Jump to content

Printing - Does the extra 8mp make a difference?


Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I am an XT1 user, considering an upgrade to an XT2 and although it's a great camera one thing I can't find anywhere is whether people are noticing the extra 8mp (16 vs 24) in real world, non-pixel peeping use.  Specifically printing.  

 

Given the XP2 has the same sensor and has been out a while, I thought I'd see whether any of our XP2 users have had any experience printing and can draw some real live comparisons to the previous X-Trans II sensor.

 

Any comments gratefully appreciated! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on a few things...amount of cropping, size of print, post processing involved, monitor calibration and quality of printer. etc. I think the answer is yes, but does it matter? I've seen spectacular 24x36 inch landscape prints from a 12 MP Nikon D90. At 11x14 for example I see no difference in print quality (resolution detail that is) between my old Nikon D90 and my current D7100 with twice the resolution. I think it also depends on subject matter too and landscape photographers that make big prints are probably more demanding than say, a portrait photographer. Sadly, many photographers rarely make big prints....but demand high megapixel counts for images that will sit on a hard drive and never encounter the ink of a printer.

 

The megapixel wars ended a long time ago but I'm sure the engineers and brick wall photographers may beg to differ,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensor resolution will continue to increase, not because it is needed, but because that is the nature of digital engineering. It is 4896 vs 6000 pixels wide, only a 22% difference. There would be a bit more potential for detail, but only noticeable on direct comparison.  All else being equal, a large print from a 24MP image exhibited next to a 16MP image may show a bit more detail if viewed at reading distance. Viewed at normal viewing distance, or viewed alone, you would not notice.

 

In the real world of photography, "all else" is rarely equal.  :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer is NO difference.  I've printed 30 x 20 with a 6mp camera.  Also, keep in mind the sensor size from 16mp to 24mp is incremental at best.  the dimensions are measured not across the entire surface of a sensor, but only on the long side.

 

I've done up to 30 x 20 from my Fuji X-T1 as well and the amazing 16 1.4 and it is amazing.

 

I'm by no means self-promoting myself here but on my blog ( in my signature) has a post on the print size thing.

 

Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say the MP count is the least interesting new feature of the XT2/Pro2, but to answer your question similar to the above

 

Yes and No

 

If you frame a shot well, and have minimal cropping the difference of the print at a normal viewing distance will be minimal.

If you heavily crop the image then the extra MP will enable you to print the cropped image with more acceptable quality to a larger size compared to the 16MP sensor

 

Unfortunately, I have not had the pleasure of printing from the X-Pro2 and the XT1/10/E2 to compare the difference.

 

However, I happily print A1 (594X841mm)and A2 (420X594mm) prints from the X-Trans 2 sensor cameras, and I have no intention of upgrading to an X-trans 3 for print quality (for other features maybe)

 

good luck with your decision

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone, interesting responses thus far.  In terms of printing, I'm talking A2 and above really, as I understand both cameras will be negligible at A3 or smaller sizes (both 300dpi).

 

I'm just curious as to whether (beyond cropping room) the 16 vs 24mp is a genuine plus point, as the rest of the pluses better autofocus, 4K, ergonomic improvements are fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am happy that a bit of sanity begins to trickle about this matter.

 

Last time I dared questioning this matter-of-fact attitude towards bigger-is-better I was met with a salvo of bitter comments by nay-sayers.

 

 

For the most part and for most photographers there is no actual difference in printing capabilities given by a 24Mp compared to a 16Mp, and that is assuming that ayone would actually print the pictures... since we know that the majority of photographers are only viewing their images on screen!

 

 

 

The cropping argument also makes me feel very strange uneasy about it. Yes, it is true that even some great photographers have had second thoughts about their images, as shown here by these incredibly famous shots by Arnold Newman who shot with large format cameras (while the final prints are relatively small).

 

 

 

 98587a86276618643962d5468513e0ae.jpg64f97c5144e8d70a770feea690bb8b2a.jpg Newman-0515.jpgIMG_4560.jpg

 

 

 

 

But if this was very true and commonplace in the time of large format analog photography, when shooting was a different experience, it became less true in the time of small format slides photography and I believe it is even less true now with digital photography.

