Where is Canon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

The funniest part was though that in blind tests, they couldn't tell units apart.

---

Quite so. I remember when wife #1 said my Wharfdale large 12" bass reflex corner speakers were 'too big' - so I traded them and the Garrard AP76 deck for a Dansette record player with the two lid-style speakers in that tasteful light blue faux cloth finish.

My sarcastic move failed. She swears to this day that there was no difference in sound.

Glurk :rolleyes:

@Colin

Sorry, I didn’t think anyone would take the phrase ‘a few extra pixels’ literally, obviously it would need to more than a ‘few’ to make any appreciable difference when set again the context of millions.

While I understand it’s unreasonable to expect to get 180PPI in a 70” print a 40MP sensor would give about 105PPI compared to the 80PPI I’m getting out of a 22MP, that’s a fair improvement in detail. Alternatively it would allow for a bit of flexibility in framing, as I mentioned the 22MP/80PPI/70” allows for no cropping at all so the framing has to be spot on. Which can be tricky when out in the field in environments that don’t give you time to compose yourself, never mind the shot.

I would to a large extent agree with the fact that clients are generally happy with whatever they get regarding detail in very large prints. However one of the differences for me between the purely commercial work I do and what one might call art, is that while 'good enough' is just that for the commercial work, the art work is not necessarily limited to good enough; it can, and maybe should, include elements that push the limits, whether that’s in terms of size, detail, style, interpretation, or whichever aspect it is that provides the basis for the image, be that figurative or entirely abstract.

While discussing the subject of viewing distances with a curator they offered the perspective from the fine art world that something shared by most of the great works of painted art throughout history is that they stand up to and even invite scrutiny from any and all viewing distances. For example while Van Gogh isn't a personal favourite of mine most people I know who appreciate his work will spend as much time discussing the smallest details of his brush work as they do the composition, colours and tones of the whole, they'll spend as much time with their noses 6" away from the canvas as they will stood 6' away.

Not to labour a point but the other issue regarding size and viewing distances is that how one experiences visual works of art can change completely at different viewing distances. Works as diverse as The Snail by Matisse and The Last Judgment by Bosch (both in the ~10’ wide scale) are radically different experiences when seen up close and filing ones field of vision, compared to seeing them from the other side of the gallery or as a poster sized print.

As I hope I’ve made clear there is a huge difference in approach between commercial photography and art but when we (photographers) are working as artists shouldn’t we be pushing limits and boundaries and encouraging those that consume our art to be doing the same?

All the best,
Ady

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Quite so. I remember when wife #1 said my Wharfdale large 12" bass reflex corner speakers were 'too big' - so I traded them and the Garrard AP76 deck for a Dansette record player with the two lid-style speakers in that tasteful light blue faux cloth finish.

My sarcastic move failed. She swears to this day that there was no difference in sound.

Glurk :rolleyes:

---

Back in the days when I was into audiophile level sound equipment I used to deal with salesman who used to ask me two questions when I bought some equipment:

1. I was to ask if I could hear the difference between the the pieces of equipment I was considering; and then

2. If the difference in sound was significant enough to be willing to pay the difference in price.


The upshot of it was that why pay more if you can't detect a difference in qualtiy and then secondly, there was an "emotional" value judgement as well. I used to take my wife on these sound equipment shopping expeditions, because I suggested that her ears were better than mine and I needed her to help judge. That meant I ended up getting what I wanted and no arguements, because she was part of the process.

I've applied a similar principle to many of my purchases ever since.

This thread is making me wonder what everyone considers an ideal camera for their work. Sounds like Colin, Adrian, and Manfred might all make good use of medium-format digital systems from 40-200MP, depending on print dimensions. Naturally, high-ISO performance (which I consider vastly more important than diffraction limits or resolution) is the drawback. The costs associated with these systems are coming down, so I don't think it'll be terribly long before they're viable competitors for high-end 35mm SLRs. Or maybe they already are.

