A challenge, and how much is 'enough'.

Very interesting privatebydesign, thanks for sharing! Admit though that that gear is hardly rudimentary... You're trying to convince people that your kit is good enough compared to newer, better stuff, and I heartily agree. However, coming from a 60d and a 70-200, your kit is an inaccessible dream for me. ;) no, I'm not a pro- I'm not even very good.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
I was about to reply when I saw your reveal of the camera. I've taken similar images with point and Shoot cameras, a G15, my SX50HS, or my G1X MK II would take similar images that could be printed at 16 X 24 and most people would think they were wonderful.

Since you mentioned the low light, a larger sensor would do better.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 3, 2014
305
10
privatebydesign said:
The interesting bit? It is a 75% crop, or slightly over 5MP from a 21MP capture, then re-sampled to 240ppi at 16"x24"

Out of curiosity, of how much significance is the crop to this demonstration, if the intent is to show the (lack of) importance of pixel density? You mostly (entirely?) cropped horizontally, and then upsampled vertically (obviously that's not exactly true but I think it gets my meaning across), whereas typically when people talk about heavy cropping it is to take something small relative to both dimensions of the frame.

You could have just as easily left it uncropped and made it 36"x24", which would have preserved the fantastic original comp and still made the point about sampling (albeit perhaps less extreme than "I took 5MP and made it very large").

In any case, cool discussion. Thanks for sharing.
 
Upvote 0
Ryananthony said:
unfocused said:
I am far more interested in where and how people manage to find owls willing to pose. We have at least one barred owl in the neighborhood, but only know that from she/he asking who is cooking for you, plus the very rare sighting of a blur of wings and feathers in the dark.

Where do people live that they manage to find these birds perching away on a branch in any kind of light?


For myself, about 35 minutes outside of Vancouver, BC. I live about an hour away from a popular local spot. I don't alway get lucky, but I go out every other weekend. Locals are a lot more lucky. I would say I catch an Owl maybe 10 percent of the time. Eagles and Osprey just shy of 100 percent of the time.

----

I am assuming based upon the trees you're somewhere
in Coquitlam or Maple Ridge which has LOTS of owls,
eagles, cougars, black bears, lynx, cranes, etc.
With the mountains so close by you can find
almost any type of creature if you're willing
to wake up at 5:00 am for a sit-down session
in a near swamp (i.e. by Pitt Lake in British Columbia)

In terms of printability, I have taken a 6 megapixel
aerial shot of a cruise ship (i.e. Star Princess using
Canon Powershot G3) and printed it at 24 x 16 with
only minor noise. The KEY ISSUE if you shoot JPEG
is find some decent DE-MACROBLOCKING software
plugins and then add some contrast (10%) and
FINALLY add just a 1.5 pixel wide UnSharp Mask.

From normal 30 inch or more viewing distances,
it really won't look that bad even at 6 megapixels
for the original shot!

It's CONTENT not megapixels in my opinion,
I've seen INCREDIBLE WILDLIFE SHOTS done
on a Sony Xperia Cell Phone (20 megapixel)
and printed UTTERLY SHARP at 24 x 16.

The content (a shot of a bald eagle with
spread out wings on top of a telephone pole)
was so good that seeing that photo at 24x16
made my mind forget any TECHNICAL aspects
of the image!

So look for good light, great content and then
focus sharp and crop hard to get your perfect
shots for large format printing!
 
Upvote 0

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,719
1,537
Yorkshire, England
privatebydesign said:
1Ds MkIII, 300mm f2.8IS MkI, 400iso, f2.8, 1/30 (handheld).

The interesting bit? It is a 75% crop, or slightly over 5MP from a 21MP capture, then re-sampled to 240ppi at 16"x24" (well done Sporgon, I expect no less from you).

Well I had a head start because I know the gear you favour. The subject separation was a bit of a give away on the lens / format combo as you had said 50'.

But it does raise some interesting points, one of which is that the software is narrowing the gap between old and new gear. I'm in limbo on where to move with FF now. I've sold my 6D because I prefer the 5DII, and also the point I just made: the latest software has reduced the gap between the 6D and 5DII at moderately high ISO. I've got the full M3 system, and quite honestly I'm of the opinion that if you want to beat this for general "IQ" you have to move to the latest tech FF cameras, so the 1DXII, 5Ds, A7r2 etc. However non of these are what I want so I'll have to see what happens next.

I know the M3 is later generation than the 5DII, but as the 5DII, 5DIII and 6D are all identical at 100 ISO (not including trying to correct for absurd under exposure) I'm going to be looking at how cropped FF of 8 mp stands up to 24 mp ape-c. There should be no contest but you have shown that in a practical large print size the difference is not as obvious as you might think. Also there is the issue of making every pixel count on the M3 which given its pixel density is not always easy. Then of course as you print larger there is the issue of viewing distance and dpi. On a print of say 36" across the image can appear to have very high resolution if printed well at 80 dpi.

