Who played along? Put your scores below for each round. Genuinely curious :) For clarification on the process: Both cameras were shot in the highest quality .JPEG (for each camera) on a neutral camera setting with very little adjustments to exposure, temperature and colour so they both matched. Overall I had to de-sharpen the Sony and sharpen the Fuji. Remember that this test was to look purely at MegaPixels when viewed on very common platforms and see if you can notice. Also who made it to the country song? P.S - There is no biased to Sony. I love all cameras. Canon, Nikon, Fuji. This was a fun experiment to look purely at megapixels when viewed on the most common platforms for distribution and viewing.
The proper way of doing this was 12mp vs 61mp using the A7S and the A7RIV both with the same exact lens. Most of the differences and the way they were trying to tell them apart was due to differences in how the lens behaves with the sensor, not the sensor resolution, which was the purpose of the challenge.
This was a sad video from people that supposedly know a ton about cameras. That comparison would have made much more sense as the quality between the two lenses also could have varied. Lastly, they should demonstrate substantial cropping on high vs low mp as even a four year old could make out that difference.
I still wonder how one could tell the difference between 12Mp and 102MP when the pictures are displayed on an 8MP (~ 4K) screen. On top of that the Mac screen has a really high pixel density, at the distance they are at details (single pixels) are so small that our eyes can't make them out
This is comforting. I've been a videographer for my whole career but recently I started getting more opportunities to shoot stills and I've been using my Sony A7S III. But since I'm new to the photography world, I've been a little insecure about shooting stills with such a low Mega Pixel count. This makes me put those worries to rest. Thanks!
I shoot on the same and 24 is def a sweet spot because I’m still comfortable to crop and not worry about it but it’s not so many that I spend 9k on a body
@@L1NKHVH For sure,I got the S as I mainly do video work but just a bonus the pics are really great. If you only taking pics for social media,all you need. With a combination of great lenses,pics will be great.
I think the thing to remember is he edited the pictures to look the same, not edited them to take advantage of the megapixels and color. That's a huge factor in this contest.
At the beginning he states that he edited sharpness to match the photos, I feel that somehow distorts the test. It's like judging the colour reproduction of a camera after applying personal profiles to each photo. We also must remember that Fujifilm is "medium format", not true Medium Format. :-)
@@menteasoqquadro yeah I feel it's disingenuous because it creates the false pretense that a 12MP camera can be as good as a 102MP camera, but what it's really doing is saying the 102MP camera can come down to a s 12MP level. Yes we understand that in a lot of different scenarios, 102MP is not needed and it won't matter which camera you use, but we all know this, but specialized cameras are made for specialized reasons.
@@neogod29 professionals would know it at the first place, that medium format has its own place. This video maybe made for beginner who loves watching photography content on UA-cam and feels inferior due to their gears..
I’ve been so pleasantly surprised with my shots on the a7siii. I’ve been shooting with it a lot more because its floppy screen is so useful and my a7iii only for the extra MP
don't feel bad, the video is in 4k which is only about 8 megapixels so its completely impossible to see the difference in resolution without zooming in :)
To be fair. UA-cam compression algorithm is brutal. You really can't compare resolutions via UA-cam. Because UA-cam will crush fine detail. Even if the video was posted in 8k
A fundamental misunderstanding of the use of megapixels. More megapixels allows you to either magnify or crop into an image that in turn magnify the display of that image offering smoother edges or and details. Also a sharper image at 12mp in focus will look clearer than a 105mp out of focus.
Okay, so, first of all, display resolutions: 1080p is roughly 2 megapixels while 4k is about 8 megapixels. For purely digital display of a static image, cameras with anything more than 10 megapixels will basically all look the same. For prints it will definitely make a difference if you have a good enough printer. An 8"x10" print at 1200dpi is 115 million dots and obviously with larger format printing the numbers go up from there. However it's silly that everyone was expecting the higher megapixel camera to make "sharper" prints. That's not how that works. For a high contrast edge in a given composition, say that edge is a one pixel difference on a 12 megapixel camera sensor, (bright on the left, and the next pixel over is dark,) then if you take the same shot with a 102 megapixel sensor, that same edge now occupies about eight more pixels. That's eight steps of gradation the 12 megapixel camera doesn't have. When you blow that image up to a large format print that sharp jump in contrast seen by the 12 megapixel camera is preserved, however the 102 megapixel image now has a lot of space to show off all of the extra color information it captured at the transition of the edge. Those eight extra pixels, on a digital display, would just be thrown out because the screen doesn't have enough resolution to show them, but on a large format print, those eight pixels could amount to dozens or hundreds of dots, and now it's at a size where your eye can actually discern it. For general purpose photography, a higher pixel count will result in prints that look softer in areas of hard contrast, while a lower pixel count will comparatively "sharpen" the image. Higher pixel counts basically have the effect of anti-aliasing an image compared to the lower pixel count sensor.
