High res (Pixel Peeping)

S

Skypilot

Messages
371
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm trying to decide whether to go for a high res camera like the Z7 or D850 or lower res like the Z6 or D750.
I like landscapes which is leading me to the Z7/D850
But, I keep coming up against the derogatory views that higher res is just for pixel peepers and not necessary.

However, I don't really print much stuff, BUT......
I do like to take "busy" paneranic type shots like crowds, cityscapes etc and enjoy zooming in on these to look at different subjects or areas of the shot.

Clearly a higher res camera is going to show more detail when zoomed in but how much?

Would 48mp show literally twice the detail of a 24mp shot when zoomed in?
 
I am no expert in these matters but I can tell you that my D750 has loads of detail when looking at images at 100%.

Also the files are easily managed although I do have a pretty powerful computer, whereas a 40 meg file would need a lot of horsepower for processing.
 
I find 24 Mpx is a fair balance for just about any purpose I might have for my photos - I have not felt any great need to move up from my A7II to one of the R models

Bear in mind that you need to be on top your technique the more resolution you have, and your lenses need to be commensurately better to take advantage of it, plus you will be hitting diffraction limits sooner
 
Musicman said:
I find 24 Mpx is a fair balance for just about any purpose I might have for my photos - I have not felt any great need to move up from my A7II to one of the R models

Bear in mind that you need to be on top your technique the more resolution you have, and your lenses need to be commensurately better to take advantage of it, plus you will be hitting diffraction limits sooner
Click to expand...
Actually diffraction limits are the same. With higher MP count everything is more obvious that's all. So if you downsize a higher Res image to 24mp and compare with another shot at the same resolution you won't notice any more or less diffraction.
 
nandbytes said:
Actually diffraction limits are the same. With higher MP count everything is more obvious that's all. So if you downsize a higher Res image to 24mp and compare with another shot at the same resolution you won't notice any more or less diffraction.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, if you normalise everything at the same output resolution, it makes no difference

But if the whole point is to be able to pixel peep, then it is a consideration :)
 
Above 24MP you're much more limited by the lenses you use, so unless your lenses outperform your sensor (not that common though some do, even with 24MP) then it's not much of an advantage. Ignore the comments of the ignorant about high res & peeping - it does have its place as a legitimate aid to photography.

However if you like highly detailed landscapes etc, consider taking multiple images & stitching them for a much higher resolution.
 
Last edited:
Above 24 MP resolution only really makes a difference at very large prints, or if you need to crop a lot. If you shoot panoramas anyway (I.e. Stitch lots of 24 MP images together) then the lower res camera will be more than enough!
 
Resolution of the sensor is not typically the limiting factor... lens/technique/etc is. That said, there is almost always some *small* gain from a higher resolution sensor.
 
I would agree with most of the people here that 24 MP is quite big enough for most things....My choice was the Z6 over the Z7. I preferred better high ISO than more MP.
 
I would agree for most people 24mpx is more than enough, certainly hasn't done me any harm for 4yrs, but obviously there are those who do want or need more than that.
 
I often want to crop tightly so the more pixells the better. In my experience the use of the term "pixell peeping" is just another attempt at one upmanship and the person using it is generally best ignored.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I often want to crop tightly so the more pixells the better. In my experience the use of the term "pixell peeping" is just another attempt at one upmanship and the person using it is generally best ignored.
Click to expand...

Maybe instead of using "pixel peeping" you'd be happy with something like "looking too closely."?

I'm a bit of a believer in starting at the end result I want and working back from that to determine what kit and settings to use and in that sense looking closely (or pixel peeping...) is maybe really only a sensible thing to do if I'm going to crop heavily or print very large and look very closely. I do think that there's a tendency to look too closely if all we need is a picture to look at on a tablet or phone or print relatively big/small depending upon how you see it (is A4 big or small?)

It's a long time since I did an A3 print but looking at the ones I have I'm happy with the 35mm film ones and those taken with my Canon 20D and 5D, they're full or fullish pictures though rather than heavy crops. I'm also happy with the 100% crops I've printed to fill an A4 from 16mp MFT and 24mp FF. I've no dream of having my pictures printed 2m wide and viewed closely on a gallery wall and find 16/20mp from MFT and 24mp from FF enough even when cropping to 100%. YMMV. I often take pictures intending to crop them later and I'm often or maybe even usually happy with the results.

