Thank you, Ewen, for this. Thought-provoking video. You make a great point that modest pixel cameras still have some life in them. I have a 12 MP Leica D-Lux 6 that has travelled the world with me and I love it. Great street camera. Your workflow has encouraged me to still take the camera along on the next trip to Bhutan and upscale in post when I want to make some prints. Good point too about print size. Like, who owns a mega-mansion! Most of us struggle to accommodate an A3 photo in a frame. So, it really does ask me about the manufacturers and why they constantly seem to want us to buy more pixel-rich sensors - albeit there is a market for these. Most of us can survive on 24MP! But to the Joe-public, do we need 60MP? Clearly, they need to sell the 'better' cameras to propel their businesses. 🤭
Hi I'm still beginner to photography world, I mean I'm not that expert/pro, I do it just for hobby, been doing this for 3 years, it's been so fun. I have a question, does sensor size matter for print quality? I mean if we compare between full frame, APSC, Micro 4/3 or even 1 inch sensor, can we really notice the difference between them (in term of print quality) If we print them on the same size (say 20" x 30"). Thanks!
That is an excellent question. Many caveats to any answer on this! Yes the size of sensor does have an effect, but many other things have an effect too. At a size of 8x10" you won't see the difference. I've had images from GX85 side by side with my old Canon 5D printed in National Geographic... You can't tell. At bigger sizes than a double page spread you might see the difference. Pixel density is the issue here. It's a similar issue comparing a 61mp sensor to a 12mp of the same size... you have smaller pixels and each one has to work harder for you. I held an exhibition in 2019 which included large prints taken on the LUMIX G9. They used the pixel shift mode to generate 80mp RAW files. Those prints at 30“ by 30" looked amazing. Better than the full frame 47mp images also in the same exhibition.
Grt info. So if I dont want to process the 12 mega pixel image to higher resolutions, what would be the max poster size I can comfortably print it to without seeing pixelation? 2 by 2 feet? 3 by 2 feet? Etc .. Pls guide if possible…
Depends on the audience as to what is acceptable, and the context of the viewing. I've had double-page spreads in magazines with 12MP files that look great. Magazine print is not so sharp so you can't tell from one page to another anyway :) 8x10" is certainly fine as a 12MP print for example. As you go above that, it depends what else is hanging on the wall next to it. 16x20" is going to reveal the quality of the scaling algorithm. It's better to scale it yourself than rely on the printer driver to scale for you.
@@EwenBell no matter what is lying besides it, I want to know if I take a picture which accidentally turns out good, and I want to scale it to 6 feet by 18 feet, how do I go about it? Even 24 mega pixel or 50 megapixel cameras can't handle that size. I am not sure what most professionals do and how are their workflows? Do they use upscaly web site or similar web sites to upscale their lower resolution to high pixel resolution according to the need? Please guide if you can. b/c I have zv-e1 right now and not sure if I should rather buy 50 mega pixel camera to begin with?
@@milanjani The entire point of this video is that even with a 12MP file you can upscale to something large. How the image is presented matters. This is art, not science :) You can upscale a 12MP photo to cover the side of a TRAIN and it still looks good because you see the full image from a distance. If you want a fine detail image at 18feet wide for a hotel lobby then pixels matter, but so does lens quality. That's why 100MP on Hasselblad is so impressive, because the lenses are up to the challenge too. I've exhibited 96MP images of a LUMIX G9 using the pixel-shift feature (takes 8 shots and combines for higher resolution) and it was amazing at large scale (33x33" prints). They looked even better than images off a Full-Frame 47MP sensor when presented side by side at the same scale. ZV-E1 was never designed for big prints, it's a great video camera that also happens to shoot low-res stills. If you goal is 18 feet wide then you want not only a lot of pixels, but great optics too. 50MP on a 35mm equivalent sensor is not as pretty as 50MP on a 6x4" sensor. And you have to factor in the print technology that is delivering 18 feet wide. Likely not going to be 300dpi output. It's an interesting challenge you have come up with, and would love to know how you go with your journey on it.
Hello sir.. I'm planning to buy a new camera and I think I'm going to a7iii or zv-e1.. My goal is to take a picture of my daughter while playing volleyball and then I want to make her a print like big print.. Like same size of the door house.. Do you think zv-e1 is enough or I'll go to 24mp? Thank you
Everyone likes to have more pixels. Never a bad thing. But I think get the camera you like better, the camera you enjoy the most. Big prints always come down to the quality of the printing anyway!