Something most people overlook is tonality. Medium format and higher resolution does help capture the more subtle tones. Also, people often confused sharpness with resolution. A picture can be over sharpened and to the untrained eyes, it has more resolution. We're looking at a UA-cam video so its impossible to accurately judge. This is more a reaction video.
Thank you so much for making this video, one of my biggest pet peeves are people who claim to be more than just a beginner but then choose their cameras for the megapixel size alone 😂😂
Imagine that people claim they can see a difference between 4k and 8k. You can't. People can barely see the difference between fullhd and 4K. All movies we watch in cinemas has been 2K resolution. No one was complaining.
@@webinatic216 Exactly! All people try and justify better resolution when all they should be focusing on is the story they're telling through the photo or video!
@@webinatic216 it's all a factor of distance and pixel density. Notice how he said at the start that it's unfair if they zoom b/c that would give it away? Full hd is 2.1 megapixels, 4k is a jump up to 12 and 8k is 33. You can blow up a 4k image pretty large before it starts to lose quality, you can make an 8k image even bigger and maintain clarity, the issue in this video is they didn't hit those sizes. The point he should be making is that unless you are making 6ft prints that 12mp camera is pretty great, most consumer screens still rnt even 4k yet so anything in the digital world is fine
@@bryanmiller4366 There is also pixel quality of the image taken. There is a video on youtube where they used a cinema camera vs 8K phone video and the cinema camera had more details.
You don't understand how many beginners I've had to stress this megapixel idea to. I shot with a 12.3MP Nikon D90 forever and was fine with larger prints and internet posts. My 24.3MP D750 is better as it's a newer camera and had better dynamic range/ better low light capability. Biggest difference is in cropping itself. Not noticing much else in terms of resolution for what I and most others use.
I do such large prints (90cm +) and even between 20Mpix (Canon 5d MKII) and 50Mpix (Canon 5DSR) there is a visible difference for me, if processing on both maxes out the available image data. It depends on the subject though. Landscapes with lots of detail as well as architecture with fine details usually profit from more megapixels. I couldn't tell from the video how much detail there actually is in the chosen subject for the large print, was pretty dark. That being said, if the customer is happy with the megapixels you use, then it doesn't matter, if it's only 12MPix or if it's more. Also most photos are looked at from a distance (> 1m) and here the difference will be even less visible. But that's just my personal preference.
The bottleneck for prints is printer resolution (and paper). Example: If the printer resolution for a 40x60 inch print is 75 ppi, you only need about 13MP image for a sharp print. Therefore, the important question is: What were the print sizes and printer resolution for those sizes?
Printer resolution is expressed in dots (of ink) per inch, usually 1440 or 2880 dpi, and it is constant. It has nothing to do with the file/photo resolution expressed in ppi.
I feel like most of what this says is that you’re really good at editing photos to be blown up large for printing (which is awesome by the way!) But maybe a possible topic for a future video I personally would love to learn more about the editing for print process and what you were looking for in making those images match so closely. Thanks for your videos!
It's a difference in focus ability and lens quality - that's why the sony was picked every time, instead of it being a 50/50 split (which is expected if it was a random guess) Stop down the lenses to at least f5.6 to start, and shoot objects with less depth I also found this when I had a 1080p projector setup, you could easily see on a large screen what shots in a TV show were in focus, and which weren't
So basically 12MP, finally image, cropped or not, is more than "good enough" even when scrutinized by expert eyes. I would still take a 40-50MP camera over just a 12MP in the real world knowing I can crop all the way down to 12MP. Thats a lot of headroom to rescue a badly, or hastily taken photo.
Idk man I’m a pretty decent photographer, I mean I get paid money, and my a7siii shots look noticeably softer than my a7iii when cropped in. At like normal non cropped it’s not too bad, but it’s so bad at like 100 or 200 percent crop in. I think the issue with this test is not allowing them to zoom. Plus only viewing it on a MacBook display makes it so hard because it has less than a 4o resolution and any high res photo is gonna not look that different from another given that even 12mp is higher.