 

But yes, if you want to make huge prints out of a small detail from your sensor...  :rolleyes: ... then you may be probably ever so slightly better off ( with a stress on ever) with a 24Mp than you are with 16Mp.

 

But then why not going all the way and buy a medium format digital camera? But even the Fuji medium format to come would allow you only 50Mp which if you compare it to the kind of cropping done by Newman for the Picasso portrait will still be less than 12Mp.

 

Alternatively, you might want to shoot as most people did when producing 35mm slides.

 

Framing the subject as much as possible with the final image ” cropped in-camera”.

 

 

I think this article about the book on the Magnum contact sheets might be illuminating

 

http://erickimphotography.com/blog/2012/10/03/10-things-street-photographers-can-learn-from-magnum-contact-sheets/

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about 16Mp vs 36Mp? :)

 

http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/3582-fuji-x-t10-vs-sony-a7r-for-landscapes-with-samples/

 

I can see, with two identical images side to side, resized to 100cm wide, a really minor difference just in the focus plane (even stopping down there will be areas less sharp than the focus plane, even if "in focus", i.e. sharp enough thanks to the circle of confusion).

 

Take the wider side to 120 cm and that difference will grow quite a bit, even if with most subjects a 16Mp file will still be good enough IMO.

 

Over that and you really can pull it off only with portraits and subjects without that much detail to begin with, or printing on something like artisanal matte papers or canvas.

Edited by addicted2light
Link to post
Share on other sites

your test is very illuminating too.

 

The pixel count is now the main red herrings used to sell camera.

 

A key word in advertising.

 

Bigger! New! Improved!...goes all the way up to 11!

 

Since you are Italian (I hold dual nationality Italian-Dutch) you may remember a washing powder which advertised for years and years ( since I was a kind and it is a long time ago) that it was washing “ whiter” ( whiter than what wasn’t clear).

 

They had it in different countries too, we had Dixan in Italy and they had Persil some other places.

 

If only you buy this camera...new, improved, bigger, better, everything will change for you.

 

It has a larger sensor ergo it does more ( more than what? And even more importantly what can you do with it that you couldn’t do without it?).

 

 

Whiter than white.

Link to post
Share on other sites

your test is very illuminating too.

 

The pixel count is now the main red herrings used to sell camera.

 

A key word in advertising.

 

Bigger! New! Improved!...goes all the way up to 11!

 

Since you are Italian (I hold dual nationality Italian-Dutch) you may remember a washing powder which advertised for years and years ( since I was a kind and it is a long time ago) that it was washing “ whiter” ( whiter than what wasn’t clear).

 

They had it in different countries too, we had Dixan in Italy and they had Persil some other places.

 

If only you buy this camera...new, improved, bigger, better, everything will change for you.

 

It has a larger sensor ergo it does more ( more than what? And even more importantly what can you do with it that you couldn’t do without it?).

 

 

Whiter than white.

 

 

You just brought back a lot of tv-related childhood memories :)

 

Like I mentioned in that test, I actually find the bigger sensor a cons, because shooting landscapes the DOF is severely limited, even more so with the Mp going up. For example I don't recall having to stitch that much, if ever, with the Canon 5D mk II, while with the A7r is a necessity most of the times.

 

Actually the only thing that I'd very much like for a manufacturer to bring to the table is (real) 16bit recording, like on the medium format backs. That DOES make a discernible difference in the nuances of the colors you can capture, and at least in theory should for example completely eradicate the plague of posterization in the skies (probably the bane of 99% of landscape shooters).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt we will be able to see the difference on mainstream 8bit displays.

 

But for print I think this should make quite a bit of difference: a subtler rendition of color/tonal graduations should make the images look more film-like and less digital. Not to mention, like I said, close to no banding.

 

The biggest step would be, obviously, a sensor with full color information, i.e. not with a Bayer mask, like Foveon. Just google some comparison between Velvia (or any other film, really) and a digital rendition of the same scene. There are way more nuances and tonal/color graduations in the film shot (sometimes small details like berries etc. can loose color in the digitsl shot, becoming for example green like the grass around them, because they dont't happen to cover for example a red-masked pixel).

 

Alas my guess is that we'll have to wait a few years for that, basically until the manufacturers will start hitting the limits in the Bayer based solution.