I suppose a camera such as the 5Ds could be regarded as two or even three cameras in one given how you can crop and maintain pixels, but as Eldar said, so far, to me, the most impressive thing about the output of these cameras is being able to zoom in and in for amazing size and detail - none of which gives a practical advantage to even a quite large print.

But then we are talking about printing, and a picture should be tangible IMO, but I think many only view electronically and make all their judgements based on this method of display.
 
Upvote 0
chauncey said:
Your up-sizing explains my dissatisfaction with the IQ...years ago one of my teachers said his only
print viewing distance was nose length, to which I subscribe.

That's great from a purely academic vantage point and fine for the fine arts, but irrelevant for most clients and even more so for actually viewing the overall image to appreciate its beauty. What's important just depends on the motive behind the image.
 
Upvote 0

Valvebounce

CR Pro
Apr 3, 2013
4,555
450
57
Isle of Wight
Hi cellomaster.
I did the buying a 5D thing, it's likely the first thing you will do after that is the buying a 24-105 thing to have a standard lens for it, this will likely be slightly dearer than the 5D! ;D I tried to resist but a nifty fifty felt rather limiting for me. ::)
What I will say is the 5D is still IMHO a very capable camera despite the rumours of its 3rd successor being near to launch.

Cheers, Graham.

cellomaster27 said:
I am only incredibly jealous of you guys who have money to buy and discuss these cameras. I try to make do with what I have. Though my picture quality sucks and no one will probably buy my work, I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have. Maybe I'll grab myself a 5D sometime. :)
 
Upvote 0
Oct 26, 2013
1,140
426
cellomaster27 said:
I am only incredibly jealous of you guys who have money to buy and discuss these cameras. I try to make do with what I have. Though my picture quality sucks and no one will probably buy my work, I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have. Maybe I'll grab myself a 5D sometime. :)

Keep in mind that many folks here are gear heads and pixel peepers. If you are not one, then chances are your gear is fine. I had the original digital rebel (6 MP) for 9 years. It is low MP, but not so low that you can't get a nice 8 x 10 or 8 x 12 print. When I upgraded to a 6D a couple years ago, I thought that it might make all my older prints obsolete - since certainly there would be a big difference between my older prints and the new ones that I would be printing from shots taken with my 6D.

In fact, the 8 x 10 and 8 x 12 prints I have from my new 20 MP FF 6D are indistinguishable from those shot with the 300D. And many of the older lenses (and the inexpensive APS-C lenses) are very good optically. The main difference between them and the expensive L lenses is build quality and (often) the fast apertures. I just bought an old 28-105MM f/3.5-4.5 lens for $60 on Ebay and find very little difference between that and my 24-105 f/4 L. I used to have an old 28-70mm non-L lens that can be had on Ebay for less than $100 that was just as sharp as the 24-105mm L. Again, if you're not a pixel peeper or print very large, chances are you don't need the expensive stuff!

And, oh, by the way, I sold quite a few of those prints taken with the old 300D and the kit lens.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
cellomaster27 said:
...I decided that it's about what I enjoy doing with what I have.

That's really what it is all about and you have a very fine perspective on the hobby. :)

Nobody is going to buy my photos, or the photos of most of us here either. That's the truth of it all.

Like any other hobby, it all boils down to having fun.

At a factory I used to work at all the guys interested in motorcycles were buying Harley-Davidsons. One of the guys bought a Vulcan. The Harley riders teased the crap out of him when he rode up on that dirty used Vulcan. "When are you going to get a real bike?"

Rock, as he was called, replied wisely, "I have just as much fun on my Vulcan as y'all have on your Harleys and still have about $15,000 left in my pocket." Nobody teased him again and he really did have as much fun as they did. He certainly broke down less. :)

This is the only hobby I have. I've spent myself out of any other hobby. Sometimes thinking about that is no fun at all. :(

Have fun my friend. :) :) :)
 
Upvote 0

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,980
2,602
Alberta, Canada
Seems to me the thread started with how much is enough, implying that we were talking primarily Megapixels. When the talk shifted to camera features in general that adds a different dimension. As someone else commented such things as better/faster AF are game changers if that is something you need. IQ-wise I love my 6D but for BIF the 1D4 was so much better.

I'm here on CR and hardly a gear-head. I'm a nature lover but still enjoy the tech talk as much as I can decipher the topics. CR has threads with very little focus on pixel peeping and gear too. A bit of everything - and I like it.