These days most of my pictures are viewed on electronic devices. Either my pc or other peoples tablets or phones. Lots of my pictures end up being reduced to 2k pixels wide and saved at quality 10 or less and are zapped off to family and friends to be viewed on tablets and phones. A few pictures end up being printed by me and some that have been zapped off electronically end up being printed, framed and put on walls which is very nice. All of my kit seems up to the quality standards I require and I'm sure no one else gives it a seconds thought :D

These days it's relatively easy to find example shots to process and look at at home so maybe the op can give that a go? If the op can't find any maybe someone here could provide some examples?
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Maybe instead of using "pixel peeping" you'd be happy with something like "looking too closely."?
Click to expand...
That would certainly seem more polite to me, given the way the other term is often meant.
 
An interesting conversation. I (sometimes) shoot with a Canon 5DSR, which at 50.6MP is about as hi res as it gets. The images I take are equine portraits and occasional other things, and customers have asked me to print them up to 30x20 and bigger (which is often bigger than life size for some of my subjects .... don't ask me why: that's a whole other thread) but these are large prints and canvases, not images to be viewed electronically. The detail rendition from this camera is exceptional as would be expected. I'd say, if you're going to print your landscapes to large sizes, or zoom in as you describe, then you will notice a difference. I certainly see a difference between the 5DSR and my 5DIII (also a brilliant camera) in the shots I use it for. If not, then go for something smaller, as the hi res sensor does come with some disadvantages.

Remember you'll need a lot of computing power for the larger file sizes.
 
having traded my d750 in for the d850 just over a year ago the difference in detail
will blow you away
 
I agree that high res has its place, especially for large prints. I’ve recently upgraded medium format to GFX 50mpix and the results are stunning.
 
nandbytes said:
Yep those who think 24mp or there abouts is fine are those who have never used high res body :D
Click to expand...

I know your post is a bit tongue in cheek and since I have a 36mp camera it would be a bit hypercritical to disagree but I do wonder how many people actually make any use of that sort of resolution. For one, very few lenses can resolve that level of detail, particularly zooms. So in many scenarios a 24mp body with a decent prime on will be out-resolving a 36mp+ camera with an inferior zoom. When I say inferior, even my Nikon 24-70 2.8 (which although a few year's old would be considered a decent lens I would think) is massively shown up by Sigma Art primes and the like. The difference there is way, way bigger than I see between 24mp and 36mp cameras with similar lenses. Then, there are other factors, mainly technique, or stability of tripod etc. and even shutter vibration which means that the only times when you really get all that detail is when you nail everything.

And the other factor is real world printing and viewing, I have two prints in my house, both about A1 size, one shot on a 36mp D800 and one on a 12mp D300 and you really cannot pick which one is which without sticking your nose against them and even then it's not that obvious. I remember not that long ago when nikon's flagship camera was the D3x. They were considered ultra specialised for pros who needed massive prints only and nobody bothered buying them. Now, that's considered low res but I don't think printing habits have changed much.

To put a more positive spin on things though, high res, when you nail it is very satisfying to zoom in on all that detail however useless that might be. It can also open up some very useful cropping options.
 
I guess it's all relative to how much you are willing to spend and what you are looking for at the end of the day. I moved from the D500 to the D750 and have been happy with the improvement. I was put off by the D810 and the D850 because of the volume of photos I get through. Not only will the cost per shutter click be higher with a more expensive camera, but the file size will require more storage and a more powerful machine / more time to cull.
 
Can run of the mill lenses show 46mp. I was under the impression that only the most exotic lenses even had a chance to take advantage of 36mp.
 
gad-westy said:
I know your post is a bit tongue in cheek and since I have a 36mp camera it would be a bit hypercritical to disagree but I do wonder how many people actually make any use of that sort of resolution. For one, very few lenses can resolve that level of detail, particularly zooms. So in many scenarios a 24mp body with a decent prime on will be out-resolving a 36mp+ camera with an inferior zoom. When I say inferior, even my Nikon 24-70 2.8 (which although a few year's old would be considered a decent lens I would think) is massively shown up by Sigma Art primes and the like. The difference there is way, way bigger than I see between 24mp and 36mp cameras with similar lenses. Then, there are other factors, mainly technique, or stability of tripod etc. and even shutter vibration which means that the only times when you really get all that detail is when you nail everything.