@@BeatPoet67 most of the Sony glass I shoot with can resolve 40mp so 24 isn’t an issue. Most of the gmaster, tamron, and sigma art glass is enough to resolve the a7riii
I'm going to go buy another Nikon D300. My favorite DSLR and at 12 mp I always felt it was enough for large prints. This video was an outstanding affirmation of more modest gear. Shoot what you love!
I've been an amateur starting with film back in the 60s. I bought my first serious camera during that time based on the advice of a professional photographer. The one thing that stuck in my mind from his freely given advice was this, "buy good glass first, then use quality film." I got the same advice when purchasing my fist digital camera. "Concerning megapixels, the glass is way more important." As a result I have images shot with 4MP that rival anything shot with a MP count 2 to 3 times that. So, great video guys, you just reinforced advice I was given 50+ years ago. Thanks so much.
Still if you started with film you know that given the same "glass" (quality of lens) there is no comparing a 16"x20" (40cm x 50 cm) print obtained from a 8"x10" (20x25cm) film/camera and one obtained with 35 mm film.
To be honest, shooting at f2.8 on the medium format, the depth of field will be shallower than the full frame. You chose the matching focal length but didn't shoot at same depth of field. That takes away sharpness from the medium format!
being a landscape photographer, I love that waterfall picture. Great video and I shoot landscape with 24.6mp, which someone told me was not enough. I am sending them to this video.
Big difference looking at a print vs looking at your images on a 27 or 32 inch 5K screen. The 12 Mpixel image falls apart on those devices. But then again who displays their images as 27inch screens on a wall. For wall prints resolution is less important than getting the perfect exposure, light and framing.
Whoever told you it's not enough, probably owns a printing studio. They are killing it with overpriced huge prints right now... Scaming innocent people into thinking that they need to print on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXL paper for their 40/60/100 MP images. That's how they earn money now. Let me tell you, the golden standard for prints is 12-24 MP and the sweet spot is either 16 or 18 MP depending on the size of the print. The SEPTILLION megapixel sensors is just a marketing scheme to attract casual consumers, because they are the majority and they are the ones who believe in this "higher MP = better" crap. My old 1DX and 1DXll took better images than most new cameras to this date. Sadly I fell for the mirrorless hype crap too and "upgraded" to the a7RIV - There's not a single day that passes, where I don't regret selling my 1DXll... I'm THIS close to buying a used 1DXll.
I just bought a sony a7rii used thinking I needed the megapixels for landscape prints, but really like the nikon z's. May return and go with the z6. It's just resizing I will have to figure out when making prints.
@@burritobrosvideos8060 That as well, yeah. With a 12MP sensor you don't really have much room for cropping, at most you can crop out of the image is approx. 20%, maybe not even that much.
I saw an Interview with a camera developer from canon or red, i don't know the exact brand anymore, where he discussed the effect of higher resolution. What he basically said is that we can't compare sharpness to high resolution. These are are two different things. In fact sharp edges get softer with a higher resolution because they contain more detail. It will look more natural but not as sharp because it's closer to humian sight. It's basically the best and simplest Antialiasing filter. It's a common misconception to think higher resolution results in sharper images, because it was this way in the beginning of digital video when the resolution of our screens was less than the resolution of our eye, but since a couple of years we surpassed this so higher resolution just means finer details which in return results in combination with our sight in "softer" images.
It is not quite a misconception, just a partial truth. The perception we have of sharpness is also a consequence of local contrast and the capacity of our eyes. A print can be far more detailed than another (higher resolution) and "look les sharp" because of lower local (and micro) contrast. Another factor not to be ignored is the resolution AND contrast of the lens used.
it would be super cool to see the process of how you edited the photos ( mainly seeing if you added sharpness or not a all ! ) either way, Thats the type of video i didn't know I needed but happy i got to see ! !
First round, first pic, what no one noticed (or knows; perhaps?) is that DoF (depth of field) is also affected by crop factor, so even if both lenses says they're f/2.8, the Fuji lens' DoF is actually f/2.2 or so in full-frame equivalent, so the shallower DoF in pic B gave it away. This isn't always easy to see, especially as shown in later pics, but knowing that all pics were taken at "f/2.8" makes this a whole lot easier sometimes.
