What makes a great picture?

[mollyc]

I've printed a 24x36 from an 8mp Canon 30D (crop body). Also the same size from a 36mp Nikon D800 and a 24mp Nikon Z6. I feel like they all show about the same amount of detail? The Canon image should theoretically not look good because I had to upsize it through PS. The photo itself isn't one I'd print now, but I was proud of it at the time and I don't want to just chuck it.

But I would never attempt to print anything from my 12mp iPhone 8+ even though it has more mp than my old Canon did. The small sensor of the phone just doesn't render anything well, IMO.

 

[Clix Pix]

I was reading an article online from PhotographyLife which included a useful chart which kind of slots right into this discussion, although it is about ultra-wide-angle lenses:

What is an Ultra-Wide Angle Lens and How to Use It - Photography Life

photographylife.com

Sensor Size vs Focal Length​

Below is a table of different sensor sizes and focal lengths for ultra-wide angle lens designation:

• iPhone with 1/2.9” sensor (7.1x Crop Factor): Shorter than 3.4mm
• Smartphone with 1/2.3” sensor (5.62x Crop Factor): Shorter than 4.3mm
• 1” Sensor (2.7x Crop Factor): Shorter than 9mm
• Micro Four Thirds (2.0x Crop Factor): Shorter than 12mm
• APS-C (1.5x Crop Factor): Shorter than 16mm
• Full-Frame (1.0x Crop Factor): Shorter than 24mm
• Medium Format (0.78x Crop Factor): Shorter than 31mm

 

[bunnspecial]

Medium Format (0.78x Crop Factor): Shorter than 31mm

That one is iffy to me since, first of all, there are a bunch of things under the umbrellla of "medium format", and for most of the classic non-digital sizes the crop factor is very different from what is stated.

Also, I don't like crop factors when comparing formats with different aspect ratios, and find them not particular useful. 35mm full frame in particular, with a 2:3 aspect ratio, is wide and short. Instead, I prefer to compare horizontal angle of view.

If we agree that 24mm is an "ultra wide" lens in 35mm, something with which I agree because I've used that FL to get the kind of skewed perspective I associate with UW photography, that means we're looking at a horizontal field of view of about 74º.

On a 645 camera, that means 38mm. On 6x6, it's actually the same(38mm). On 6x7, 45mm is in the right ballpark(75º).

UW photography gets fun in medium format. A 45mm lens for the Pentax 6x7 system is at least somewhat common and affordable. In 6x6(and 645) you do have a 38mm Zeiss/Hasselblad lens, but it fits to a special purpose camera body only made for that lens and that doesn't offer TTL viewing. You CAN get the 40mm Distagon, which works on any 500 series camera, but it's a huge and expensive lens.

 

[Clix Pix]

My guess is that most people, just as I was doing, would've been reading the article while thinking about adding or using an ultrawide angle lens on their full-frame camera or perhaps on their APS-C camera. I suspect that most people who are using medium format and large format are already pretty knowledgeable about UW photography and what to expect from UW lenses attached to their medium format camera.

In my situation, I can readily see the focal length differences when using my UW Sony 12-24mm lens as I go from 24mm to, say 16mm, to 12mm, and that is what is important to me while out in the field shooting with that lens. Since I have only FF ILC cameras to which I'd be attaching any UW lenses the other sensor sizes and focal lengths are of only mild interest to me, although I did take a look out of curiosity to see what the equivalency is with the 1" sensor on my RX10 and RX100 cameras, both of which use that size sensor.

To me, 24mm is wide-angle and certainly more so than my 35mm wide-angle lenses, but not necessarily ultra wide angle; I would reserve that designation for 20mm, 18mm and below..... I'm still fairly new to the whole wide-angle thing in the first place, though, getting accustomed to it and how best to take advantage of an ultra wide-angle lens' unique qualities.

The reason for including this chart in this thread at all was to illustrate just how tiny a P&S 1/2.3" sensor (with its low resolution qualities) actually is in comparison to its larger brethren.

 

[MacNut]

Wide is really anything below 20mm.

 

[Clix Pix]

I agree with a lot of people who feel that 35mm is really an ideal focal length, even more so than the so-called "standard" 50mm; it offers just that much more flexibility in what it covers and I can see why it is a favorite of so many photographers.