100% agree with printing in what ever format you choose, it can be 4x6 print even or 8x6 theres nothing like a hand held print 😊
Thank you, Ewen, for this. Thought-provoking video. You make a great point that modest pixel cameras still have some life in them. I have a 12 MP Leica D-Lux 6 that has travelled the world with me and I love it. Great street camera. Your workflow has encouraged me to still take the camera along on the next trip to Bhutan and upscale in post when I want to make some prints. Good point too about print size. Like, who owns a mega-mansion! Most of us struggle to accommodate an A3 photo in a frame. So, it really does ask me about the manufacturers and why they constantly seem to want us to buy more pixel-rich sensors - albeit there is a market for these. Most of us can survive on 24MP! But to the Joe-public, do we need 60MP? Clearly, they need to sell the 'better' cameras to propel their businesses. 🤭
Glad this has encouraged you to enjoy the camera you already have :)
This was really interesting, Ewen! I look forward to trying this with the D-Lux 8. I might have to try it with the X2D, too!
Problem with bigger prints and you have to buy a bigger house too :)
@@EwenBell LOL
Hi I'm still beginner to photography world, I mean I'm not that expert/pro, I do it just for hobby, been doing this for 3 years, it's been so fun.
I have a question, does sensor size matter for print quality? I mean if we compare between full frame, APSC, Micro 4/3 or even 1 inch sensor, can we really notice the difference between them (in term of print quality) If we print them on the same size (say 20" x 30").
Thanks!
That is an excellent question. Many caveats to any answer on this! Yes the size of sensor does have an effect, but many other things have an effect too. At a size of 8x10" you won't see the difference. I've had images from GX85 side by side with my old Canon 5D printed in National Geographic... You can't tell. At bigger sizes than a double page spread you might see the difference.
Pixel density is the issue here. It's a similar issue comparing a 61mp sensor to a 12mp of the same size... you have smaller pixels and each one has to work harder for you.
I held an exhibition in 2019 which included large prints taken on the LUMIX G9. They used the pixel shift mode to generate 80mp RAW files. Those prints at 30“ by 30" looked amazing. Better than the full frame 47mp images also in the same exhibition.
Grt info. So if I dont want to process the 12 mega pixel image to higher resolutions, what would be the max poster size I can comfortably print it to without seeing pixelation?
2 by 2 feet?
3 by 2 feet?
Etc ..
Pls guide if possible…
Depends on the audience as to what is acceptable, and the context of the viewing. I've had double-page spreads in magazines with 12MP files that look great. Magazine print is not so sharp so you can't tell from one page to another anyway :)
8x10" is certainly fine as a 12MP print for example. As you go above that, it depends what else is hanging on the wall next to it. 16x20" is going to reveal the quality of the scaling algorithm. It's better to scale it yourself than rely on the printer driver to scale for you.
@@EwenBell no matter what is lying besides it, I want to know if I take a picture which accidentally turns out good, and I want to scale it to 6 feet by 18 feet, how do I go about it? Even 24 mega pixel or 50 megapixel cameras can't handle that size. I am not sure what most professionals do and how are their workflows? Do they use upscaly web site or similar web sites to upscale their lower resolution to high pixel resolution according to the need? Please guide if you can. b/c I have zv-e1 right now and not sure if I should rather buy 50 mega pixel camera to begin with?
@@milanjani The entire point of this video is that even with a 12MP file you can upscale to something large. How the image is presented matters. This is art, not science :)
You can upscale a 12MP photo to cover the side of a TRAIN and it still looks good because you see the full image from a distance. If you want a fine detail image at 18feet wide for a hotel lobby then pixels matter, but so does lens quality. That's why 100MP on Hasselblad is so impressive, because the lenses are up to the challenge too. I've exhibited 96MP images of a LUMIX G9 using the pixel-shift feature (takes 8 shots and combines for higher resolution) and it was amazing at large scale (33x33" prints). They looked even better than images off a Full-Frame 47MP sensor when presented side by side at the same scale.
ZV-E1 was never designed for big prints, it's a great video camera that also happens to shoot low-res stills. If you goal is 18 feet wide then you want not only a lot of pixels, but great optics too. 50MP on a 35mm equivalent sensor is not as pretty as 50MP on a 6x4" sensor. And you have to factor in the print technology that is delivering 18 feet wide. Likely not going to be 300dpi output.
It's an interesting challenge you have come up with, and would love to know how you go with your journey on it.
Hello sir.. I'm planning to buy a new camera and I think I'm going to a7iii or zv-e1.. My goal is to take a picture of my daughter while playing volleyball and then I want to make her a print like big print.. Like same size of the door house.. Do you think zv-e1 is enough or I'll go to 24mp? Thank you
Everyone likes to have more pixels. Never a bad thing. But I think get the camera you like better, the camera you enjoy the most. Big prints always come down to the quality of the printing anyway!
Thank you..