@@MadsDreierPhoto lets make this clear, Aperture depend on lens, changing happen on lens with ff standard F stop. How could sensor size affect this. Simple logic ;)
Thank you so much for this! I have the A7siii and wanted to do some photography for my own home. Need some big prints and thought 12mp wasn't enough. Well now I feel really good about my camera and look forward to taking some nice shots along with my video.
I’ve said this for years to friends and colleagues, but there is still a great deal of value in shooting with high megapixel cameras. Primarily pixel level editing...something that is in demand for a lot of commercial work I do. When you have to start cloning out, air brushing, and removing any imperfections in images a 12mp image is just simply not going to cut it. You said you worked with Toyota and delivered 12mp images to them but you didn’t say what they were used for...because if it’s a campaign for social media then I understand. The majority of content we produce now is being used for social media because that’s where these companies are getting their primary engagement. What’s more, with the really excellent quality we’re seeing from Adobe Sensei and “Super Resolution” it’s going to make it easier to provide clients extremely high resolution images when they need them. I’ve already put that feature to good use and am extremely happy with the results.
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
I have a 16 megapixels camera and I can see the lack of resolution on my wallpaper screen of my 4K 32inch monitor, I downloaded GFX samples it look just amazing (and I far prefered my stills compare to the one I downloaded), how did you exported the still, do you use premiere or DaVinci and what was the export codec please ?
@@schmui No, Its the most important thing actually and could make the whole test pointless (not that I say Its the case but I don't know since Its not explained)
Great video! But quick side note, what tripped everyone up was that they were expecting the 102 MP photo to be sharper, which is not a feature of higher MPs, but rather the image processing of the camera. I'm just speculating but Sony probably knows it's working with lesser MPs therefore they have to compensate with a little more sharpness. It would be interesting to see the 102 MPs after a sharpen filter is applied. How much sharpening can it take before the image deforms and how much more detail can be gained from this. At the end of the day, 102 MPs vs 12 MPs isn't about getting a better image when matched, it's about getting a lot more forgiveness in the edit. This video shows that really well!
Depends on the use case. In most modest-to-moderate sized images viewed 1:1 sure, picking the difference will be difficult. But if you are zooming in / cropping into small areas of an image then resolution becomes hugely important. I have a 4K 32" monitor and even just taking photos on my lowly phoen camera (Note 20+) there is a huge difference when I shoot in 108MP mode vs when I don't when viewing on this screen, especially when zooming or cropping.
I think the issue is with camera manufacturers deliberately marketing high mega pixels as being the way to go for greater detail. The reason I purchased a Sony 61MP A7R4, was due to the fact that I photograph wildlife and have to crop most of my images. The 61MP is a real advantage over my Sony A9 in that area. In fact, Chris Hau actually suggests in the video that he would use a camera with a greater number of MP's if he cropped a lot of his images.
Wow CRAZY Only got the first round correct on the computer, I think when you edited it you made it brighter which actually covered up the fact that it was less. That was my thought until the next round I realised it really is CRAZY THEY LOOK THE SAME!! Love your Work Chris!
This was a great video, I'm so glad I picked up a digital back for my Mamiya 645... Thank you for showing this, because it's about the image, not the camera.
What is the dpi on those large prints? I always see people say 300 dpi is “print quality.” If there was no upscaling, those prints have to be like 100-150 dpi from the Sony. Is the 300 dpi rule B.S. or are those prints up scaled?
The 300dpi rule is BS. 300dpi is too small to make out the dots at under a foot to the human eye. You can’t look at a 2x3 foot print from 12 inches away.
300 DPI is more a guideline rather used as a rule. This is starting point and you may go up or down from here, depends on your size of your print. Majority of all print lab will say 300 DPI on their file requirements. Is not a must-have, they just need a standard measurements.
The 300 dpi rule is not BS, but it is highly misunderstood. 300 dpi came from the Print Production world before the idea of printing with personal printers existed. Printing presses at the time work on what’s called Line Screens and measured in Lines Per Inch (called LPI). And these screens can be anything from a corse 85lpi (News print presses) to 400 LPI (High end commercial Printing presses). The general rule is that the image dpi should be 50% greater than the LPI because you’ll have quality loss when producing the printing plates at their more coarse LPI, so it’s better to have more information up front so that the quality loss is less impactful. If your resolution is lower, then the quality loss becomes more apparent (especially true at lower line screens). This rule holds true right up to the 300 dpi limit. This is because even with the quality loss at 240 LPI at 300 dpi, the human eye can no longer discern the individual ink spots for each of the Process Ink Colors (CMYK) colors without a loupe (like a magnifying glass for printing). This changes with two factors in play; stochastic printing, and variable dot density. Many of today’s large format printers use both these newer printing methods, which significantly change the way the eye perceives the image both at a close up view and more distant view. And as a result, images can be much lower dpi. Most images can get away with as little as 224dpi if they will not be viewed up close like a coffee table book. If it’s on a wall, I’ve produced some as low as 180dpi. What I’ve advised anyone who wants to produce their images, is to keep them saved at the highest resolution they can because there’s no way to know if later down the road, that image may have a need to be produced larger than you did the first time. And it happens more often than you think. Hope this info is helpful.