 

[jwolf6589]

I agree with a lot of people who feel that 35mm is really an ideal focal length, even more so than the so-called "standard" 50mm; it offers just that much more flexibility in what it covers and I can see why it is a favorite of so many photographers.

People still use 35mm????

 

[bunnspecial]

I agree with a lot of people who feel that 35mm is really an ideal focal length, even more so than the so-called "standard" 50mm; it offers just that much more flexibility in what it covers and I can see why it is a favorite of so many photographers.

When I go out with a manual focus kit, I've increasingly been leaving my 50mm at home even though some would consider it heresy. Generally my 4 lens kit is the 20mm f/4, 35mm f/1.4, 105mm f/2.5 and 200mm f/4. All of these are great lenses, use 52mm filters, and are light.

I've been a wide angle junkie for a long time, and one of my favorite lenses of all time is the 14-24mm f/2.8. Since it's so big and heavy though, I have a cheapie little plastic AF-P Nikkor VR 10-20mm DX format lens that will work on full frame 14mm and longer and weighs nothing, although it's nowhere near as good as the 14-24mm.

 

[bunnspecial]

People still use 35mm????

1. The reference above was in reference to the 35mm focal length lens, which is a very handy lens on full frame digital cameras for a lot of general use.

2. You've posed the question here multiple times and received the same answer every time. Yes, people still use 35mm film(and other sizes of film). I'm among them.

 

[Clix Pix]

Yes, people still use 35mm lenses or either an APS-C or a Full-Frame camera body (the FF body is called that because, guess what? The sensor size of the mirrorless or DSLR camera is based on the size of the 35mm film rolls used in cameras of yore)...... Interchangeable lenses mounted on a film or digital camera body provide flexibility, versatility, fun and practicality.

One can have prime lenses (one focal length such as 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, etc.) or zoom lenses varying focal lengths, such as 12-24mm, 100-400mm, etc.). Depending upon what one wants to shoot one chooses the appropriate lens for that activity. If I want to shoot the ducks and geese out on the lake I'll choose a long zoom lens. If I am interested in getting up-close and personal with a flower or object, I'll put a macro lens on the camera. Maybe I'm interested in trying to capture a beautiful landscape scene or am going for a different approach to an everyday scene and so will slip a wide-angle or ultra-wide angle lens on the camera. If I am shooting under relatively low light conditions but do not want to use flash, I will choose a "fast" lens (aperture wider than f/2.0). Interchangeable lenses offer a lot of opportunities for creativity and exploring life with camera in hand.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yes people shoot film.

 

[Clix Pix]

I have found that in good light and at reasonably close distances that the RX10 IV, with its 1" sensor and its focal distances ranging from 24mm to 600mm, can produce surprisingly good results, with decent detail and all. The Zeiss lens on that thing is really quite amazing. In poor light or at distances which extend at a distance beyond easy reach of that 600mm, resolution and detail can drop off, though. If I were to shoot the same scene in not-so-great light with the A1 or the A7R IV and the Bazooka and also with the RX10 IV, the ILC cameras would win by a landslide, given their much larger sensors. In good light, the differences would be less noticeable but would still be there.

One way to work around the results of a small sensor and low resolution, less detail, is to indeed extrapolate pixels, using a program such as Topaz's Gigapixel. I know that now Adobe has recently introduced a similar feature in Photoshop. Upon occasion I have "upped the rez," so to speak, in an image shot with the RX10 IV by 4x using Topaz Gigapixel and often the results are quite satisfactory, while at other times not so much so. It's always worth experimenting with if one likes a particular image and doesn't want to discard it. However, one wouldn't do this with an image that was to be entered in a competition of some sort!

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I have found that in good light and at reasonably close distances that the RX10 IV, with its 1" sensor and its focal distances ranging from 24mm to 600mm, can produce surprisingly good results, with decent detail and all. The Zeiss lens on that thing is really quite amazing. In poor light or at distances which extend at a distance beyond easy reach of that 600mm, resolution and detail can drop off, though. If I were to shoot the same scene in not-so-great light with the A1 or the A7R IV and the Bazooka and also with the RX10 IV, the ILC cameras would win by a landslide, given their much larger sensors. In good light, the differences would be less noticeable but would still be there.

