This video was a real eye-opener for me today... I don't need a full frame camera!

hobbo Plus
9 1.6k 3 England
7 Jul 2020 6:09PM
After being really impressed by the performance of my second hand LUMIX GX9 especially in the................... L-MONOCHROME-L mode ...... I was beginning to wonder how large prints from it would stand up to those made with an £8000 full frame camera and lens..

My £375 GX8 has a £35 vintage lens fitted to it...... here is an example shot taken two days ago.

Comments and observations welcome



Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lemmy 13 2.8k United Kingdom
7 Jul 2020 7:40PM
This whole image quality thing that has grown up around digital cameras is a bit silly. If you are viewing images on a 1920x1080 monitor any image will be reduced to that. I was reading someone lately saying how good the Hi Res 80Mp image is from their E-M1 Mark III. They are very good but what is the use of them? Even on a 4K monitor you will be discarding 72Mp to get the image on screen.

They saying how they could see a lot more detail on their monitor or tablet in Hi Res when they looked closely than they could with a normal res file. The absurdity of that is obvious. Pixels don't have quality, they have On or Off and brightness levels. What you can do with the Hi Res image is view a section of it on screen at about 540% - but where I come from we have zoom lenses to do that. I find Hi res very useful for the 'Ken Burns' style roaming around stills images for video but other than that, it's good for prints over about 36" across. Up to 36" inches you just can't tell. There's a good video about it here. I use a QHD photo monitor and side by side images from my Panasonic S1 FF and Panasonic G9 are indistinguishable.

A professional photographer friend of mine in Sydney, Australia has made nice business shooting property pix for estate agents and magazines etc by understanding that it is the output media quality that counts, not the input. Seafront properties are the thing where he lives and they can only be photographed at their best from the air over the sea, naturally. It was hellishly expensive to take the pix from helicopters but that was all there was. Then drones came along but nobody used them because they couldn't carry a 'proper' camera. My friend realised that online and for news and magazine print use you really don't need big pixel counts or big sensors - the cameras under a drone would do the job perfectly well. He, like me, in a lifetime of photography has never had a client who knew or cared what camera he used so long as the results fulfilled their needs. They do know when a job costs them less, though Grin
DaveRyder Plus
6 4.4k 7 United Kingdom
7 Jul 2020 8:10PM
A very timely post thanks Cyril.

I'm currently looking at GX9's on the Wex used page.
SlowSong Plus
12 9.1k 30 England
7 Jul 2020 8:14PM

Quote:A very timely post thanks Cyril.
I'm currently looking at GX9's on the Wex used page.

Yes, he got me going as well for a while. But really do not need another camera. Sadly.
hobbo Plus
9 1.6k 3 England
8 Jul 2020 5:29AM
My last line should obviously read GX9 .... apologies!
Carabosse 17 41.4k 270 England
8 Jul 2020 3:10PM
Some of my most complimented recent photos were taken with my "No. 3" camera. A Canon SX620 compact with little in the way of any manual override.... but with a 25x optical zoom (FF equiv - 625mm).

The quality won't win any prizes on EPZ, of course! Tongue
ARI 17 561 United Kingdom
9 Jul 2020 4:44PM
I believe that point of full frame is missed. FF allows the use of the lens' characteristics, particularly at wide angle. Of course the crop factor affects the focal length but reduces the resolution.
To enjoy both worlds by being able to switch between FF and crop at will within a single body, answer is Canon 5Ds, it is FF, offers 1.3 and 1.6 crop. I believe that a Nikon model is capable of similar feature. I must say that I am very impressed with the output from the FF capture.
I have not made any prints as yet, so I cannot comment on print quality, from each format.
lemmy 13 2.8k United Kingdom
9 Jul 2020 5:32PM

Quote:Of course the crop factor affects the focal length but reduces the resolution.
It doesn't affect the lens's focal length at all. All you are doing is cropping the sensor to include less of a given scene. Exactly the same effect is obtained by a simple crop in Photoshop.

The point of APS-C is smaller lenses for the same angle of view. Without purpose designed APS-C lenses, there's no point to switching from FF to crop. You get the same wide angle characteristics for an APS-C by using a shorter focal length which is why the lens can be smaller.

Where prints are concerned, if we take 300ppi as the gold standard, a 16 wide inch print needs 4,800px across, roughly a 16Mp image. Anything more than that cannot be used, obviously. I don't think there is an APS-C camera avaailable with a low res of 16Mp. Down-sampling does have a noise reducing effect but noise isn't really a problem with modern sensors, used properly. This off the cuff shot of blues singer and player Sadie Johnson is at 6400ISO. I find the noise level more than acceptable and with some music pix add in some noise to give a bit of atmosphere.60591_1594312278.jpg