300 PPi (pixel per inch) is file resolution; DPI (dot per inch) is printer resolution (dots of ink per inch). Usually 1440 or 2880 dpi for photo printing, 720 dpi for text. They are two different types of information and are not directly correlated.
@@EricLS There is a confusion here between pixels per inch (ppi) and dots per inch (dpi): 300 PPi (pixel per inch) is file/image resolution; DPI (dot per inch) is printer resolution (dots of ink per inch). Usually 1440 or 2880 dpi for photo printing, 720 dpi for text. They are two different types of information and are not directly correlated.
It will be. They literally weren’t zooming in, you’ll notice it when cropping. Even the difference between my 12mp a7siii and my 24mp a7iii is a huge difference. The 50mp will help a lot if you do more editing and work in post.
@@camjonny It increases the pixel number of an image by inventing new structures. It does not increase the resolution. That´s the difference between resolution and illusion... ;- )
I found it very interesting that 3 highly professional photographers couldn't tell the difference. That will definitely help me pick my future cameras.
@@Krekkertje look back @ the large print. It's a clear difference which camera (medium format) has more shadow detail and controlled contrast. The Sony A7s3 looks "crushed" by comparison. It's videographers looking at prints.
jeeze, canva is taking over, every video in the last week have been sponsored by them but i do love them so much, i recently started an entire rebrand using them
Love it. Would love to see it as a serious. like 12 vs 102 "Street edition" , or 12 vs 102 "landscape edition", or 12 vs 102 "Portrait edition" . I know I dont have the chance to put these high end bodies into the test against each other.
You forgot to take into account that crop factor also affects Depth of Field. If you stopped the Fuji up to f/2.2 you would’ve had a similar depth of field as the Sony at f/2.8
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
Hi Guys ! The Problem here to me is that you put a Zeiss 1,4 optic closed down to 2,8 against a Fuji 2,8 wide open. This is not a fair comparison even with the huge “resolution” difference. The one bringst a lot more details which are way better interpolated for the needed prints resolution . On top of that , you know that the RaW converter / processing workflow of the image and the printing process is going to make a HUUUGE difference on the final results . Basically , more pixels are always better for printing but they have to be the “same” . People tend to confuse the amount of pixels of an image with the quality of the digital information. A bad image will always be bad, a good small image will “break “ at some point through interpolation. AND a very big point when getting the most out of your sensor is FOCUS accuracy………… I’ve been using Nikon DSLRs for years and Fuji Mirroless. It’s been my experience. Thank you Chris for the great Channel , always a pleasure :-)) cheers from Hamburg, Germany.
Cool test. It proves that when you look at two photos at 100% resolution you really can't tell the difference. However there are still a lot of use for more MP. Editing a photo in Photoshop to remove objects is the first thing that comes to my mind. Obisoubly if you also need to crop or like to recomp a shot the higher MP count will help. I liked this test tho, made me want a Sony A7S iii cause I know I can use it professionally.
No it does not. Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
@@EricLS if it's almost always done, that just means there is actually no benefit to having more pixels, if you shoot close to the angle of view you want to print in the end. High megapixel cameras are very specific tools for a much smaller range of use than people make out to be.
@@DerVagabundli it’s the classic diminishing returns. You can hit R40 insulation in your roof and save a ton vs R13. But then boosting to R150? Not really gonna see a return on investment. Unless there is a hyper-specific reason, like a -50 freezer or something. Like you said, specific tools. At this level of detail lens and diffraction become the deciding factor. I had a LOT of complaints about lenses when the D800 came out and cameras started out resolving all but the absolute sharpest glass.
@@EricLS exactly. And 99% of the time people will see a much greater benefit of buying better glass than better bodies. Too many stories of people spending thousands on new gear only to notice absolutely no improvement in their images...