And the other factor is real world printing and viewing, I have two prints in my house, both about A1 size, one shot on a 36mp D800 and one on a 12mp D300 and you really cannot pick which one is which without sticking your nose against them and even then it's not that obvious. I remember not that long ago when nikon's flagship camera was the D3x. They were considered ultra specialised for pros who needed massive prints only and nobody bothered buying them. Now, that's considered low res but I don't think printing habits have changed much.

To put a more positive spin on things though, high res, when you nail it is very satisfying to zoom in on all that detail however useless that might be. It can also open up some very useful cropping options.
Click to expand...

Addressing you points in order:

Whether you increase the quality of lens or megapixels you'll always gain an increase in detail i.e. resolution even with half decent zooms (unless one is using a really terribad lens). It's true it won't be able to make full use of the high res but if you downsize it to a equivalent lower MP you'll notice it'll have more details than had you shot at 24mp in first place.

As for real world printing it is indeed largely dependent on viewing distances. I rather not generalise but I think vast majority of people inc. me don't really need high MP for printing. I mostly print A3+ at home and for that 24mp is enough. I also imagine a lot people don't print.

As with all things it's always a compromise. There are pros and cons :)
 
Caerus said:
Can run of the mill lenses show 46mp. I was under the impression that only the most exotic lenses even had a chance to take advantage of 36mp.
Click to expand...

The canon 50mm F1.8 STM will net you a more detailed image when used on higher MP body. That's the cheapest nifty fifty.
Wide open it won't make full use of the higher Res but as I said above if you normalised the results to the same MP you'd see more details especially mid and corner frame.

The lens where I don't see difference are particularly bad ones like my old Meyer optik Trioplan lens which is simply soft no matter what body you put it on. But you don't shoot with such a lens for sharpness and resolution.
 
nandbytes said:
Addressing you points in order:

Whether you increase the quality of lens or megapixels you'll always gain an increase in detail i.e. resolution even with half decent zooms (unless one is using a really terribad lens). It's true it won't be able to make full use of the high res but if you downsize it to a equivalent lower MP you'll notice it'll have more details than had you shot at 24mp in first place.
Click to expand...

This is definitely true although it makes you wonder how many people realise that they could make the same sort of gains by using a better lens or honing their technique a little. I don't know but it is eye opening when you look at lab tests how 'little' real world resolution some popular lenses can actually deliver.

Like I say, and I think we agree on though, it is kind of comforting to know the resolution is there and it does satisfy the nerd in me. I just know I make no use of it whatsoever!
 
.... might be a bit of a dumb question, but, how does pixel size fit the equation, when printing your image?

Is it not true that bigger pixels make better pictures?
 
Last edited:
d00d said:
Is it not true that bigger pixels make better pictures?
Click to expand...
Yes, if you're referring to the size of a pixel in the sensor when you're capturing an image. Other things being equal - and they usually aren't all equal, but anyway - a bigger pixel has greater capacity to capture photons. so the sensor will deliver higher dynamic range.

No, if you're referring to the area occupied by a pixel when you're printing an image. There are circumstances in which smaller pixels are better - for example when there is a lot of detail and/or the image is going to be inspected from close range. There are circumstances where pixel size doesn't matter within certain limits - for example when printing on canvas the weave of the canvas itself imposes a limit on the achievable resolution; or if the images is intended to be viewed from a distance then the pixels don't have to be as small as when the image is viewed from close range. But there are no circumstances in which bigger pixels are actually better.
 
StewartR said:
But there are no circumstances in which bigger pixels are actually better.
Click to expand...


How about in Minecraft World? :p (Completely agree in all seriousness though.)
 
StewartR said:
Yes, if you're referring to the size of a pixel in the sensor when you're capturing an image. Other things being equal - and they usually aren't all equal, but anyway - a bigger pixel has greater capacity to capture photons. so the sensor will deliver higher dynamic range.
Click to expand...

:p ... I like it.
 
