp picture. And this discussion is on point about a video discussing the need for extra resolution.
I agree I used to shoot a lower megapixel camera and the sensor combined with the lenses wasnt even producing very shap images at least not as sharp as the some of the new sony cameras/lenses.which are crazy sharp even wide open but boy I got such amazing images with that camera..not so much with the newer sharper sony camera I have( that doesnt mean it is not just as capable) the point is 12 megapixel could be enough and it is true it is the photographer that's obssessed with pixel peeping not the client. The client just wants beautiful pictures.
What the video you are talking about shows is that composition, lighting, quality edits, and a better lens make the difference. I made giant prints for 8 years for a living, I can tell you the phrase should be “megapixels are not nearly as important as almost anything else”
It's important that we understand what the end product is to know how many pixels you need. If your a fashion photographer or high end celebrity photography then yes by all means 102 is for you, however if you like me are a landscaper shooting country weddings and birthday parties where the cake is still in the pan it was baked in then you just can't justify 102. The high megapixel camera is still a very niche market and will remain so until the pricing is within reach of the average schmo like me. I use a nikon d7500 as my daily and a d850 as my event camera and can't see going beyond that.
so to summarize, if you want to hang your cat photo in an art gallery or just one picture of your kid over your couch (who has space in their house for more than one 60x40) get yourself a medium format camera that costs a mortgage payment instead of Canon 5Dc or A7S which are actually a pleasure to use! The test wasn't honest. We don't need 60x40. Those who decide to print, do it at much more reasonable sizes. Not fair to crop into photo , just to print a section when in fact you should've used different focal range in the first place.
Chris Hau's comparison referred to the prints. When printing, the resolution plays a subordinate role. On the computer, the differences are clearly visible when zooming, here the 102 megapixels offer much more possibilities. But on a printout, the differences will only be visible with small and fine prints, if the printer can process them accordingly.
@@basic-decaf Well, I've been making photo books of my holidays for 16 years. My first digital camera was the Canon Powershot with 8MB, for the last 3 years I've been shooting with the XT-2. When I look through the photo books I don't see any differences as the pictures are maximum 8.5 x 11 inches. I see the differences immediately when I look at the jpg's with Capture One, where the development progress in terms of dynamic and resolution is clearly visible. For this reason, a comparison with prints is only of limited value.
@@locker1964 The image content shown on your screen WILL be the image content in the print, but only assuming the printer is doing its job properly and that YOU have done your settings correctly when printing. That detail WILL be visible on a properly-printed print. Joseph tried to illustrate this by comparing the image resolution of a 40x60" print "AT 300 DPI" - meaning, 300 printer dots of ink for every inch on the print (90,000 dots of ink per square inch) - on his screen. He showed quite clearly that a 12MP image would have to be blown up over 5 TIMES to fill the print, meaning that for every pixel in the 12MP image, there would be more than 25 dots of the same color of ink. For the 102MP image, the resolution would be much finer at approx. 2 dots of printer ink for each pixel. By your own admission, you are printing small prints the size of a single page. Your monitor is much larger, where you're zooming in and looking at much higher resolutions than that single page. Do you print your prints at 300 dpi or 72dpi? There's a huge difference because one will have bigger ink dots, filling a square inch with only 5,184 dots rather than 90,000 dots. You cannot break the laws of physics. 102MP is nearly 9 TIMES the information and will ALWAYS provide 9 TIMES the detail if you are processing and printing and doing each step appropriately (even on an 8.5x11" print).
@@basic-decaf I agree with you that if all your described parameters are respected, a difference will be visible. I don't print myself, I have my photo books printed by different suppliers. I print larger pictures on photo canvas. Otherwise, I view my pictures on my 55" Full HD TV. For this reason, I don't see any difference in well-exposed pictures. I now have many more night and critical light shots that were not possible before.
It’s the missing tonal graduation that makes a difference for my reasonably experienced eyes. It’s the thing that say, Kodachrome offered when printing from film.