I agree with the just gist of what you are saying. I doubt that the 102 Mp file was downsampled to 12 Mp for the enlargement/prnt which is the only way to honestly compare the two sensors. Moreover, remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print. greed although
Interesting, but flawed. One lens is wide open (weakest part of the lens) while the other is stopped down 2 stops. Are the prints 2:3 format or 3:4, the which was cropped to match? My suggestion would be doing another test having both lenses stopped down to eliminate the lens.
He said in the bigger print sony is 10mp because he cropped it. Looking at them getting it wrong, I believe we got the message which him want to convey, that beginner shouldn't worry about resolution.
@@getzoutdoor what do you need more mp for if you literally can't tell a difference? It might be much more cost efficient for a photographer to get a lower MP count camera, so FF instead of MF and get a sharper lens to go with it. If you don't print 3m side prints to be viewed from 30cm away, the extra resolution will mainly cause extra hassle and unnecessarily increase cost.
If you shoot at a distance (e.g. a landscape) you'll definitely find the difference in resolution. The higher MP sensor will be able to resolve smaller details much better than the lower MP one.
Ran a test here trying to validate your results on the large print test. Couldn’t do it. 24x30 enlargements.. very visible difference between 12 and 102mp, certainly would never have trouble picking out the GFX. Initially I thought you had reverse engineered the test (picked a print size to support your preformed conclusion). After conducting the same test with largely the same parameters.. I’m left either questioning your eyesight or your integrity. (And I’m not questioning your integrity here, I’m just don’t know how to explain the results you’ve published as the don’t align with what I’m seeing in my re-test).
The essence of youtubers is the same as politicians: they need to say what the followers want to hear. There have to be huge differences in max achievable image quality, and average shot image quality. But even a smartphone can produce a workable image of a close, well lit scene/subject. In the end, all of them will be the same in a youtube video, probably watched on a phone or tablet :-) I remain firm on not questioning anyone's eyesight :-)
Im thinking this test is all about the lenses. The mention the Sony has a Zeiss lens which is super sharp. They don’t mention the make of the lens on the medium format camera. If they put a crappy lens on the 102mp camera the Sony with the Zeiss will win every challenge. 🤷🏼♂️
I think they are legit tests but the testing methodnology is flawed, they did note one thing at the start that they adjusted the photos for color crop and SHARPNESS so they massively sharpened the sony. Take a look at the once of the bird on the lake, you can see the sharpening halo on the 12mp one. Plus as they shoot different ratios one is cropped. Still a cool comparison that shows that post processing may have a large effect on end image quality.
Totally are with you on this. As a photographer judge I knew the screen images might be a bit tough to discern - but knew there was no way there would have been any doubt for the enlargement (especially at that size) - as I have seen first hand in my competitions. I suspect there is a lot more going on behind the scenes in post to make it so difficult to tell the difference. Found it hard to believe, honestly. I have an older Nikon (12mp) and a new (46mp) - same lens, since they are interchangeable with both cameras - no difficulty telling which image came from which camera, ever.
@@blujeans9462 Here there are two modern sensors (obviously an aged low res sensor would be too obvious to tell from a new high res one) ... and he did mention he sharpened & color corrected to make the differences less obvious. Before you question someone's integrity or methodology, pick up two new cameras and test for yourself.
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
Its been said before: the lens is more important than the megapixel count. After about 10 megapixels, more MP is just diminishing returns. MANY "professionals" are still using 15mp dslrs made 15 years ago. If you're cropping more than half the image away - maybe go up to 24MP - but even that may be more MP than really needed. The LENS "makes" the image beautiful - not the sensor size.
My first digital camera was a Kodak DC-4800 with 3 MP. I still remember printing an 11x14 image for a photo competition at a nearby museum. I won first place in the color division for that print. People would ask me what camera I used, thinking it had to be a high end one. They were amazed when I revealed to them it was taken with a $490 3 MP point-and-shoot camera.
This is literally a lens test. The 63mm is one of the weakest G mount lenses, and just as expected, they could tell in microcontrast. Buuuuut I also agree megapixels are worth little for 95% of shooters. I still use the Fujifilm X-T1 which is a 16MP sensor (without AA filter so kind of equivalent to 24MP in detail rendition) and also because I like APS-C for concert photography.