One way to work around the results of a small sensor and low resolution, less detail, is to indeed extrapolate pixels, using a program such as Topaz's Gigapixel. I know that now Adobe has recently introduced a similar feature in Photoshop. Upon occasion I have "upped the rez," so to speak, in an image shot with the RX10 IV by 4x using Topaz Gigapixel and often the results are quite satisfactory, while at other times not so much so. It's always worth experimenting with if one likes a particular image and doesn't want to discard it. However, one wouldn't do this with an image that was to be entered in a competition of some sort!

I would suggest that the 8.8x13.2mm sensor on that Sony and some Panasonics is adequate for all but the most demanding of photographers.

Several years ago I would have said the same about the smaller format cameras. But the higher resolution monitors we are currently seeing demand at least the 1" sensor if you are going to display an image full screen and expect crisp detail when you are only a couple of feet away. Beyond that cost certainly begins to have a big say in the final decision.

 

[MacNut]

I would suggest that the 8.8x13.2mm sensor on that Sony and some Panasonics is adequate for all but the most demanding of photographers.

Several years ago I would have said the same about the smaller format cameras. But the higher resolution monitors we are currently seeing demand at least the 1" sensor if you are going to display an image full screen and expect crisp detail when you are only a couple of feet away. Beyond that cost certainly begins to have a big say in the final decision.

How much does megapixels add into that. 24 seems to be the base while 64 allow you to grab more detail.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Whether or not the resolutions are 'real', it is what they actually capture. And the 4.8x6.4 sensors simply do not capture 12 or 16 or 20MP of detail.

 

[MacNut]

Whether or not the resolutions are 'real', it is what they actually capture. And the 4.8x6.4 sensors simply do not capture 12 or 16 or 20MP of detail.

I agree that small sensors are crap. But how much do megapixels play into bigger sensors. At what point are you throwing away pixels.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I agree that small sensors are crap. But how much do megapixels play into bigger sensors. At what point are you throwing away pixels.

Not crap, just limited. As long as you are aware of and work within each cameras limits you'll be just fine. The trick is being aware of those limits.

That said I will be upgrading the old Kodak in the near future. As to the little Fuji, being waterproof and shockproof is a more important consideration than sensor size. Especially as all of the WP cameras use the same sensor. Even so I am hoping to see some progress in that niche before the Fuji dies.

 

[r.harris1]

Whether or not the resolutions are 'real', it is what they actually capture. And the 4.8x6.4 sensors simply do not capture 12 or 16 or 20MP of detail.

I’m having a hard time following your argument . Are you saying when my iPhone captures 12mp of detail on its small sensor that in your opinion it’s less than 12mp when I look at it on my screen?

 

[OldMacs4Me]

I’m having a hard time following your argument . Are you saying when my iPhone captures 12mp of detail on its small sensor that in your opinion it’s less than 12mp when I look at it on my screen?

I am saying that if I put my small sensor camera on a tripod, shoot the same image at 3MP, 8MP, and 16MP. I can interpolate the smaller images up to 16MP then view all three images at 100% and there is virtually no difference between them. IOW those extra mega pixels did not really capture any extra detail.

To me it's irrelevant as to whether the camera captures at 3 and interpolates up, or whether it is impossible to make a lens that takes full advantage of the sensor. The useful size of images from 1/2.3 sensors is around 3MP maybe 4 MP.

Typically I shoot at 8MP but displaying at anything much above 50% is still very likely to disappoint. Images I choose to work with are cropped to a max of 1250 pixels horizontally or 850 pixels vertically. Numbers that work well with either of the monitors I will use to display them. Also a good size for posting as that will allow the website or browser to display full size without requiring scrolling.

 

[mollyc]

I would suggest that the 8.8x13.2mm sensor on that Sony and some Panasonics is adequate for all but the most demanding of photographers.

Several years ago I would have said the same about the smaller format cameras. But the higher resolution monitors we are currently seeing demand at least the 1" sensor if you are going to display an image full screen and expect crisp detail when you are only a couple of feet away. Beyond that cost certainly begins to have a big say in the final decision.

I am saying that if I put my small sensor camera on a tripod, shoot the same image at 3MP, 8MP, and 16MP. I can interpolate the smaller images up to 16MP then view all three images at 100% and there is virtually no difference between them. IOW those extra mega pixels did not really capture any extra detail.

