100MP grade camera

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My experience with the biggest prints is that after 40mp, the lenses are probably more of a driver than the sensor. Of course this is not always the case, but I have printed a lot of work for a lot of photographers over the years. In a few cases I have been surprised, for example, how poor some Phase One images looked. The extra resolution does not really save you when half the image is blurry. I don't blame Phase, I am sure their highest end lenses are more than capable, but I think some photographers are using older Mamiya SLR lenses on 100mp+ and it just does not cut it. Meanwhile, Leica punches way above its weight because the lenses are so good, at least when paired properly. In my experience the wide and standard M lenses do not do well enough on the SL2 to make it worth their use. The 90mm APO and 135mm are great, however. Fuji has some great lenses, but I have not tried the GFX100 all that extensively, so I cannot comment on how well it compares. When I have printed for others with work from it however, it has been technically excellent. My own conclusion, however, is that the Leica SL2 with APO Summicrons serves me exceptionally well. As far as I can tell, it is the best blend of utility, interface, color and compactness. It is lighter than the S and in my experience, just a better system overall, and the versatility is unmatched. I can mount M, L and S lenses depending on the need, and the accurate AF and stabilization make a huge real world difference. If the next SL has even higher MP, I think it will do even better in large prints, as the lenses still have tons of resolution headroom.

[Einst_Stein]

I have seen some subjective comments about the 100MP cameras, but could not find any objective image samples. Roughly, the subjective comments either favors the 100MP ( over 50MP or 60MP), or not so. Similar comments are seen on 159MP vs. lower resolution. 
 

I personally have experiences on 24MP (and 18MP) and something about doubling that. While the larger MP of a larger sensor does make clear difference (39MP on 48x36 sensor over 24MP on 36x24), on the 36x24 format, 40+MP I have used is not impressive, and actually inferior. So I ended up sold the higher MP cameras. I have to add that, these are not the same brand, so the branded specific performance may override the other brand’s higher MP.

I also found the MTF of the lenses I own are no where capable of 100MP. Most of them are Zeiss glass. So I would like to think that any 100MP camera is over killed, at least with respect to my Contax Zeiiss, Hasselblad Zeiss, or Leica lenses.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Einst_Stein

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mgrayson3]

My 2p,

The best metaphor I can think of for this question is audio. There is a long chain of performer -> performance -> instruments -> mics -> recording medium -> sound engineers -> producers -> delivery format -> data retrieval -> signal formation -> amplification -> sound reconstruction -> listening environment -> consumer. Any one of these can be the factor that limits quality/enjoyment/marketability. Most of those links have prices attached, although the consumer can't change many of them. Changes in the consumer's utility function change which links in the chain can be most effectively improved. (FWIW, these days I care about the first two and will listen from YouTube on my phone's speaker. I used to have 6' tall planar speakers and 500W Monoblocs. Tastes change.)

That doesn't mean that the question is unanswerable, it just means that a LOT of other variables need to be fixed or constrained for the question to be meaningful. I actually did take the same images with an S(007) and an S3 (same tripod and lens and within a minute of each other) to try to see at what print size I could tell a difference with a loupe, from 12", and from viewing distance. But that's with *my* printing techniques, which are probably far from the best. So what did I learn? Not much, other than that if I were printing 3 meters wide, I'd want the S3.

Matt

[pgh]

I appreciate a good, detailed print.

But at some point, a certain scale - for a photograph in particular - can become a bit alienating. It can make a work seem less approachable, more pretentious, choose your descriptor. This is something I've got little interest in as an artist. I'm not sure what that scale is exactly but it's somewhere around 50-60" most of the time. I've printed larger, but those works are collage based works that are more akin to a digital painting comprised of tens of photographs or more. (As always, there are some exceptions, but precious few I've seen). 

And around that same point, I am reminded that most good pictures do not succeed on their attempt to be the most highly detailed reproduction of reality that is possible - but rather something less tangible. 