When looking to buy a third camera .... small M43,

Pen F vs GX80

One website gave the GX80 a plus point for having less but bigger pixels. :thinking:
 
I think, to get the best out of a high end cameras, you need high end lenses. Sometimes I look at photos I took when I had a Nikon D7100, and think I had more consistent results than with my D750, I do find my D750 really excellent with low light high ISO images.
Personally I would go with the D750, but beware of the weight, it can be heavy to carry around all day. So give the latest mirrorless a look.
 
gad-westy said:
I know your post is a bit tongue in cheek and since I have a 36mp camera it would be a bit hypercritical to disagree but I do wonder how many people actually make any use of that sort of resolution. For one, very few lenses can resolve that level of detail, particularly zooms. So in many scenarios a 24mp body with a decent prime on will be out-resolving a 36mp+ camera with an inferior zoom. When I say inferior, even my Nikon 24-70 2.8 (which although a few year's old would be considered a decent lens I would think) is massively shown up by Sigma Art primes and the like. The difference there is way, way bigger than I see between 24mp and 36mp cameras with similar lenses. Then, there are other factors, mainly technique, or stability of tripod etc. and even shutter vibration which means that the only times when you really get all that detail is when you nail everything.

And the other factor is real world printing and viewing, I have two prints in my house, both about A1 size, one shot on a 36mp D800 and one on a 12mp D300 and you really cannot pick which one is which without sticking your nose against them and even then it's not that obvious. I remember not that long ago when nikon's flagship camera was the D3x. They were considered ultra specialised for pros who needed massive prints only and nobody bothered buying them. Now, that's considered low res but I don't think printing habits have changed much.

To put a more positive spin on things though, high res, when you nail it is very satisfying to zoom in on all that detail however useless that might be. It can also open up some very useful cropping options.
Click to expand...
nandbytes said:
Addressing you points in order:

Whether you increase the quality of lens or megapixels you'll always gain an increase in detail i.e. resolution even with half decent zooms (unless one is using a really terribad lens). It's true it won't be able to make full use of the high res but if you downsize it to a equivalent lower MP you'll notice it'll have more details than had you shot at 24mp in first place.

As for real world printing it is indeed largely dependent on viewing distances. I rather not generalise but I think vast majority of people inc. me don't really need high MP for printing. I mostly print A3+ at home and for that 24mp is enough. I also imagine a lot people don't print.

As with all things it's always a compromise. There are pros and cons :)
Click to expand...
gad-westy said:
This is definitely true although it makes you wonder how many people realise that they could make the same sort of gains by using a better lens or honing their technique a little. I don't know but it is eye opening when you look at lab tests how 'little' real world resolution some popular lenses can actually deliver.

Like I say, and I think we agree on though, it is kind of comforting to know the resolution is there and it does satisfy the nerd in me. I just know I make no use of it whatsoever!
Click to expand...

How do you know what your lenses can resolve?
Just curious as I don’t understand it and have no idea then if my lenses are good enough for my bodies now after reading your posts.
 
Ganton Gunner said:
How do you know what your lenses can resolve?
Just curious as I don’t understand it and have no idea then if my lenses are good enough for my bodies now after reading your posts.
Click to expand...

There are various online tests and MFT charts you can read. Some are better/more reliable than others.

Having used many many lenses you'll eventually start seeing the differences in sharpness especially when pixel peeping.

Unless you are using really bad lenses you are probably fine. If you are happy with your results does it really matter if have the sharpest lens in the world?
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Yes, if you're referring to the size of a pixel in the sensor when you're capturing an image. Other things being equal - and they usually aren't all equal, but anyway - a bigger pixel has greater capacity to capture photons. so the sensor will deliver higher dynamic range.
Click to expand...
This isn't quite true... for any given design/technology the only thing that really matters is light-per-area.
A larger pixel does occupy a larger area so it receives more light, and it also has a larger full well capacity so it will clip later. But that's actually pretty irrelevant. If you make the pixels smaller they will receive less light directly in proportion to their reduced capacity. The result is that both situations/sensors will reach FWC and clip at the same exposure. I.e. the smaller pixels combine in the output image area with the same light-per-area recorded.

There are camera specific things (generation/technology) that can make this not quite true, but that's not really a light-per-pixel/light-per-area thing.

What often happens is that the "larger pixel" consideration get's mixed with the larger sensor of the same resolution comparison. But it is really the fact that a larger sensor actually receives more light for any given composition/exposure that gives the larger sensor the advantage, not the size of pixels it has.
 