ARI 17 561 United Kingdom
10 Jul 2020 12:51PM

Taken on my first outing with the 5DSR. It was like being a B&H, toy and sweetie shop all rolled in one. Captured at FF, RAW file was 65mg, lens was 600 + X1.4 extender, ISO 800 and shutter at 640, bean bag on door sill. Range was about 6-7 meters. The buffalo has a look of sheer bliss and his eves were slitted and could make out the whites of his eve. I believe that that detail was from a combination of high resolution and FF. Had I not been in detail heaven, I should have sampled the outputs from the crop modes. Camera was tethered to laptop in te car and never again. I had a 7D with me but I doubt that I would have captured the detail of his Majesty in his bath wit his attendant ox peckers. He is resting on his left horn like a pillow.

lemmy 13 2.8k United Kingdom
10 Jul 2020 1:08PM

Quote:but I doubt that I would have captured the detail of his Majesty in his bath wit his attendant ox peckers
It's an interesting and unusual picture, one to be proud of, surely that's what makes it worth looking at? Your big image is 2000px across, equating to a 2.5Mp image. Nothing high resolution about that! Modern cameras produce results far beyond our ability to use them. It's a kind of arms race Grin
ARI 17 561 United Kingdom
10 Jul 2020 9:22PM
Thanks for your kind words. My pointer is to put fwd the point that it is one's style of photography that helps determine what format one uses. I smile to read that '' I do not need to get a FF camera''.You get what suits your style. I use FF and crop and tended to favor crop for the added telephoto effect. The 5Dsr has the huge edge over the crop for its resolving agility. The 7D would not match. The Dsr does produce 29 mp at 1.3 crop and 19 mp at 1.6 crop, however I believe that the quality of FF files cannot be bettered by the crop. Main disadvantage is storage of huge files, increased transfer times and needing a more powerful computer. My laptop is snout 10 yrs old and struggles with these files. The largest file was a portrait of a giraffe...78 mp.
The feature that attracted me to this is the ability to produce 30 x 20 inch prints without interpolation.
Many wining and igly commended exhibits at the Wildlife of the Year competition in the 70s and 80s were created with Russian Zenith cameras. Many scoffed these cameras as they quit agricultural. Some will remember them. It is ability first, then the tool.
lemmy 13 2.8k United Kingdom
11 Jul 2020 11:18AM
WE all use what we prefer, as it should be. For myself, even after a lifetime in the business, I cannot exploit my Micro Four Thirds capabilities - I have razor sharp 36 inch prints from them - let alone the S1.

I used to lecture at camera clubs occasionally and so often when people talked of new cameras they needed, you could see that they hadn't learned to use the ones they already had. Imagine someone thinking they needed a new piano because they couldn't play Bach on the one they had.
ARI 17 561 United Kingdom
11 Jul 2020 1:04PM
Lenmy, that is exactly I was saying and that is why I mentioned that the comment of being let off buying a FF brought a smile.  Same reason I mentioned the Zenith, it was a Russian knock off a German camera from WW2.  Very basic, built like a tractor, basic aperture and shutter controls and that was it.  It had a decent manual lens and onte could produce very good pictures.  It was a poor mans' tool that produced superd A0 size prints that were exhibited in galleries.  It is about mastering the craft.
I now use the dsR and it replaced my 5D classic after it shed the mirror and Canon wanted silly money to replace the shutter box assy.  The DsR is challenging cos of its dense pxiel density.  Pushing one's luck of using a focal length of 840 mm and higher at shutter speeds of 1/50 to keep at ASA 200, resting on a bean bag is not always possible.  More soft pictures.  Added bonus of thr DsR is the ability to switch formats at will, in camera.  Have not done this as yet as I am still seduced with the FF format. My 7Ds are original classics.
lemmy 13 2.8k United Kingdom
11 Jul 2020 4:25PM
I had a Russian made Fed camera. It was a loose knock-off of a Leica - very loose. It's main attribute was the ability to leak light, giving very red/yellow embellishments to the image in the form of streaks across the frame. I was serving my photographic apprenticeship at the time and desperate to get my hands on a 'modern' camera while earning £26 per month. The cameras we trained with were VN 9x12cm glass plate cameras so anything smaller than that was modern!

Re the 840mm, with the E-M1 Mark III 7 odd stops of stabilization I can handhold my 300mm (600mm in magnification as compared to FF) not at the normally required 1/600th but at 1/30th - that with the hand shake engendered by my cancer treatment. My son can hand hold a 25mm standard lens for sharp results at 1 and usually 2 seconds. Phenomenal technology.

I still don't see the point of switching to APS-C unless you use a dedicated, thus smaller, lens. Otherwise it is no gain over simple cropping.
ARI 17 561 United Kingdom
22 Jul 2020 9:19AM
I enjoy the output of FF. I also do enjoy the output from the crop format particularly when one has the need to extend reach, in-camera. You do not have to wait to change camera bodies or get to your computer to crop. My interest is almost confined to wildlife, opportunity to compose is usually fluid and restricted as the vehicle is my blind and ability to reposition often is limited.
So far, I have enjoyed the 5DsR and it has been an excellent camera for wildlife. It may not compete in the spray and pray stakes, that is not my interest, BUT it beats most in detail, color accuracy, and reliable. The EOS 5R does not offer much advantage over the DsR.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.