For my purposes, 24 mp of the M10 has been enough in most cases but is riskier business in general - a little bit of insurance (and highlight retention, or exposure latitude, or tonal range, or whatever you want to call it - I know someone is bound to lecture on it) is nice. There are times more is needed and it does make a difference. Not a lot of times, but it happens.

Since I've shot with ~40 mp, I've not much felt that. My primary cameras these days are an M10M, SL2, and 907x. They're all basically the same resolution, give or take a little bit. None of them ever leave me feeling short on resolution, or anything at all for that matter, and an increase in resolution isn't a selling point for me anymore. For years, with digital, it really was - I stayed with medium format film until about the D800/A7R2 came out. But it finally got to the point where the files are so robust, the resolution so good for what I consider to be human scaled images, that the rest is for people with different sorts of ambitions that have little to do with the sort of photography that interests me. 

[Pieter12]

I was just looking at some 20x20" prints I had made from files I made for a book. The book files were 3000x3000 @ 300dpi, resized to 8000x8000 @400 dpi in PhotoShop for the prints. They look amazing.

[davidmknoble]

I would simply add that at a certain megapixel level, a tripod becomes really important.  I think @Stuart Richardson would agree, that film has the same issues.  The finest grain films only show well with absolutely no movement - assuming the lens has enough contrast for the grain (i.e., APO lenses).  So, at a 100mp, even with a great lens, you will likely end up with very high resolution snapshots if you cannot control movement.

Erwin Puts was famous for saying, this lens ‘out resolves’ many sensors or films, but the photographer will have to ‘up their game’ to extract the most from it. 

I think it is safe to say Higher Megapixels = function(Need for better lenses, better technique)

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Absolutely. The further you want to push everything, the more every single step in the process matters. Not just tripods (heavy wood is the best, but of course often very impractical), but the head and how the camera is mated to the head also matter (arca plates are good for smaller cameras, but once you get into large format they tend to allow too much flex in the system as opposed to a larger mating surface).  Then shutter management (using electronic shutter and remote release is usually best), and wind and so on. Even film flatness plays a big role in medium and large formats especially. It is of course not possible to do everything right, but the more you do, the better result. A tripod is certainly the best thing you can do for your lenses unless you are always shooting 1/1000th and above. 

[bags27]

No argument about a tripod. I keep 2 in my car at all times.

But even as a film-only MF shooter, because I digitize my negatives, I'm fully alive to the fact that AI-driven post-processing has recently made phenomenal strides in "removing" blur cleanly. That's a crutch I resignedly acknowledge. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by bags27

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, bags27 said:

No argument about a tripod. I keep 2 in my car at all times.

But even as a film-only MF shooter, because I digitize my negatives, I'm fully alive to the fact that AI-driven post-processing has recently made phenomenal strides in "removing" blur cleanly. That's a crutch I resignedly acknowledge. 

It always looks unnatural to me. Especially the noise reduction. But I guess it depends on the application. For me and art prints at least, I would rather keep the output as close to reality as possible. The AI filters have been underwhelming to me. At first glance they look amazing and then you see all kinds of strange artifacts. 

[bags27]

10 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

It always looks unnatural to me. Especially the noise reduction. But I guess it depends on the application. For me and art prints at least, I would rather keep the output as close to reality as possible. The AI filters have been underwhelming to me. At first glance they look amazing and then you see all kinds of strange artifacts. 

I'm sure if printing large. But for small work, the last iteration or two of Adobe has been pretty amazing. I feel I've picked up an extra stop.

[irenedp]

On 10/13/2023 at 5:25 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

It always looks unnatural to me. Especially the noise reduction. But I guess it depends on the application. For me and art prints at least, I would rather keep the output as close to reality as possible. The AI filters have been underwhelming to me. At first glance they look amazing and then you see all kinds of strange artifacts. 

nods. You have to be very careful and have a slow look at 100% when using Lightroom’s superresolution or Topaz’s gigapixel. 

 

There was nothing better to print big  than a 20x25” view camera. And nowadays, a large sensor and high resolution.