is the highest tech, highest dpi et. c really necessary ?

[removed account4]

hi

i am no stranger to digital. i have happily been usng various forms of digital cameras since the 1990s
and scanners since the same time period. whenever i hear or read websites that talk about necessities
it is always suggested to get the best one can afford and upgrade when necessary.

i read on some sites about the upgrade treadmill, once you get on, you never get off, and from my own personal
experience i think it is a bunch of hogwash. the cameras and scanners and printers and software i use are all outdated
and from what i read from a variety of sources my scans/enlargements are supposed to look terrible.
maybe ignorance is bliss and what i don't know will keep me happily scanning on my hobbling along scanner, and hobbling along camera.
( im not seeing a big problem in any size print i have had printed, small ( 2x3 or 3x4 or larger ( bigger than 20x24 ) )

i'd love to read what others have to say about this, is new always better ?

 

[Richard Boutwell]

Some of the best scanners that have ever been made are now 15 years old or more. New scanners like the 750 and now 850 are the only real options if you are buying new now for the first time and you don't feel comfortable buying preowned equipment. But the older stuff is really a lot better. Someone did a private QTR workshop with me and had 35,, scans from the the Nikon 9000 and they were just fine (pretty good really). an older Epson 10,000XL is great for wet mounting 8x10s negs allows you to focus much better than the 700/750/800/850.

I got a d5300 a few years back, and for the most part, it has been a huge disappointment. I lost the battery charger around Christmas time, and haven't really missed it. I went back to using the old nex3 for a new project and am much happier using that (and is much better suited for this project anyway). It does exactly what I need it to for prints that max out a 9 inches (the circular prints on my site). The trouble people get in is trying to reach past what the equipment can do, and they justify "reasonable viewing distance" for printing larger and having the prints fall apart.

I think people who quote the "upgrade treadmill" are really missing the point. The point is making art, and using the tools you have and the tools you can afford. I'm working on a 6 year old computer (with some updated RAM and SSds ), but there is really reason to always buy the latest and greatest (Yes, i'm drooling over the 100MP PhaseOne camera, but it is 1/3 the price of my house...)

 

[John_M_King]

I was on that mythical treadmill then fell off. I went back to a darkroom, with some scanning and some wet printing, but the spontenaiety of digital still had a use. My 1st proper digital cameras was Nikon D100 with a 'good at the time' 6mp. Jump over a few years and I now have a Nikon D700 and still a F6 for when I feel film will be more appropriate.

I have all my images on an external hard drive and a few nights ago I came accross a file of images which I had forgotten about taken in 2010 with my D100 and to be honest, for what passes for a good picture now, the D100 can still hold it's own. Ok, printing to A3 may be pushing it a bit, but it is possible so long as the camera is on a tripod. The dynamic range is not as good as up to date digital or even as good as my D700, but with careful exposure and after exposure work it can still work well.

 

[rbultman]

The strict answer to your question is no. The more nuanced answer is it depends. A follow-on question to yours might be, does the highest tech matter in the final print? The answer to this is highly subjective and dependent on the desire of the photographer, print size, and viewing distance from the print. It might matter to some while to others it does not matter in the least. For monitor viewing, a 36MP camera is complete overkill.

What higher pixel count/dpi does get you is more flexibility in editing. You can crop more with a 36MP image and still get a very good print.

I have had, and still have, exactly one DSLR, a Canon XSi/450D, which I have had for about 10 years. I think it is 12MP and gives very nice 8x10" prints. I have many times considered upgrading, but I could never justify the cost. The upgraded models were really just slight upgrades. Instead, I spent my money on medium format cameras and a used Nikon LS-8000. I've made a few wet prints, but there are no public darkrooms and my temporary darkroom takes too long to set up for the amount of time that I have.

I think quality comes in big jumps, like 2X or more. Going from 12MP to 16MP is not a big enough jump to justify an upgrade. Going from 12 to 24 might be since this is effectively double the resolution. Lots of other factors go along, such as sensor noise, etc as to whether or not the upgrade is worth the effort and expense.

