Look and impact of a picture!
Jerome and Michael,
Of course, it's not just the MP count, but also the recipe that delivers the RAW file and the flavors that the brand decorates its output files. This results in different impacts for the same resolution. According to one's esthetic preferences then, a camera with a lesser MP count can contend, well above its prescribed MP "fighting weight" class!
The announcement of another 100 MP camera in the new Hasselblad offering is welcome news to me. I do like the idea of more resolution when folk poke their noses, closely inspecting my prints in an exhibition from just 15-25 cm. I have even seen folk close enough for their breath to condense of the glass! Anyway, I do not like my prints to seem to break down at close inspection. Still I am able to make 0.5 meter sized prints that pass muster with my Canon 6D and easily deliver beautiful 1.5 meter prints with my A7R I.
Just the same, I would like to not have to work so hard, as I do, at the
limits of the cameras capability. So I'd love to have much more resolution......... and. out of the camera, better dynamic range. Then I will be able to open shadows without having to now remove the resultant noise. Both the A7R and Nikon 810 would do that at about $3,000. However, the hurdles in selling my prints do not come from any lack of impressiveness. So as much as I would like a better camera, it won't necessarily help me sell my pictures! If the picture looks
obviously rendered better by a more refined sensor and camera, I would go for it. In fact, I am thinking of returning to film. I would shoot with digital and then when I have the form I like, repeat it immediately with a few shots of 8x10 film. That I must try.
Back to the nature of the output of the digital camera: what's so interesting and challenging to me are the differences in processing of the data by the camera, delivered as the "RAW" image. My belief was that if I was a super-competent to the nth, I should get the same "look" and impact from
any camera with a similar sensor. Well, my findings, using Adobe Camera Raw and Capture One, shows more impact from my Sony A7R at 30 something MP than an 80MP Phase One!....... (although the latter has definitely more resolution of hair.)
I have gotten so far behind. I have not yet tested the 50MP 5DS with is now just over $2,000. Perhaps that's no big loss. From a DPreview lab test, it appears that the 50MP badge of the 5DS does not deliver the relatively noise-free images comparable to its Nikon 810 and Sony A7 Mark II 50 MP peers, as it has much more read noise. The
differences are obvious.
I know the Pentax 645D and 50 MP 645Z from Nicolas Claris' work. No complaints, AFAIK about noise. So far, I have not come across any comparison of the read noise in the shadows of the MF high resolution cameras and that is important. For sure, they do show exceptional rendering and presence. These latter terms are so indefinite and unscientific. Together with processing difference, choosing a camera above the level of the A7R I, is ,to me at least, a daunting challenge.
Not to be overlooked by our interest in more MP for detail, are sophisticated built-in camera options for customizing JPEGs out of the camera. With current presets, post-processing might not even be needed. Are we just stubbornly working hard ourselves with our RAW files? With these new cameras, are there many pro photographers delivering their images as JPEGS right out of their modern high resolution MF cameras, I wonder? I know several wedding photographers who do just that with their 35mm gear.
Asher