 

A bit like happened for multi core cpu, once reserved exclusively for professional workstations (= medium format), that started to go mainstream once Intel, Amd etc. hit the physical limits in pushing the clock frequency too high.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies. It will be interesting to see what those who have been using the Xpro2 have seen.

 

Comparing the output on the DPR studio scene against an XT1 & AR2 is interesting, pixel peeping shows a appreciable jump in details between the xtrans sensors but against the AR2 the jumpis far less marked. I guess the non-bayer array makes a big difference!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking of differences appreciable on prints.

 

I doubt that any appreciable difference can be seen even in high quality printing, though, perhaps, not in monitor staring at a test.

 

On the other hand one can stare to meditate.

 

Omphaloskepsis is a meditation technique where one reaches a deep meditative state through looking, at extreme length, to one’s navel. The modern version has to be the monitor ( and it puts a lot less strain on the neck).

 

 

From wikipedia...

 

1024px-Satyres_en_Atlante_Rome_Louvre_2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the looks it was really the navel they were staring at, although, if you notice, the fauns have had their phalluses damaged so they may have been seeming to think: “ I wonder what the heck happened to it?” 

 

The navel has always had in all cultures, from time immemorial, a great symbolic meaning, perhaps even more than the phallus. 

 

But contemplating the navel was not "watching the nave"l, it was a way to transcend reality and enter meditative state.

 

I have the feeling that some people like to contemplate the monitor but in the end are not thinking of photography as a state of mind or the product of their thinking but at the pixel staring “ per se”.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha...aptly put.

 

In Pilates and Yoga, the navel represents the center of gravity for good balance. And I breathing techniques, we often hear terms like , "navel trying to touch your spine". So, I guess it's the universal center of the human bodies. It's not surprising that Omphaloskepsis emphasizes the navel too.

 

I realized long ago that even at 12mpix, it already exceeds most printing needs. I'm glad that with a bit of extra megapixels, I'm able to crop more. Hence the need for good skills and good lenses coz cropping into a bad photograph just makes it much worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking throug the old book (2006) about underwater photography saw the following - "Megapixels are more about size than quality. If you are printing photographs up to A4 (210x297mm) or A3 (297x420mm) size, you will not see any difference between a six- and an eightmegapixel camera."

 

Ten years after we are still talking about 16 and 24 mp.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some difference but not a lot.  A couple of years ago I moved from a 16Mpx Nikon to a 24Mpx Nikon.  Usually there was no discernable difference. - BUT - a couple of photos I reshot did have a noticeable gain.  These were landscape with a loot of fine detail.  Normally, standing a few feet back from a 18-12 print you wouldn't see into the detail but there was some content in the fine detail that attracted some viewers.  This isn't something I would expect very often.  On the other hand, while ability to crop more aggressively isn't something that I have need for, bird and wild life folks often cite this - more Mpx may be more affordable than a longer lens.    The answer to the question, therefore, depends in part on the subject matter you photograph and how large you print.

 

The trend in sensor technology toward more pixels often seems to brig greater dynamic range along with it.  I don't think we are even close to being where the is no benefit to greater DR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For that matter, the technology which comes with the extra megapixel may be responsible. I noted a stark difference between the Pro1 and Pro2 when it came to fine details of leaves, grass, sand, etc. The Pro2 is much better at resolving these. Having read further into it, Fuji did do something to fine detail resolution when their X Processor Pro was employed.

 

So, maybe we can say that it is perhaps this technology that people are buying into and extra megapixel came with it, inevitably.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many reasons to buy a new camera.

 

Among those there might be few who have some real technical issues but my experience here tells me that some are simply keeping up with the Joneses or go with the motto “ I exist, therefore I buy”.

 

Enrich Fromm put this is a single antinomy. 

 

To have ( a new camera) or to be (a good photographer).

 

In some cases a new camera might unleash even better pictures but I have seen examples by people whom even with an X T-2million ( as opposed to X-T1) will never ever transcend the very modest quality of the pictures they take.

 

There are no chops in any box.

Edited by milandro
Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to generalize but on more than one occasion, I can absolutely agree with you.

 

I'll also be the first one to tell you, I'm no pro photog but on another forum, I'd seen some really boring pictures taken by the A7Rii and the 5DsR owners. Usual back yard photos and EXTREME crop of the road sign opposite the road. Dare I also say, selfies and usually nothing more than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...