Regards,
Rob

 

[removed account4]

thank you for your thoughtful answers. part of me listens to the hype ( it IS loud & new/used/different is always fun )
but I know better than to be brainwashed by it.

 

[mdarnton]

For some time I have been looking for a terminal digital camera. Along the way my happiness level went up and down, but I always appreciated the improvement. However, a few months ago I bought a new Nikon D7200 to supplement/replace my D300, making the decision to not move to full-frame via a D610 or D810, and I have not regretted this.

I do a lot of simple archival work with the D300 and was never satisfied enough. The new D7200 has double the pixels (24Mp v 12Mp), and no AA filter. The lack of the fuzz filter is a real improvement that I'm grateful for, but the 2X pixels, not so much. In fact, I have centered in on keeping the D7200 set to 12Mp all the time, and that's enough for me. I am finally able to use a faux-35mm camera for work I used to do with an RB67, and that's all I need. Also, the new camera has fantastic low-light ability (that I never use) and much better tonal spread (too early--can't find the right word in my mind) than the D300, both of which will be useful to me if I ever shoot any real-life photos with it (unlikely: that's all film).

This is based on a real need (remember: archival not artistic) and that need is now satisfied. For my own work, 35mm Tri-X is often sufficient, and I do large format film for entertainment, not a real need for the detail it has--more for the process that shooting portraits in LF imposes on both me and subjects. For that, my HP G4050 scanner ($175, new) is totally sufficient. The 35mm I camera-scan with the D7200.

In any case, I don't miss my darkroom one bit, though there are a few alternate processes I'd like to mess around with some day.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

hi

i am no stranger to digital. i have happily been usng various forms of digital cameras since the 1990s
and scanners since the same time period. whenever i hear or read websites that talk about necessities
it is always suggested to get the best one can afford and upgrade when necessary.

i read on some sites about the upgrade treadmill, once you get on, you never get off, and from my own personal
experience i think it is a bunch of hogwash. the cameras and scanners and printers and software i use are all outdated
and from what i read from a variety of sources my scans/enlargements are supposed to look terrible.
maybe ignorance is bliss and what i don't know will keep me happily scanning on my hobbling along scanner, and hobbling along camera.
( im not seeing a big problem in any size print i have had printed, small ( 2x3 or 3x4 or larger ( bigger than 20x24 ) )

i'd love to read what others have to say about this, is new always better ?

Well, my Nikon D800 is able to capture 36 Mpx and I purposely limit the camera to 30 Mpx because , I prefer the 4x5 image ratio. by doing so,I've not seen any deterioration in image quality. I won't upgrade unless Nikon introduces a 100 Mpx+ sensor.

 

[MattKing]

To a certain extent, the real progress that has been made in more recent years isn't as much in the "hardware" as it is in the "hardware + software/processor" combinations. So while the pixel number changes aren't particularly important, the improvement is definitely real.
The digital camera is still an incredibly new beast.

 

[Craig75]

Ive seen a number of people swear by ricoh gr iv rather than newer versions as they prefer the older sensor for street work.

Daisuke yokata's berlin is a tour de force in using very cheap low quality digital cameras in a hybrid workflow.

We are entering age of digital lomography as the camera companies create new models faaaar too overspecced for 99% of users

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I think it is little weiner syndrome myself. People always want the biggest.

Just as a practical concept, resolution has to double in both directions to really make a difference. In other words, four pixels to one. You aren't even getting what you really photograph anyway since algorithms make up most of the image with guesses. Does a 100mp camera look great? Sure. Does it really matter? Probably not. That is why less and less people are buying new cameras these days. I am still on 16mp and it is fine for what I use it for. The only real meaningful change in cameras in the last few years has been with video.

Scanners are the true bummer of technology. You think someone would have made a decent consumer scanner by now. Nothing has changed at all!

 

[Diapositivo]

I only bought a digital camera in my life, a second-hand Sony DSC-R1 (10 Mp), very capable beast, fixed lens (but quite a lens), mirrorless. The camera was produced in 2006 and I bought it in 2008. Never felt the urge to upgrade it.
The pictures taken with that camera continue to sell with stock agencies at the same rates they used to years ago, discounted for the general state of the market and the growing old of the images themselves. The only problem I had was with replacing the "too intelligent" battery.
An agency or two years ago would have started collaboration with me if I had "upgraded" my camera. One went out of business, the other re down-graded their requisite, a clear indication that the number of pixels is in no way conductive to larger saleability (licenseability).

