Resolving power of lenses on the 60 MP SL3 sensor

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Jeff S said:

But you’ve introduced another variable: physical sensor size.  Like comparing MF to 35mm in film (to a degree).
 

Jeff

True. I made that argument poorly.

I should have stayed with 24 x 36. I can see a difference between, say, a Sony A7R3 and A7R5 in print detail at modest sizes. But as you say, I'd need to have them side by side to be able to realise those differences. The differences are there. Do they matter? probably only a bit, if at all. I don't want to be that person who makes out the last generation of sensor suddenly becomes unusable because a new one is released. That was not my intent. But there is a modest improvement in new or better lenses and sensors over older versions, usually. Say an A7R5/SL3 sensor is 100% then an A7R3 is still 90%. Both high numbers. Both capable.

I sell prints. My biggest sellers are from my A7R3 and X1D. More modest pixel counts but better source material (subject matter). K is preparing for her first photographic exhibition (she's a full time painter, so it's got her nervous  ) of Iceland in the winter. I'm printing to A0 from a Canon R5 (45MP) and Q2M (42MP). The subject matter and careful file management mean the prints look epic. So, it's not only resolution that makes for great big prints. It does make it easier for me though. As a print maker the technical bits are important to me, in that I need to know what I'm working with when crafting a print. And I can clearly see some small differences between the R5 and Q2M prints. But I know what to look for.

The question was *will the sensor in the SL3 help with print quality*? That's a yes. Better sensors help with print quality at even modest sizes. Does that mean you can't get great prints with less resolution. That's a resounding no.

Gordon

[Jeff S]

If print quality means resolution/detail rendering. There are other, often more important, characteristics for a fine print. At least for me.

Jeff

[davidmknoble]

I posted early on and it seemed to spark all this discussion.  All I was trying to suggest was that the SL3 does a great job with old lenses.  What I like better than the SL2 is the dynamic range of the sensor (which is similar to the M11 sensor increase over the M10).

I print, typically, at a maximum size of 17x22 and for that size, the old R lenses look really nice on the SL3.  I get great negatives on Porta 160 with the same lenses on my R8 and R9, but the SL3 draw very nicely with the R lenses, including older R lenses.

I just like it.

[jaapv]

Old R lenses sometimes resolve higher than the newest APO SL lenses. For instance the APO Telyt R 280 4.0 @ 300 lp/ mm @ 50 %. Diffraction limited too. 

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, davidmknoble said:

I posted early on and it seemed to spark all this discussion.  All I was trying to suggest was that the SL3 does a great job with old lenses.  What I like better than the SL2 is the dynamic range of the sensor (which is similar to the M11 sensor increase over the M10).

I print, typically, at a maximum size of 17x22 and for that size, the old R lenses look really nice on the SL3.  I get great negatives on Porta 160 with the same lenses on my R8 and R9, but the SL3 draw very nicely with the R lenses, including older R lenses.

I just like it.

come on, show some photos!