I have yet to see a large landscape photo print where people don’t walk right up to it and look at the detail. It’s just so much fun. Film on 35mm apparently gives around 30mpx or so rez. So I think 24mpx and up is plenty. I have shots on 10mpx cameras where I superrezzed several shots to make a 40mpx shot and that was printed 2 storeys tall - and you could see details like the nuts in the structure on the image as you walked next to it going up the stairs. I do think though that a large sensor is key for detail when going up in rez. An old 50mpx MF sensor ( even though it is not nearly a real 4x6) still outresolves a FF 50mpx sensor when you look at a large print - because the demand on the lens is less so it is easier to get details
I love your videos. This is no exception. There are “Use Cases” for just about all formats, sensor sizes and megapixels. I personally use the Olympus OMD EM1 mark iii and find it suits my style, needs (weight, cost & image quality) and is a joy to use. However you are a professional photographer and in your use case(s) I imagine you have a multiplicity of body and lens options. That said, sometimes you only have one opportunity to grab an image in a busy photo session and being able to finesse an image down or bring focus to a particular element is worth gold. Don’t worry about any negativity. Keep up the good work. PS. I would love to be able to afford a camera like the FUJI, but it doesn’t fit with my key criteria currently,
Loved this video as I shoot with a Nikon D850 but thinking about the GFX 50sII or the GFX 100s. My questions are, 47mp (Nikon) vs. 50mp are virtually the same but with a bigger sensor, wouldn't that be a big queasily improvement? And in comparing the Nikon with the 100mp obviously twice the resolution but now add to that a bigger sensor. Does it make sense to go from the Nikon to the 50mp or would that be insignificant a difference vs. going the the 100mp? The other aspect is the processing power needed for the larger files?
I think you made your point well with great photo examples that fully support your argument but where will all this lead if the photo file size keeps increasing, requiring more time to save the files to the camera, and higher powered processors etc ? Won't the next camera have 300 megapixels? and be able to crop even more? Loved the Canadian Goose Poo remark!
Thank you very much for making this video to put forward the facts, Joe! The Chris Hau video was clearly just a Sony fanboy making a clickbate video to promote Sony by trashing the newest offerings from other brands that are making headlines, Fuji in this case. He probably got paid to do so.
Amazing facts! Thanks a lot! Now also a new subscriber and giving you, sir, thumbs up! Best regards from Sweden and please stay safe and healthy during these perilous times we live in! Take care!
Plus glass makes a difference as well he was using a much sharper lens stopped down 2 stops on the Sony vs a lens shot wide open and they were comparing sharpness mostly of the image to justify which was the higher res image.. if that had been the A7r4 with the exact same lens would’ve been a huge difference when comparing those prints
Seeing is believing. Your video is proof. I am curious if one can still tell the difference when comparing a m43 hi-res image at 50 or 80 MPx with a 102 MPx image. again 40x60". viewing distance 3 feet. hmm...
@@burritobrosvideos8060 good for you if I felt the need, was a professional photographer or actually needed the megapixels I would also own one . Most of my photos these days are Posted to Instagram and 102 megapixels would make little difference on Instagram.
@@spotsill i do prints and sell them to local businesses. The camera payed for itself pretty quickly. Worth looking into because it was pretty simple and didn't take long
Thanks for that. I think the problem with the Video from Chris was the images that were chosen. A leaf, a very dark landscape. Both didn't contain much details to start with, then print it on glossy paper and you notice nearly no difference. In real fine art printing, resolution matters, if whoever is processing and preparing the images knows what he's doing ;-)
Megapixels matter but relatively you get diminishing returns in investment. What matters more is how you print - what media you use and how you post process your files.
Since I can perform myself, just true! Even I with a really acclimated D850 and best adjusted Sigma Art lenses have jumped. And although I'm still learning, the difference is easy to understand even in my 24 inch wide prints (yes I have to crop as I can never get the framing right on the shoot). Thanks for helping me decide!
There were other factors at play. When talking the S series in particular, its low MP spec is what gives it the amazing low light performance. Obviously in the sunshine outside, all other aspects being similar, those smaller more dense arrays will outperform it.