I also have film images with agencies, scanned with a very capable Nikon Coolscan 5000 bought new in 2007.

Film images constantly sell more than proportionally to their numerosity in my portfolio respective to digital.

So my answer is: definitely no, you don't need to upgrade your camera, even in the "semiprofessional" field where I place my pictures. 10 mp is more than enough for most purposes. The only reason to buy something else is, as always, to cover fields of use that your present camera is not able to cover.

 

[nmp]

Apparently it was(is) important for film shooters since we have 35 mm, medium format, 4x5, 8x10, etc.

 

[Diapositivo]

Apparently it was(is) important for film shooters since we have 35 mm, medium format, 4x5, 8x10, etc.

Film shooters actually downgraded continuously: they went from large format to medium format to small formats such as 135 and 126 and they arrived to Kodak disk and APS.

Analogue evolution seems to have been a race toward less resolution! (more portability)

 

[blockend]

Some of my favourite photographers use: a Nikon D80 (11 years old), a Canon EOS 1100D (almost 7 years old), and a Sanyo HD1A (ancient). One is a high profile national award winner, another a member of an international street photography group. The third is highly prolific. Most of the limitations are in the head of the photographer, encouraged by the marketing beast.

 

[nmp]

Film shooters actually downgraded continuously: they went from large format to medium format to small formats such as 135 and 126 and they arrived to Kodak disk and APS.

Analogue evolution seems to have been a race toward less resolution! (more portability)

Yes and no. The industry invented smaller cameras to make them more accessible to more people and more content. So the evolution occurred in that direction. But "dpi" was still important hence the race to make the finest grains and fastest speeds. The fact that photographers still used the larger formats means some were willing to put up with the lack of portability get that extra sharpness. In that sense, the digital is no different. My point was whether or not we need more pixels is not a new issue that came up with the advent of the digital technology. It only manifested itself in a different way. People are people - they always want bigger, better, smaller, faster, sharper, etc whether they need it or not.

 

[Diapositivo]

My point was whether or not we need more pixels is not a new issue that came up with the advent of the digital technology. It only manifested itself in a different way. People are people - they always want bigger, better, smaller, faster, sharper, etc whether they need it or not.

I agree. In the good old times of film cameras people would appreciate, and somehow obsess, over innovation which was less and less important for the photographic practice, but somehow fascinating for the technology involved. There was some insanity also then.

The introduction of through the lens metering, or later of full-aperture metering, were certainly practical. The introduction of a shutter speed of 1/2000th was probably something more of a "professional badge" than something actually needed. The theoretical possibility to mount a 3.5 or 5 fps motor instead of a more humble but equally effective 2 fps "winder" would raise the social status of a camera. Then came autofocus, and a race toward "more AF points" developed. At the same time, the "matrix metering" came on stage, and people were phantasizing about how many "millions" images were in the camera that were confronted with the measured scene in order to get the best exposure (imagine that).

Most of those innovations would have been useful - and then maybe - only when shooting pictures of backlit birds in fly . People would not ask themselves how luminous is the viewfinder, how easy to use is the focusing screen, or how practical is the indication in the viewfinder. Cameras could have an electronic shutter release, and uncoupled in-camera metering in manual mode (the mode I would use 95% of the time).

People tend to be attracted more by the technology expressed by the camera than by its practicality or useability. I think men, in general, have a drive toward "toys" and can get hypnotized by "sophistication" in itself.