Personally, a 10MP APS-H or 35mm DSLR with 10+ frames per second, weatherproofing, dual cards and solid performance above ISO2000 up to perhaps ISO5000 max would be perfect. Web and editorial publishing make life a lot easier, resolution-wise. :D That said, I've blown 12MP images up to 20x30in, and been reasonably happy with the results. But I's probably be displeased with a print that stretched resolution more than that (142dpi). Guess I'm picky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustBeltRaw

This thread is making me wonder what everyone considers an ideal camera for their work. Sounds like Colin, Adrian, and Manfred might all make good use of medium-format digital systems from 40-200MP, depending on print dimensions. Naturally, high-ISO performance (which I consider vastly more important than diffraction limits or resolution) is the drawback. The costs associated with these systems are coming down, so I don't think it'll be terribly long before they're viable competitors for high-end 35mm SLRs. Or maybe they already are.

Personally, a 10MP APS-H or 35mm DSLR with 10MP and 10+ frames per second with weatherproofing, dual cards and solid performance above ISO2000 up to perhaps ISO5000 max would be perfect. Web and editorial publishing make life a lot easier, resolution-wise. :D That said, I've blown 12MP images up to 20x30in, and been reasonably happy with the results. But I's probably be displeased with a print that stretched resolution more than that (142dpi). Guess I'm picky.

---

Printing isn't my game but it doesn't surprise me that around 150dpi is ok at all reasonable distances. It's within the glossy mag range.

The 40+ mp used in medium format is a useful pointer for Ady too - there comes a point when extra pixels are of no use without using a larger sensor. Lens quality can only reasonably go so far or prices go up like a rocket. :) Shouldn't mention it but even given a perfect lens diffraction really does place a limit on minimum pixel size. The spot size is set purely by the F ratio. Focal lengths for the same angle of view go up with sensor size. If the F ratio of the larger format lens is the same so are the spots but more of them can be "got in" as the image is bigger so the resolution is higher.

Taking it a little further for fun angular resolution is what really counts. Curiously this depends on the effective diameter of a lens (focal length / F ratio) so astronomers want bigger and bigger telescopes. The focal length then just sets the image scale - for the same angle of view the image gets bigger as the focal length goes up. Looked at that way different F ratios can have the same actual resolution providing the focal lengths differ to suit. The longer focal length lens will just produce a bigger image and bigger spots but the resolution would be the same.

For diffraction spots read circles of confusion - that's what camera lenses tend to produce. I have seen claims that some are "diffraction limited" but I have my doubts. As the number of pieces of glass in them go up and up that gets harder and harder just as it does as the sizes go up. This is one of the reasons microscope objectives are so small.

John
-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

For diffraction spots read circles of confusion - that's what camera lenses tend to produce.
John
-

---

I hate to be picky, John, but that sounds like a new definition of "circle of confusion"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

I hate to be picky, John, but that sounds like a new definition of "circle of confusion"?

---

One of my sometimes hobbies is telescope design - ones I just couldn't afford let alone make - optical people call the spots circles of confusion too - bit like photo people do really except it's the image of a point source the optics produce instead.

John
-

Seems to me that photographers talk about Circles of Confusion as a theoretical situation, except when using that dreadful B word, whereas it is a practical effect in your endeavours. Stars being a small round light source to be rendered as such and not as a CoC :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustBeltRaw

Sounds like Colin, Adrian, and Manfred might all make good use of medium-format digital systems from 40-200MP, depending on print dimensions.

---

Not really - can't say I've found a need for more than 10-12MP, and I have cameras with 18 & 21.

I've got 22 x 33 canvases on the wall shot with 8 & 10MP camera and they don't look any different from the ones shot with the 21MP camera.

For me AF performance is a biggie - firmware options - are nice, followed by a little bit of weather sealing, frame rate, dual media, dynamic range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajohnw

One of my sometimes hobbies is telescope design - ones I just couldn't afford let alone make - optical people call the spots circles of confusion too - bit like photo people do really except it's the image of a point source the optics produce instead.
-

---

Now I see the connection . . . the same name but the meaning is dependent on the context, so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I've got 22 x 33 canvases on the wall shot with 8 & 10MP camera and they don't look any different from the ones shot with the 21MP camera.

For me AF performance is a biggie - firmware options - are nice, followed by a little bit of weather sealing, frame rate, dual media, dynamic range.

---

I'm sort of surprised our wish lists are so similar, given that we work on rather different subject matter. The biggest print I've done so far was a 20x30 B&W off a 12MP Rebel XSi, and I wasn't totally happy with it. Sounds like I'm just picky.