New 5Ds and 5Ds R

Most on here don't print so MP's mean nothing

We actually agree on something!!!!!!!!! :)

I do print big, and 36mp is plenty. I get beautiful 20x30s if necessary. I think there is a point at which you start hitting diminishing returns, probably 35-40mp. I had to juice up my computer to be able to deal with the files, and hard drive space, holy crap!
 
It depends on the medium and the clients. I print on 20x30 canvases regularly with 8mp files.
 
Last edited:
........ Many who suffer from the "LOOK AT ME" syndrome have small.........tools :)
I've "usually" found it's the guys who TALK about guys having small tools are the ones who are actually lacking. Just sayin'. :boogie:
 
........ Many who suffer from the "LOOK AT ME" syndrome have small.........tools :)
I've "usually" found it's the guys who TALK about guys having small tools are the ones who are actually lacking. Just sayin'. :boogie:
Shhhhh, dont tell, lets just keep this a secret ok :048:
 
Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.

Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.
 
Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.

Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.


i dunno when these oled 4k display model tvs look better than my Panasonic plasma...
 
Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.

Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.
Only you would know that [emoji3]
 
Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.

So I take it you're still using glass plates then for your photography?

Yes if you use a tool badly you'll get bad results, that's not really any kind of argument for not improving the tool itself though. Especially since not everyone will use the tool badly (to say so almost sounds like you consider the works of all members of the site inferior/sub-par/not worth it).
 
Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.

Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.
Funny, this same argument went around when the 5DII was released. It was "more than anyone needed". It was trotted out again with the D800, yet that camera seems to sell pretty well. . . . . . .
 
Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.

So I take it you're still using glass plates then for your photography?

Yes if you use a tool badly you'll get bad results, that's not really any kind of argument for not improving the tool itself though. Especially since not everyone will use the tool badly (to say so almost sounds like you consider the works of all members of the site inferior/sub-par/not worth it).

An increase in MP isn't an improvement in the same vein as collodion vs silver halide film, so that's not really an applicable comparison

I'm also not indirectly insulting the members here is, since my statements literally mean "If you take a bad image, it's still going to be bad at any print size"

Nowhere did I assert that everyone who uses high MP cameras takes crappy photos.
 
Last edited:
Well if you don't like it, vote with your wallet and don't buy it.

Seems easy enough.
 
Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of the 4K television debate. It can be assumed that 4K gives more clarity than 1080p, but realistically speaking, you'll only notice a difference at certain distances.

Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things, but an improvement to your photography is not one of them. A 50 MP image of crap is still going to look like crap no matter what size you print it at.
Funny, this same argument went around when the 5DII was released. It was "more than anyone needed". It was trotted out again with the D800, yet that camera seems to sell pretty well. . . . . . .
Ultra resolutions are great for a variety of things
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top