 

[cooltouch]

The Sony NEX 7 was already getting to be a bit long in the tooth when I bought a clean used one a few years ago. Nonetheless, for me, at 24mp, it was a substantial upgrade. My other digital is a Canon XS DSLR with "only" 10.1mp. I bought the NEX for a few reasons -- chief among them was the fact that, with adapters, I could shoot using any 35mm lens mount and even 16mm C-mount if I wanted. Since I have a rather large collection of vintage manual focus glass, this capability was important. Secondly, I wanted the NEX for shooting dupes. I've been shooting digital dupes of my slides and negatives with the old Canon DSLR, but it was a frustrating experience because 10.1mp wasn't sufficient to resolve the grain of a Kodachrome 64 slide. But with the NEX's 24mp, I can now resolve the grain with even Velvia 50. I get 6000 x 4000 pixel "scans" with the NEX, same as a high-end Nikon Coolscan. And with my dupe rig that has a 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor at its heart, image resolution is excellent. So I'm able to get just about all the information that is possible to get out of my film images now with my NEX. And lastly, you just gotta love that 10 or 11 frame speed a NEX has. I've even used it a few times.

After using the NEX for a while, I came to realize that 24mp is really good enough for just about any situation. I mean, really when you think about it, 24mp is a lot of resolution. So it's helped me resist the urge to upgrade to a Nikon D8xx or that 50mp Canon. In fact, one of these days I will get a full frame digital, whether a DSLR or a Sony A7 series, and rather than play the more-pixels-is-better game, I think I'll be just as happy with a camera in the same mp range as my NEX 7. Like one of the Canon 5D models or the Sony A7 or A7II -- or maybe even a Pentax K-1. Yeah, okay, the K-1 has 36mp, but it's priced over a thousand bux cheaper than Canon's 5D Mk IV.

 

[removed account4]

i have realized the answer is sometimes NO !!!!

one can " get away" with a lower resolution/DPI
sometimes but it all depends on how it is being printed
and if the software does a good job and if YOU did a good
job fiddling around.

my old mentor used to have us retouch a 3.5x5 negative
( with lead pencils ) and have me enlarge the negative to see
how well we did ..
its the same thing ..

 

[blockend]

There are situations that require the highest possible resolution. Medical, reconnaissance and astronomical photography for example, where the ability to discern something correctly can separate true from false and possibly life from death. Most of us are not concerned with such details, but are in the business and pleasure of what's broadly termed creative photography. Creatively, the ability to put together a compelling, moving, challenging photograph has almost nothing to do with absolute resolution. A great shot on a half frame camera is better in every way that matters than a mediocre image on a 50mp camera sporting the most expensive glassware.

Technology can be important, speed of autofocus - if you use an autofocus camera - can be the difference between capturing a shot and missing it, and badly designed menus can be an exercise in frustration, but resolution, no. As long as you can clearly discern the subject and the image can be enlarged to a size you habitually print, dpi has done its job. There may be wonderful photographs that require 25,000 ISO and must be printed 5 ft across, but if there are I'm not seeing them. What I do see are test photographs for the duration of a camera's life, a fascination with brick walls and the proper representation of them, and the resolving power of inaccessible corners.

I rarely printed film images bigger than 15 x 10", even using a medium format negative, and I reckon 6mp can match that and 10mp certainly can. So any camera from about 2007 onwards shouldn't cramp anyone's creativity, in resolution terms at least.

 

[Paul Howell]

I keep my gear, still have my Sigma SD 9s, 14 and 15, along with new Sony A99, A900, and a Konica Minolta D5, I often use a Sigma SD9 for landscapes, it is a pain in the rear, uses 4 AA and 2 lithum batteries, worse high ISO, but in the right light, it produces an image I cannot replicate with any of my newer gear. For that matter the Konica Minolta D5's CCD chip has a look that is different from CMOS chips.

 

[Ai Print]

There may be wonderful photographs that require 25,000 ISO and must be printed 5 ft across, but if there are I'm not seeing them.

That is correct, you are not seeing them.

I just got a request yesterday to license this image shot at ISO 6400 with a D810 to be displayed as a backdrop in 30 jewelry stores globally at 110CM wide. It's a bit grainier than I would like so I expect the D850 will help with that somewhat.

I replace my primary ( Nikon ) digital cameras every cycle because by the time I do, they have not only often increased in resolution but have improved the high ISO noise and AF. I also replace them because mine are usually fairly well worn at that point being well over 100,000 frames in each. Hardware like my Hasselblad digital back and even my Leica M240 see a fraction of the use, the improvements made are not nearly as encompassing so they have long shelf lives. In the case of the Hasselblad back for my V system, they no longer even make a current back so 50MP in that excellent design will likely be all I ever need.