Yea I have a Canon 5DS-R and I have made a few 40x60 prints and there is no way that a 12MP camera would have the same or even similar amount of detail, specially in the iris of an eye and fine hair details. In some instances a single strain of hair could have the width covered by 1 pixels of a 12MP camera where as a 50MP camera that same strain of hair would be covered by 2 or 3 pixels meaning that the curvature of the hair will be far more precise on a higher MP camera. Basically the same principle that Anti-aliasing is based upon, try making a perfect circle in a 12 x 12 square grid paper and make that same circle on a 24 x 24 square grid paper, the 24 x 24 square will obviously have a cleaner curve as it has, guess what? more pixels :-) Plus he said in his video that he processed the files and everyone that viewed the prints said that the rocks had more sharpness in the Sony print, so either he focuses his Sony to the rocks and the Fuji somewhere else, or he over sharpened or boosted clarity on the Sony file, thus making his experiment null as you have to focus both cameras at the exact same point and process them equally, over-processing one and under-processing the other or purposely misfocusing one over another would make even a 1000 megapixel camera look inferior. There is no way on earth and maybe any other planet that a 12 MP camera will take sharper rocks than a 102 MP Fuji, unless the whole process was rigged.
@@marcp.1752 I did not say that 12MP was double of 6 MP, I was comparing a 12MP with a 50MP which is aproximatly double the resolution. (12 x 2 =24 and 24 x 2 + 48), the thing is that you are thinking in linear measurments, but resolution is area and therefore measured in square 2^2 (2 squared) So we end up with the double of 12 horizontally (12 x 2 = 24) and the double of that vertically (24 x 2 = 48) 🙂
@@nmelcam1 Now you're stealing my message, what i've told you, and you're trying to saddle the pony from the back - with your sentence "he thing is that you are thinking in linear measurments, but resolution is area and therefore measured in square 2^2 (2 squared) ". Nope, i told you exactly the opposite, and i am not thinking linear, but many ppl do, mostly >80%, because they all think, 24 MP is double the resolution, from 12 MP. I wrote you before, that resolution phsically doubles with 4-times the MP count. For the record, i am taking pictures since 84; 1st SLR into 87, 1st DSLR into 2002, Olympus digicam in 97. nevermind.
@@marcp.1752 Why are you victimizing yourself? That is not an appropriate professional stance. I am not stealing anything, you commented on my reply and I replied back to you. BTW always remember that for as long as you are doing something their is always somebody that has more experience than you. I am 58 years old and started taking photos way back when I started university in 83. I currently still work as a photographer full time so don't try to undermine someone because you started in 87, even I won't do that because their will be somebody that started even before I did. In my first message to the content creator I was comparing 12 MP with my 50MP camera which is a little more than double the size (48MP would be actual double), but then you relied to my comment like if I was saying that 24MP is double 12 MP which is not true because I never mentioned 24MP. In the end, be professional, don't accuse anyone of stealing and don't try to undermine other photographers because you never know who' has more experience than you. Bye, this will be my last comment on this thread. Have a nice day and be more proper.
I think for large print of families it can be crucial to make this big prints and have all of the people pinsharp on close range . But those family photographs ...do they ever hang in someones house in huge size ? For most of us these 100Mpixel Prints are not necessary .... and even to much over the top and to workable. Excellent video by the way Joe ... nicely explained .
We use Sony A73 (for photo) and A7S3 (as b-cam) in our studio and recently purchased Fuji GFX100s. There is a HUGE difference. It’s not even close. Maybe not when posted and compressed to Instagram but for all other uses. Disappointed by Chris and crew.
the big print they show is a black one with a waterfall, just the ideal for a resolution test and to compare the overall image quality. that is nothing but a tricky video. that only proves how big a 12 mp sensor can go but not how even further and better can go the 102 mp one.
Great 👍 I watched that other video and was completely floored, also he was very deceptive about the way he edited both in ways that made it hard to tell and the selection of images that he used blurred the lines
yea, thanks for doing this video even though it seemed like this wouldnt even be necessary to clarify. With that being, said the low megapixel cameras are still very good.
Would be interested in seeing your IQ160 against the GFX. My money is on the Phase One still producing a better print with the much larger sensor. I used to have the P65 and that sensor is pure magic.
The importance of the number of pixels depends on the subject, as you say. Sensor size also matters. But when I admire an image or a painting, I couldn’t care less about what camera or how many brushstrokes.
So you called the other video BS and Canadian Goose Poop. You need to watch it again since they clearly said the difference is obvious if anyone zooms in. You also REALLY need to note that with the large prints they could not be differentiated between, which says it all! Yes the ability to crop heavily is a bonus, but if you are shooting landscapes then focus stacking is likely. I hope your thought is better now.