Ganton Gunner said:
How do you know what your lenses can resolve?
Just curious as I don’t understand it and have no idea then if my lenses are good enough for my bodies now after reading your posts.
Click to expand...
Chances are both the lenses and the bodies far exceed any requirement you might have. The limit of human vision when viewing an image (as a whole, not pixel peeping) is ≈ 12-14MP.
(there is no limit with pixel peeping...)
 
Ganton Gunner said:
How do you know what your lenses can resolve?
Just curious as I don’t understand it and have no idea then if my lenses are good enough for my bodies now after reading your posts.
Click to expand...
As above there are test scores and charts that you can find. I tend to use DXO as a rough guide. Whilst some say it’s flawed in some ways it gives me a direct comparison of a lens can resolve significantly more detail on one body to another. The only issue is they haven’t tested lenses with the D850 so the highest res camera you can compare is the D810/D800e. However, even with these some lenses can resolve significantly more detail when compared to the D750 for example.
 
Skypilot said:
I'm trying to decide whether to go for a high res camera like the Z7 or D850 or lower res like the Z6 or D750.
I like landscapes which is leading me to the Z7/D850
But, I keep coming up against the derogatory views that higher res is just for pixel peepers and not necessary.

However, I don't really print much stuff, BUT......
I do like to take "busy" paneranic type shots like crowds, cityscapes etc and enjoy zooming in on these to look at different subjects or areas of the shot.

Clearly a higher res camera is going to show more detail when zoomed in but how much?

Would 48mp show literally twice the detail of a 24mp shot when zoomed in?
Click to expand...
Who cares what other people think, if you fancy a hi res camera and think it’s worth the extra cost then go for it (y)

For most shots you may not see much difference, but sometimes I found my D850 images were just that bit more special somehow, it’s very difficult to quantify.

Another thing to consider is the D850 and Z7 don’t have an AA filter whereas the D750 and Z6 do. To some this makes a difference, but to others not so much.
 
Ed Sutton said:
12mp is plenty.
Click to expand...

This ^

I've cropped the sheet out of 16mp images and nobody noticed, had a 36mp camera - oft posted un-cropped images, nobody noticed ... it's what you do with the files that count, not how many MP created it.
 
Cagey75 said:
This ^

I've cropped the sheet out of 16mp images and nobody noticed, had a 36mp camera - oft posted un-cropped images, nobody noticed ... it's what you do with the files that count, not how many MP created it.
Click to expand...
Likewise, however I wouldn't want to print too big with these files.
 
sk66 said:
This isn't quite true... for any given design/technology the only thing that really matters is light-per-area.
A larger pixel does occupy a larger area so it receives more light, and it also has a larger full well capacity so it will clip later. But that's actually pretty irrelevant. If you make the pixels smaller they will receive less light directly in proportion to their reduced capacity. The result is that both situations/sensors will reach FWC and clip at the same exposure. I.e. the smaller pixels combine in the output image area with the same light-per-area recorded.
Click to expand...
I'm confused now.

Suppose you have two cameras which use the same basic sensor technology, and have the same size sensors, but one has twice the pixel count as the other. (That's pretty close to where things are with the Nikon Z6 / Z7 or the Sony A7 III / A7R III.) The pixels on the low-res camera are each twice the size of those on the high-rest camera, so they have twice the full well capacity. (For simplicity I'm ignoring the effects at the edges of the pixels and assuming that 100% of the sensor area is used for capturing photons.) To keep the maths easy, suppose the full well capacities of the two different pixel sizes are 32,768 electrons and 65,536 electrons, which are 2^15 and 2^16 respectively.

I take your point about light per area: the larger pixels are capturing twice as many pixels per second as the smaller pixels, so both reach saturation and clipping at the same time, at the same exposure value.

But consider the situation where the EV is 15 stops lower. Instead of capturing 2^15 and 2^16 photons per pixel respectively, the two sensors now capture 1 and 2 photons per pixel respectively. To my mind that says that the small-pixel sensor has reached its limit - one photon is the minimum which cave counted and it cannot record faiinter scenes. However the large-pixel sensor can discriminate between 2 pixels and 1 pixel, and it can keep going down to one more stop of EV. In other words, it has a greater dynamic range.

Obviously this is simplified: I'm ignoring random photon noise and signal-to-noise ratios, and lots more. But still, is it not the case that the ability to count 2^16 photons per pixel instead of 2^15 photons per pixel produces a greater dynamic range? If not, which aspect of my understanding is faulty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top