Most chase the latest and greatest because it is a bragging rights game now. I have very different reasons and since my images are often used up to 20' feet wide, resolution helps.

 

[blockend]

That is correct, you are not seeing them.

I'm pleased you managed to market your photograph, but it clearly is not because your camera has captured reality authentically. Nothing about the picture is how the night sky looks to the human eye. There is nothing wrong with that, infra red and x-ray photographs also depict a different reality beyond the visible human spectrum and make fascinating subjects. Branding has always attached itself to unusual or aspirational imagery, and that was as true of Kodak's early 5 x 4 Kodachrome as high ISO processing chips in the latest DSLRs. You have to ignore a lot of photographic history to believe saleable photography begins with the Nikon D850.

 

[Ai Print]

I'm pleased you managed to market your photograph, but it clearly is not because your camera has captured reality authentically. Nothing about the picture is how the night sky looks to the human eye. There is nothing wrong with that, infra red and x-ray photographs also depict a different reality beyond the visible human spectrum and make fascinating subjects. Branding has always attached itself to unusual or aspirational imagery, and that was as true of Kodak's early 5 x 4 Kodachrome as high ISO processing chips in the latest DSLRs. You have to ignore a lot of photographic history to believe saleable photography begins with the Nikon D850.

Who says I am ignoring a lot of photographic history?

I never said the next iteration of this kind of shot begins with the D850. I just know after 30 years in this biz, 23 of it with digital cameras, what tools will help me overcome limits. I have a large entrance pupil at night & after not using any other light sources for a good 30 minutes, could easily see the light pollution from the cities far away. This was shot at nearly 13,000 feet on a mountain top in the dead of Winter, the sky does marvelous things at that elevation. You could argue that Michael Kenna's hours long exposures on medium format film of the pier scenes in Japan are not what the eye sees either but that is the science, artistic intent and great reveal that is photography at night.

And I don't market, other people market for me so I was approached by the Jewelry chain for this. I made the photograph happen, but almost not as I had to time my 25 second exposure limit between 15MPH wind gusts. From what I have gathered of the 850 thus far in the samples I have worked with as of today, this same image quality will be possible at two stops higher ISO which means I could reduce the time to get this light to around 8-10 seconds making dealing with the wind a lot easier, that is just one way the camera will allow me to clear more hurdles.

And finally, even when not in starlight, the lower the light gets, the more everything becomes a light source. In certain cases, the effect of this is incredible, especially if the light sources are from different color types. To each his own and I shoot film for my job as much as digital, but I happen to really like what I get to explore in using very high ISO settings.

 

[removed account4]

hey Ai Print

while i understand what you are saying
i too have work made HUGE and on display
in a handful of car dealerships. previously the prints were about 60x40
but now they are 8' by 6feet and still made
on a 10-12 year old flat bed scanner and they look fantastic.
while i understand different people, clients, photographers have different needs
and aesthetics and wants ... even if i scanned the prints on a massive high end scanner
that cost as much as a car, it might not look any better, or NEED to look any better than it currently looks.
my next digital camera will be a d300.

 

[Ai Print]

hey Ai Print

while i understand what you are saying
i too have work made HUGE and on display
in a handful of car dealerships. previously the prints were about 60x40
but now they are 8' by 6feet and still made
on a 10-12 year old flat bed scanner and they look fantastic.
while i understand different people, clients, photographers have different needs
and aesthetics and wants ... even if i scanned the prints on a massive high end scanner
that cost as much as a car, it might not look any better, or NEED to look any better than it currently looks.
my next digital camera will be a d300.

For the past two years, I have been working on a series of stitched panoramic images that are around 8-15 feet wide at a native resolution of 300dpi. As you walk closer and closer to the print, it just keeps going and going and going until you are a right up against it and there is no grain, no noise, no pixels, just utterly immersive imagery.

This one is 8 feet wide:

And this one is 14 feet wide:

The market for this kind of repro in my area is good...really good.