OK, so what difference does 50MP make when it comes to print?

[keithcooper]

I've recently moved from a Canon 1Ds3 to a 5Ds as my main camera, I've been looking at how that 51MP affects my print workflow

Having made steps from 11MP to 21MP to 51MP over the years, I thought a simple print test would show the massive improvements since my 2002 vintage Canon 1Ds (effectively my first DSLR)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/canon_5ds-print-comparison.html

Sure, the differences are there, but the real surprise came when I asked some non photographers to compare the prints.

If ever there was a reminder that what we sometimes think of as important doesn't matter one jot to (most) people who actually buy stuff, this was it ;-)

Of course, I could take some solace by viewing it as a testament to my upsizing and printing abilities, but that's not fooling anyone for long!

 

[Sporgon]

Interesting article, and confirms what I have found in that excessive detail doesn't make a picture better, or more desirable to anyone but the photographer, but there is a threshold of required resolution for an appropriate viewing distance to make a picture work.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Great article, too bad that most people are hardware and IQ oriented while buyers of photographs are content oriented.

"Yes, it really is about the content of the picture to most people. This backs up my own (and gallery owners I've spoken to) experience that people who buy prints don't carry a magnifying glass with them - they look at what the picture is about and what it means to them.
It's a bit of a tough pill to swallow for some photographers, but most people couldn't spot the differences in print quality between good and superb if it fell on them. I charge a lot for our bespoke printing service because I can spot it ;-) "

 

[Vern]

very nice article indeed

Well, I don't sell my photos and long ago realized that my kit is rarely the quality determining step (except for having a really good telephoto for avian photography) - it's usually the dummy behind the lens that doesn't have time/patience to get the whole process optimized (especially post processing).

However, I quite enjoy new kit and that pleasure encourages me to try harder on the rest. No apologies for pixel peeking either - I know no one else cares that I can see the cricket on the blade of grass in a landscape, but I get a kick out of it every time and look forward to getting a 5dsR to do more of the same. Maybe when I retire from my real job, I'll even take a class on PS.

 

[massive]

really interesting article - my only complaint is you using "All good and well" as a phrase! Twice
that's like saying "the short and the long of it" or "you've got it face about arse"


Other than that, it's "All well and good"



I wonder if when asked to compare images, 'normal' people instinctively look for more fundamental differences? Walk into an electrical shop and hear people trying to compare an HD tv with a 2k or 4k screen.

 

[Hector1970]

An interesting review. I can remember when I first bought photography magazines 7 / 8 years ago I thought the photos were fab and a I very high quality. Images have improved but I'd say to Joe Public they wouldn't necessarily notice the difference.
There is a photographer near me who has a business selling black and white images mainly to tourists or to corporate companies or a birthday / leaving presents. He's a good photographer but he's got a wife who is a great business woman. She uses the cheapest paper possible and the cheapest ink. She is not too concerned about the photos fading in 5 years and most of the customers are either not in the country or only receipt the photos as a present.There are very few of the customers buying for themselves. They can always give a disgruntled customer another print as it doesn't cost them much.
The ordinary punter can't tell good paper from cheap paper or good ink from cheap ink.
They buy an image because they like it and don't know that it could have a higher resolution if the photographer had a 50 MP camera or a better looking image if the paper and ink were better.
I think its the photographers that need 50 MP. They want that number plate on the car far away in the scene to be readable. They want every face to be identifiable. They want to capture more than the eye can see.
It's an affliction as much as anything and it drives our GAS syndrome.
I'd love to try the 5DS and see if I can see a difference but its probably beyond my current capabilities to take a photograph better than my 5D Mark III

 

[Ozarker]

I always thought the high megapixel count was more geared toward larger output looking good. I'm not sure one could tell the difference on a 5x7 or 8x10 photo shot on a 22mp vs 50mp camera.

Then again, I don't know too much anyway. It's just what I've always assumed for why we need higher pixel counts.

The largest prints I ever had printed were 20"x30" and shot on my old Canon XSi. They looked fine to me. I thought they were fantastic.

Blow it up to 5'x10'? I'll bet the difference between an XSi and 5Ds would then be monumental.

5x7? Probably not noticeable at all.

 

[dak723]

I always thought the high megapixel count was more geared toward larger output looking good. I'm not sure one could tell the difference on a 5x7 or 8x10 photo shot on a 22mp vs 50mp camera.

Then again, I don't know too much anyway. It's just what I've always assumed for why we need higher pixel counts.

You've got it right, as far as my experience. I usually don't print larger than 8" x 10". While I don't have the new 50 MP camera, I have prints from my 6 MP 300D and my 20 MP 6D. They are indistinguishable.

 

[dolina]

keith, perhaps your experience is a reason why dedicated still cameras are in decline as a whole. Everyone but working photogs and gear heads are happy with what they have.

Or better put they're happy with what's out there so long as it is not thicker than a No. 2 pencil.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Many thanks for your article. Good reading

 

[tron]

Very interesting article. Thank you.

 

[Tinky]

I remember the first big jump from the 6mp cameras that mere mortal early adopters could just about afford to the next generation of 10 & 12mp cameras. I was excited to see the difference, fogetting in my haste that 6mph to 12mph linear doubling, and markedly different, when applied as a square to an area, the difference was quite as marked. Fold a sheet of a4 so it becomes a5' place it with an a4 sheet on an opposing orientation, there you go, quite impressively double, place both in the same orientation and the difference is less impressive.

I'm glad Canon are making these mobstor resolution cameras because the lessons learned trickle down.

I don't think I'll need more than around 6-8mp for my printing in reality, 12mp seems to be a nice number for a 3:2 chip that incorporates 4k 16:9, so would probably be happy with that. But if the lessons learned from the 50mp sensor can be used to give me a higher base iso and cleaner mid isos on the cameras I will use in the future then I'm all for it.