 |
| The updated and revised logo The Wandering Lensman® logo. |
Do you sometimes wonder how many megapixels are enough and what differences you will actually see in your enlargements? How about how different camera systems capture and reproduce color? If pixel count and/or color science are of interest to you, you might want to watch these two YouTube videos.
The first video, from the April, 2025 edition of the Photography Online show, has a pretty interesting practical test of how different sensor resolutions actually are perceived when viewing images on a phone, iPad and large high resolution monitor. They then take it one step farther and have several individuals look at enlargements attached to a wall from a "proper viewing distance" as well as close-up to see if anyone can tell which enlargements were made from which sensors. It is not entirely scientific and I may have done it a bit differently, but a practical test from which we can garner some information of how many megapixels you really need. The results may surprise you.
Here is the link:
The second video, from Alex Armitage, has him testing five different cameras (medium format, full frame & APS-C) from four different manufacturers for how each captures identical images, detail observed, how the light & shadows are rendered and how the five cameras reproduces color. I may have conducted the testing a bit differently, but again, we can derive some interesting information from his tests. He tests two different Canon cameras, a Hasselblad, a Fujifilm and a Nikon. He’s been a long time Canon shooter so is there any implicit bias built into his assessments? Watch and see.
Here is the link to that video:
I believe that psychology plays too much of a role in our decision making when it comes to buying cameras and lenses. The truth is they are all good and most are better than we are!
DISCLAIMER: I have no affiliation with either of these YouTube channels, their owners, presenters or any products depicted within. I have no click through sites, affiliations, advertisements, get no commissions nor loaner gear and I certainly don't get any commissions (whether monetary or in-kind) from anyone. I just try to share interesting photographic content as well as my wisdom, successes, failures and experiences so you can enjoy your photography as much as I have enjoyed mine.
Thanks for looking. Enjoy!
Dennis A. Mook
All content on this blog is © 2013-2025 Dennis A. Mook. All Rights Reserved. Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution. Permission may be granted for commercial use. Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.
I think we all wind up developing a minds eye view of what we want to see in an image. My brain was wired over a few decades of looking at tens of thousands of Koda/Ekta/Fujichrome slides and making tens of thousands of black and white prints. No matter what camera I use, if I have a raw file I'm going to find a way to get to the place I want to be.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that some cameras will get you closer to that point right out of the gate, and some will make you work really hard to find your way. And it is also true that all cameras these days are just fine for whatever we need or want to do. Usually the most limiting factor behind any camera is the operator.
I could not be in more agreement with you Mike. When I hear talk about this camera’s color science or that camera’s skin tones or this format’s noise profile, yes, out of the box there may be differences. But raw files are of such high quality and so malleable these days, then add in AI based plug-in’s, that I believe a good photographer along with being a good editor can make just about any camera’s final images look like any others. Thank you for your thoughts, Mike. ~Dennis
DeleteI am in agreement with mikepeters comment. There is an ingrained color palette that has been influenced by so many years of looking at transparencies. I think we all have our idea of what colors and tones contribute to the beauty of the image.
ReplyDeleteHowever- I find that unless I opt for "Camera Matching", and select a Picture Control (Nikon), or whatever Olympus calls it, I am initially, at least, locked into the Adobe interpretation of color and exposure.
I remember your experience with the Adobe interpretation of the Fujifilm colors. Adobe converts Nikon and Olympus images of the same subject differently by about 250 degrees Kelvin. I assume that Adobe thinks Nikon images should be more blue or that Olympus images should be more warm. Fortunately, it is easy to readjust that inital setting.
Those colors will be changed in further post processing as I work with the image.
I try to start with the most neutral color setting on my camera and then reduce the contrast setting. I find it much easier in post, to saturate colors and to increase contrast. For me, it is better to have the most plain jane vanilla original to work with. I only shoot RAW. If I were to make jpg originals, the workflow would be different.
Thanks for another very interesting article. it would be even more interesting if all the images were of different subjects. It would be virtually impossible to tell which camera mode a particular photo. I’ve been tempted more often than not to buy a full frame Z7II and consider selling my OM 1 set, tempted, of course by the marketing of high resolution. But also, y OM system of cameras will only allow double exposures, and I really miss using the 10 exposure function on my previous Nikons for creating impressionist images in the field (can, but prefer not using the much slower process of photoshop) Other than that, the OM 1 is great!
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment. Thank you. ~Dennis
Delete