To me it's irrelevant as to whether the camera captures at 3 and interpolates up, or whether it is impossible to make a lens that takes full advantage of the sensor. The useful size of images from 1/2.3 sensors is around 3MP maybe 4 MP.

Typically I shoot at 8MP but displaying at anything much above 50% is still very likely to disappoint. Images I choose to work with are cropped to a max of 1250 pixels horizontally or 850 pixels vertically. Numbers that work well with either of the monitors I will use to display them. Also a good size for posting as that will allow the website or browser to display full size without requiring scrolling.

Are you suggesting that those of use who are using full frame dSLR/mirrorless cameras are overly demanding? I, too, am having trouble following much of this logic, but I admit my knowledge for sensor resolution isn't very deep.

 

[r.harris1]

I am saying that if I put my small sensor camera on a tripod, shoot the same image at 3MP, 8MP, and 16MP. I can interpolate the smaller images up to 16MP then view all three images at 100% and there is virtually no difference between them. IOW those extra mega pixels did not really capture any extra detail.

To me it's irrelevant as to whether the camera captures at 3 and interpolates up, or whether it is impossible to make a lens that takes full advantage of the sensor. The useful size of images from 1/2.3 sensors is around 3MP maybe 4 MP.

Typically I shoot at 8MP but displaying at anything much above 50% is still very likely to disappoint. Images I choose to work with are cropped to a max of 1250 pixels horizontally or 850 pixels vertically. Numbers that work well with either of the monitors I will use to display them. Also a good size for posting as that will allow the website or browser to display full size without requiring scrolling.

I think I follow you now, thank you.

 

[OldMacs4Me]

Are you suggesting that those of use who are using full frame dSLR/mirrorless cameras are overly demanding? I, too, am having trouble following much of this logic, but I admit my knowledge for sensor resolution isn't very deep.

Not in the least. I think of Full Frame is to Micro 4/3rds, is to 1", is to 1/2.3 as being the same as 4x5 to 120 to 35mm to 110. Each has their place, you can do a lot at the low end and a good deal more as you progress up the line.

FWIW I would suggest that anyone who is just starting out today should start no lower than 1".

When the skies clear a bit I will redo my small sensor pixel comparisons to better illustrate what I have been talking about.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I am so confused now

One can print (or display) very large images that have been taken with very small sensors. All depends on how good the sensor is handling noise and things like that. If you print a very large image it may not look perfect when viewed at close range. In this case, just move back a distance and look again. Getting all tie-up with sensor size and things like that reduces the amount of time one has to take photos.

Megapixels vs. Print Size - How Big Can You Print? - Digital Photography Live

digitalphotographylive.com

How about photos taken with a Mavica camera? No, this camera didn't have a 50MP sensor :

Sony Mavica CD1000 Digital Camera Review: CD1000 Sample Images

Detailed review of Sony Mavica CD1000, with actual sample images, and a detailed data sheet.

www.imaging-resource.com

 

[jwolf6589]

I am saying that if I put my small sensor camera on a tripod, shoot the same image at 3MP, 8MP, and 16MP. I can interpolate the smaller images up to 16MP then view all three images at 100% and there is virtually no difference between them. IOW those extra mega pixels did not really capture any extra detail.

To me it's irrelevant as to whether the camera captures at 3 and interpolates up, or whether it is impossible to make a lens that takes full advantage of the sensor. The useful size of images from 1/2.3 sensors is around 3MP maybe 4 MP.

Typically I shoot at 8MP but displaying at anything much above 50% is still very likely to disappoint. Images I choose to work with are cropped to a max of 1250 pixels horizontally or 850 pixels vertically. Numbers that work well with either of the monitors I will use to display them. Also a good size for posting as that will allow the website or browser to display full size without requiring scrolling.

What’s a sensor and why is the sensor in my Canon not good? My camera takes excellent shots.

 

[Apple fanboy]

What’s a sensor and why is the sensor in my Canon not good? My camera takes excellent shots.

In your opinion. The sensor is the digital part that replaces the film. It reacts to the light depending on how long (shutter speed), how wide (aperture) and sensitivity setting (ISO) you expose it to the light.