Interesting read if considering an upgrade

[smoke665]

@21limited up to this point I've done my best to ignore you and your childish rantings, but it's time for you to back off, there are numerous rules regarding proper etiquette in commenting, I suggest you refer to them here ThePhotoForum.com Guidelines and Rules To others please limit the comments to the topic.

 

[KJ_North]

Question? It might be the compression/resolution but there is a noticeable softness and significant artifacts around the ducks as in the first one here. Any insight as to why? At 1/2500 shutter I wouldn't think there would be motion blur even with the 200mm focal length indicated, or was this an extreme crop?
View attachment 287397

Extreme crop yes i posted a very small resolution file here, but even looking at my original RAW file it is soft. Softness I think was caused by the EOS R simply not having it in focus. It had a lot of trouble tracking something once it moved suddenly. Unless you were able to pan with the movement it would jump off focus and simply not regain it again before it was too late.

 

[smoke665]

Extreme crop yes i posted a very small resolution file here, but even looking at my original RAW file it is soft. Softness I think was caused by the EOS R simply not having it in focus. It had a lot of trouble tracking something once it moved suddenly. Unless you were able to pan with the movement it would jump off focus and simply not regain it again before it was too late.

Were you on a tripod or hand held, it could still be a little motion blur. When shooting longer focal length glass I've found that the greater the distance to the subject the greater the movement potential. If I'm focusing at something say 20ft away movement might be minimal, but shoot at a 100ft away and it could be inches. Also it depends on if the camera is using contrast detection or phase detection especially in low light.

 

[KJ_North]

Your software sucks. I got a much better rendition, using software designed specifically for enlargemnt. Good enlargiing software, doesn’t leave pixelated images, it smooths them out. I ran it, looked at my the xample and got a good looing image. The poster in this case requested no editing of his work so, I’m not going to post. You’ll have to take may word for it.

Enlarging without working from the original file is rarely going to produce the best results.

Were you on a tripod or hand held, it could still be a little motion blur. When shooting longer focal length glass I've found that the greater the distance to the subject the greater the movement potential. If I'm focusing at something say 20ft away movement might be minimal, but shoot at a 100ft away and it could be inches. Also it depends on if the camera is using contrast detection or phase detection especially in low light.

Was hand holding the RF200-800. Certainly could have been motion blur but I will say the stabilization on that lens is fantastic. The operator not so much LOL.

 

[DanOstergren]

The whole thing is amateurish drivel.

With respect to everything else you wrote, I live for this level of throwing shade (except when it's directed at me, because I'm a delicate flower and how absolute dare?).

 

[terri]

Let's dial back the tone a bit in this discussion; it's easy enough to get one's points across without raising the temperature.

Stay polite. Thanks.

 

[smoke665]

Was hand holding the RF200-800. Certainly could have been motion blur but I will say the stabilization on that lens is fantastic. The operator not so much LOL

My K1MII weighs in at just under 4lbs, add a longer lens and you're bumping 9lbs. Even with 5 stops stabilization I'm starting to have problems with hand holding, a monopod or tripod have become a necessity.

Going back to a earlier comment on cropping, my avatar is a really extreme crop from an earlier 16mp camera. This was from a laser light show projected on the carved face of Stone Mountain in Georgia, hand held, if you blow it up you can see the carving of the riders on the face, I was around 1000 yards away. As an avatar it works, but to print at an 8x10, it wouldn't. I have questions if a 100mp camera with an equal crop would actually be better. There is only so much area on a sensor to cover with pixels, so adding more decreases the size of the pixel which decreases the the ability to gather light. So would the trade off work in his low iight case?

 

[cgw]

I stayed a film dog way beyond when most bipedals switched to digital--blame it on reverse snobbery. Guess it's why I use my 16mp Fujis and Ricoh like film cameras simply because
moderate-extreme cropping didn't work--no loss. My tastes don't require tele lens tonnage. Decent primes, some fast, do me just fine.

 

[nerwin]

I used a D70S for a little while. Only 6.1mp but nobody really noticed. Megapixels isn't as important as you may think. Sure resolution matters to an extent but it's highly unlikely everyone needs 45mp or a 100mp unless you are doing specialized photography. Heck 24mp isn't even needed really, 16mp is more than plenty for general photography, 12mp is pretty normal so much so that most smartphones are 12mp. When majority of content is viewed on tiny screens nowadays, it's not that important honestly. Only us view our photos on 4k monitors haha.

It's sad, but true.