Being able to shoot at high isos but retain quality and depth of field is something that would challenge shooting at iso 12 , in addition to viewing on bigger screens, surely also real life .
Your video is interresting but honnestly I am wondering if it is really helpfull. Could you let me know how many times in your life (or the life of all mankind) you have had to compare 2 pictures side by side ? On which website ? In which exhibition ? In which magazine ? Picture is unique, whatever the quantity of pixel ! Only the emotion matters (and the quality ofthe photographer). When a picture in a bull... it is a bull... In a normal world, a masterpiece (or not) should be seen at a normal distance. I am afraid that this kind of video makes drive people completely crazy : as I spent a lot of money for my gear, from now on I will see my prints with a sticky nose... Painters was discussed about style, emotion, technique... We are discussed about dot...
If you have the time, watch part 2 - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-USBcw3Rd-CM.html - I honestly agree with you that we need to highlight the difference between what is a quality image (regardless tech specs) and talking about image quality (megapixels etc).
This might be a good video for some people but I'm afraid I couldn't follow it with all the model numbers and sensor numbers as well as sizes of images sorry but your manner was nice
Is it safe to say that as sensor technology gets better, the "need" for larger sensors will become less and less? I'd like to see you do a work around comparison with using software like On1 Resize or similar. In some cases, can this software can eliminate a larger chunk of resolution differences?
I was comparing the eosM100 to the fuji X-T100 and the nikon D5000. The M100 is 24 mp and the D5000 is only 12 but resolution is about the same. the T100 is the worst cos its oversharp in camera and close to vegetation you cant see what you are looking at due to worms. The panasonic gx80 is 16 mp and it has excellent resolution. If you compare the eos 40d with the 90d you will find the the 40d is doing extremely well. The high resolution of the 90d is a problem because you need expensive glass to it. The bigger the sensor is the less important it is to put expensive glass on the camera. That is why the Nikon D700 is a very good camera. Its full frame and it has only 12 mp. When it comes to photographing paintimgs the fuji x-t100 is doing well. And when it comes to color, the samsung nx mini is by far the best camera I have shooting paintings in jpeg for good color. The fuji x-t1 is not good for painting. It looks mushy.
I am still shooting with a canon. 5d mkii but I spend a lot of money on the sharpest glass I can afford. To me megapixels without the lenses to match is a wast of money. On a side note I still do some portrait shoots on 120 film so I might so I might be strange
@@JosephEllisPhotographer I have been kind of looking at medium format systems I love my film but the developer for color film is getting a little hard to find so I wait on B&H.
Two key points of contention: 1) If you are going to claim that your dog can tell the difference you really need to justify this claim by explaining how one would discern that. 2) What you are really showing is cropping ability, not that people actually look at 5 foot prints that closely to examine detail.
I'm glad you made this video to put the truth out therr! I dont even need to do any tests to know that other guy's video is BS. Unfortunately, he has fooled some amateurs into thinking megapixels don't matter.
at best it is to lift the "GAS" off people who think they need more mega pixels - even the canon R6 with 20 is criticized for being lower than the usual 24mp that most other full frame cameras at this tier would have but thats only 4mp difference. but their messaging is honestly poor and could have been so much better. the message here is to not rely on cropping and that building the practice to get the composition right in camera (similar to Jared Polin's personal practice to never crop) - get it right in camera and dont rely on cropping to fix your images.
I don't understand the passion in this discussion. You can always reduce resolution if wanted or needed, but you cannot really enhance it. Ceteris paribus lawer resolution has no advantage. At the end the important is the image the client sees. In my case that is Full HD 1920 to 1080. That equals 2MP. Why not a 2MP camera? I shoot with a Nikon D850 with 45MP and the difference to a lawer resolution camera is indiscutible obvious in the 2MP end product. And if someone wants a large fine print, he can have. If one wants a version for his 8k TV set, he can have. 8k will become the standard, if you like it or not. For my old D850 8K is the limit. I have to upgrade for delivering photos for future TV sets.
60x40in prints are really huge. I see more commonly 36x24 or 24x16. It would be interesting to test at what print size that a X-T4 file and a GFX100s file would yield lagely indistinguishable prints viewing from 2-3 feet.