Jack
 
Upvote 0

Valvebounce

CR Pro
Apr 3, 2013
4,555
450
57
Isle of Wight
Hi Dak.
You raise some very interesting points and there is some truth there, but with all due respect, I came here thinking my photos were good, following some criticism and advice, I now take better pictures, every once in a while I will get a great shot.
I'm grateful to the people of this forum for being kind enough to forgo the nice praise and to be critical of my work to help me, but it usually requires asking for criticism before people will give it, criticism is also only helpful when accompanied by advice which is usually freely given here.
Some improvements came from gear, most from improved technique due to the advice.
I didn't throw away all my early shots because they are no good, they are great reminders of family etc, just that my new shots are better.
I don't see a problem with learning, yes I had to learn to filter the information here too, but this is one of the more friendly forums I have been on.

Cheers, Graham.

dak723 said:
With all due respect, it is forums like this one that can - and often do - kill the fun. There should be a warning to all newcomers when they fist sign in - beware, pixel peepers and gear heads are here in abundance.

Lots of snip 8<

And in terms of selling - I have sold some photos at local art fairs. Taken with my 6 MP Rebel and my kit lens and even some with the old 75-300mm zoom (non-L) that is normally described on forums like this one as "trash". >GASP< Funny how well they work and how good prints can look when you aren't pixel peeping!
 
Upvote 0
chauncey said:
Photography is a hobby to me, but, that does not mean that I'm satisfied with mediocre images.
Perfectionism/anal retentive is ingrained into my psyche, if it fails at 100%...toss it.

You can do what you want, we all do, but I hope you understand why that attitude is not shared by many others - many great images look ropey at 100%, but they are never viewed that way in practice. Understanding how close the scrutiny an image can bear is an important part of *practical* photography. And the subject matter may demand an image be used even when it fails on purely technical aspects.

(As an aside, the increasing disparity between the resolution of sensors and display devices means it's less and less important what an image looks like viewed 1:1).
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
So I've been reading the 1DX MkII vs 5DSR comments, the gorilla 1DX vs anything comments and I just wondered if, as discerning image makers and gear hounds, any of us have a clue on how much is enough.

I took this image yesterday evening, it was very dim and there is little contrast, much more of a challenge than the high contrast images we often see in 'tests'. For a pointer to the resolution capability that isn't obvious due to the lack of contrast in the scene, the feint white line below the branch is a cobweb.

So my challenge, can anybody guess the camera, lens and settings that make this very presentable 16"x24" print?

First image is the full edited image, second image is a screen grab of the image at 16" x 24" print size if you click on each to view full size you will be seeing the print as you would a 16"x24" print, don't look at the inline forum image it will be wrong.

Go on, have a guess.

I took 30 seconds to correct your color. As for "when is enough enough"; You may want to invest in a new monitor if the color appeared to be correct on yours.

(Image attachment specified)
 

Attachments

  • Fixed.jpg
    Fixed.jpg
    91 KB · Views: 340
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Andyx01 said:
I took 30 seconds to correct your color. As for "when is enough enough"; You may want to invest in a new monitor if the color appeared to be correct on yours.

(Image attachment specified)

Andy,

Colour is entirely subjective and you weren't there, you can't possibly know what was "correct". Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds! I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.

As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.

But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.

When I asked "when is enough enough" I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
Also if it takes you 30 seconds to 'correct' the WB what are you doing for the other 29 seconds!

Right... Because your so amazing it only takes you 1 second.

P.S. I said color, not WB. Color correction involves more than temperature alone.

privatebydesign said:
I have found heavily overcast evening light in Florida to be much bluer than your edit, if I was intending to actually do anything with the file I wouldn't change the temp much, if any, but would give it some positive tint.

If you like poor color reproduction for an artsy look; whatever floats your boat man. You could always invert the colors and apply a psychedelic glow to it too.

privatebydesign said:
As for my monitor, it is calibrated and works very well when I use proof mode in PS to print.

Neat. You may find this site interesting: http://www.color-blindness.com/color-blindness-tests/

privatebydesign said:
But your input is just a diversion, the WB is easily adjusted to whatever you want in any model camera with no IQ impact if you shoot RAW, ergo it doesn't change the premise of my point in the slightest.

There you go on WB again. The color including the WB was corrected in the edit. White balance alone does not correct color. Apologies' if you find the corrections offensive.

To answer your question, when is enough enough; You tell me, is 10fps enough? is 14? How about 60, or 120? Really depends on your needs. Obviously your needs aren't very high, that doesn't mean others aren't.

privatebydesign said:
When I asked "when is enough enough" I was asking a broad question to see what people said, and there has been a healthy input, I wasn't specific about MP I was thinking of a more gear and output orientated question. The truth is we can get outstanding results that vastly outstrip virtually all practical output requirements with comparatively modest gear. A 1Ds MkIII can be had for around $1,000-1,500, a 300 f4L for $500-750.

Well, now you know what I said... Some people are okay with your setup, color accuracy, and quality requirements. Others have higher standards than you.
 
Upvote 0