 

[KJ_North]

I used a D70S for a little while. Only 6.1mp but nobody really noticed. Megapixels isn't as important as you may think. Sure resolution matters to an extent but it's highly unlikely everyone needs 45mp or a 100mp unless you are doing specialized photography. Heck 24mp isn't even needed really, 16mp is more than plenty for general photography, 12mp is pretty normal so much so that most smartphones are 12mp. When majority of content is viewed on tiny screens nowadays, it's not that important honestly. Only us view our photos on 4k monitors haha.

It's sad, but true.

Well again its all in what you want/need. I print my photos at 13"x19" and if heavily cropping (for example birds) I will take all the MP I can get.

 

[smoke665]

Well again its all in what you want/need. I print my photos at 13"x19" and if heavily cropping (for example birds) I will take all the MP I can get.

Not knocking your preferences at all just trying to understand as the Megastorm debate has interested me for awhile. There's a lot of anecdotal information out there, but not much quantitative or real life.

As a 13x19 wall hanger would likely be viewed from a least 6' , the recommended dpi would be less than 150. At 150 dpi that would require a minimum file of 10.6 mb. The Canon EOS R you used for your example is 30.3 mb so you're limited to roughly a 1/3 of your file on a crop. A 200-800 lens has some reach to it, so do you find yourself needing more than 1/3 crop, with that combination? I know my K1MIi has a file size of 36.4 mp, admittedly there have been a few times when I wished for a higher pixel count, but usually it was because I didn't have a longer lens with me.

 

[smoke665]

Another thing I've found somewhat confusing in researching the Megastorm debate is the naysayers argument that more pixels results in less dynamic range. In theory that should be correct as there's only so much space on a sensor, add more pixels and the individual size decreases, smaller pixels mean less light gathering ability. However Sony blows that theory with the 61mp A7RIV with its 15 stops DR, a full stop better than my K1MII which also use a Sony sensor.

 

[21limited]

Another thing I've found somewhat confusing in researching the Megastorm debate is the naysayers argument that more pixels results in less dynamic range. In theory that should be correct as there's only so much space on a sensor, add more pixels and the individual size decreases, smaller pixels mean less light gathering ability. However Sony blows that theory with the 61mp A7RIV with its 15 stops DR, a full stop better than my K1MII which also use a Sony sensor.

K-1 DR from DxO. 14.6
SOny A7R DR, 14.8

DXOMARK

www.dxomark.com

I suspect Sony always keeps their best and newest for their own cameras.
The only possibility here, is that they’ve found a more sensitive chemical composition for their newest sensors. Based on pixle size the K-1 should be better. But just as solar panels have become more efficient over the years, I would expect that pixels would have become more sensitive as well.

My commnet here would be, I have k-1, and I don’t ever use 36 MP, and .2 difference over 15 stops is negligible. The point being, I wouldn’t get better images using the Sony. The one attracion might be crop mode, where the Sony sensor would put more pixels on my subject than my 24 MP K-3 and have a stop more DR. That’s not worth paying for me. DR is another one of those metrics that apply in very few images. I’m sure there is a few people who might go for that. If you are shooting sunsets DR can bring useful, but even there, I’ve see some great sunsets taken with lower DR cameras, even phones that come in at around 10 stops DR.

 

[greybeard]

Just the 850 is probably overkill. That’s a fantastic camera, IMHO probably the best all-purpose camera of all time, although I don’t know anyting about mirrorless. For years it was the top of my “If you’re only going to buy one camera, and can afford the lenses you need” list.

(imho) the D850 is the gold standard for dSLRs. With that said, mirrorless cameras can match its' IQ performance for stills and blow it away with FPS and video. I can deduce this from the 2 entry level mirrorless cameras I have. My point is that when I go back and look at my shots taken with a d5100 and d7000, the cameras I have today are only marginally better. In fact, I had to work a lot harder with those cameras and still got the shots I wanted.

 

[smoke665]

I suspect Sony always keeps their best and newest for their own cameras.
The only possibility here, is that they’ve found a more sensitive chemical composition for their newest sensors. Based on pixle size the K-1 should be better. But just as solar panels have become more efficient over the years, I would expect that pixels would have become more sensitive as well.

I suspect you're right. I'm assuming that even though they manufacture sensors for others, they're building to that companies specs. To give away their proprietary advantage would be foolish. As to the Pentax, it's close to the Sony, so close that I wouldn't consider swapping everything (body & glass), unless I was really in need of it from a professional standpoint.

My point is that when I go back and look at my shots taken with a d5100 and d7000, the cameras I have today are only marginally better.

This^^^^^ IMO it seems to be dependent on the end requirements of the image.