It all comes down to the final goal of an image. 99% of these so called RU-vid [creative] influencers do Not bother to print their own work. They might as well use my old 6.1Mp crop CCD sensor in my D100 and get the same instagram stills. What they fail to mention is that higher MPs/resolutions will give you the option to crop your image in post and still deliver quality resolution files, just as the 6x6 Hasselblad were ideal for print publications in the modeling and advertising industry back in the day where plenty of negative space was shot around the subject for purposes of page formatting.
I have a quastion. I use the gfx 50 and the canon pro 1000 for printing. The printer has a 2400 x 1200 dpi resulution. This combination produces stunning images of marine industrial landscape photography. Now, if I go up with the resolution to 102 megapixels will this make any difference in the print? I mean the printer will not produces a higher resolution print what allready does....will I waste my money to invest to a more expensive camera without having an actual effect? What do you think?
If your maximum print size is 17inches on the short side that’s going to generally mean that the native resolution of your 50mp camera exceeds what you need for a high quality print at 300 dpi. This assumes that you aren’t cropping or shooting in ultra wide aspect ratios. So the short answer is no, the 102 MP will not make much of a difference, you would need to go larger to really see it. Note: For anyone new to printing - dpi of the image file is independent of the ppi of a printer, for example you can print a web res jpeg 600x400 pixels at 2400 dpi but it won’t make it have more or less print resolution, one dot of ink does not equal one pixel of an image.
Hi, what kind of lens is used for GFX100S and XT4? I have a question if you use zoom lens for XT4, does it form the same sharp with GFX100s when you crop images?Thanks
16-55mm for the XT4 and 32-64mm for the GFX 100s - both lenses are quite sharp. The 16-55 at f5.6 is pretty close to the 32-64 at f11 in terms of DOF and both are wicked good in that range.
it also feels BS when for the past 10 years or so everything was full frame more mega pixels than apsc m4/3rds - and now there's a bigger kid on the block they gotta come out and claim mp never mattered to begin with. just funny. its a shame really cause they talk about cropping is what the GFX is for but it would be more interesting to actually do a print test that is shown here. 2 image portraits of the same person then crop in to the image and then see the difference. In the end its just not a realistic test comparison, not talking about what's fair or unfair - just talking about what's realistic and what would happen and how it would be used. it would also sound better if they push the idea of getting the shot - composition right in camera just like how we get the exposure close to "perfect" in camera as well. It would be a good lesson to not rely on cropping too much when editing - and move with your feet etc. Similar to Jared Polin in his personal rule to never crop, respects to him. Though that idea i feel was not emphasized and the whole video is basically GFX and 100mp is over rated basically. they could have done a better comparison with other sony a7RIV and use the same exact lens to compare or sony A1 - and do a better test with similar sony color science - sensor size - same lens. Just thinking about this fact makes the whole thing less meaningful - added the bias that he claims he already use the A7Siii for big photo work.
Because having all those megapixels DOES give you the ability to crop down when you physically cannot get closer to the subject, and that is a huge reason to buy a camera with a high megapixel count. Plus, there is nearly always cropping to be done in post processing - whether for style or output type - regardless of how many megapixels your camera has, and so having more megapixels from which to crop does, in fact, give you better image quality.
They literally showed a large print in their video and still none of them got it right which it was. Don't know what you mean large prints for home matter. Just because something seems right on paper doesn't mean it holds any value in the real world
Seriously, can you truly see the difference between 12 and 100 MP in a print viewed from 3 feet away? And will your business ever increase because you have a big camera. I doubt it. To me, more MP is like more horsepower: a symptom of penis envy.
Joseph, I've been following your wonderful content for a few years. Not too long ago I recall you saying 16 MP of resolution is enough for 99.9% of people's use cases... (for reference: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qQ1rzSReQ1.html) Unquestionably the raw image quality will be better from a much higher MP file. The question is though, will that really be necessary to deliver the results that a vast majority of us will be happy in the real world? How many non-pro folks will it actually be worth it for to shell out 6k for a body plus thousands more for a lens in order to be able to create 100 MP files? I feel like this video sends a bit of a strange signal out, as if all the 16-24 MP cameras in use for people would suddenly not *really* be sufficient any more to create results that their owners should be happy with. One of the things I always enjoyed most about your channel is that it was much more about the creative process than about gear mania. Hope this quality will remain, and we will get the pleasure to watch your inspirational vision again soon!