Curious, how big were the "big prints?" I've actually asked photographers before why they need a 102mp camera and their answer was for "art prints" but how big do you think people are going to actually buy prints? Lol unless someone has a wall the size of a basketball court, you probably will never need it.
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
I see the point, but fundamentally this is comparing the two lenses here!. Resolving power is a property of the lens and not the sensor. It might be just that Sony's 50mm lens is better than Fuji 63!
Thank you for making this video. I bought a 12MP camera a month ago and all my photo buddies were like "What for???". I already have a 24MP camera, and yes when I have to crop on the 24MP is it nice. But the 12MP camera makes me so happy to have and use. I love hearing Peter say the 12MP is better for larger prints. So many times, Megapixel snobs say you need more MP to print larger than X size. What do they know. You have a new subscriber, thank you again for a really interesting video.
I think it's the lens that held the Fuji back, not the body itself. But as you said, there are other benefits to higher pixel count than just quality alone, so people buying the GFX 100S must know what they're doing. Fuji should need to up their medium format lens game then the market would stir up a lot. Don't get me wrong, I'm an A7S3 user, I love the camera, and for hybrid use it's crazy good. Just sharing my thoughts about how the results were not what people were expecting.
This is such a flawed test. You probably never print that’s why. 1) the “big” print is small by today’s standard, there is absolutely no need for this many megapixels if you print that small 2) more megapixels means you can push more, if you did the same work on both images it’s normal the difference at the end is thin (working with sharpness for a print is a whole world in itself, you probably ended up with an image that is not sharp in both prints) 3) Lenses do not resolve the same way, you can see the lens resolution just as megapixels for lenses (what aperture did you use for both lenses by the way? As everybody knows lenses resolve more when they are stopped down) 4) the cameras sensor tech and lenses are different, you should have used a Sony a7sIII and a Sony a7rIV with the exact same lens It is absolutely obvious to anyone doing prints that you will end up with something similar if you make a straight comparison. But if you can’t manage to get more out of the higher megapixel image there is an issue somewhere.
Agreed. I think a better example would be to compare an old DSLR from the 2000s with a 4MP/6MP sensor to a slightly newer 12MP one with the same mount+lens. Like a Nikon D100 vs D300. You really don't need high resolution for most photos, and the biggest advantage of higher resolutions is the added crop ability. The added detail for architecture/landscape photos is also useful from a higher resolution, but not to the degree that most people may realize. This test failed when they used different lenses across different formats. Hell, an A7Riv would've been a significantly better comparison, as it shares the same sensor size, lens mount, and color science as the A7Siii.
There are some many limiting factors of the mediums that hinder the accuracy comparison of the 2 sensors' pictures: 1) Screen resolution 2) Export DPI setting - Social media was limited do to the file compression 3) Printer print resolution.
By far, the main advantage of greater mp and medium format is crop-ability and making very large enlargements. Small prints, computer / phone screens are unable to put those advantages to use because of the limited information present on those formats. Regarding the enlargements: there is something fishy there: a 12 PM sensor is 3000 x 4000 pixels. If we reduce the pixel to just 1 dot, at 200 dpi (instead of the 300 for finer art) that becomes a print 15 in x 20 in, beyond which resolutions falls. The choice of image for the large print negated the advantages of greater MP and image: The large print should have been the fern where edges are important. Instead the large print had dark rocks and flowing water, both of which hide deteriorated resolution.
The test is not that reliable in comparing the two cameras/sensors (although it is obvious you do not need a medium format camera if you only see your images on a phone or post them in Facebook), it exemplifies what can be done in post-production that becomes quite amazing. So, remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
As a guy who ran a Camera store / print shop, this is 100% lens vs lens test. We’ve also completely lost sight of megapixels, 12 used to be a LOT. 102 is just cartoonish, only really particularly useful for aero photos
I got all but the leaf correct because I was focusing primarily on dynamic range. The 12mp sensor should have much larger photosites than the 102, and therefore should be able to retain more detail in highlights. Realistically I would say that there is no difference, but comparing them side by side on a large high resolution display it is possible to see ever so slightly more information highlight in the 12mp in most of the photos. Even the Instagram photo had some clipping on the right side that was less significant on the 12mp. Regardless, this illustrates the point extremely well and I'm glad this video exists!
Nice one! This year I bought the Canon EOS R6 Mark II (24 megapixels) coming from the EOS 5D Mark III (22 megapixels, so not a big resolution difference but ten years older). At first I wanted to stay in the same "camera class" looking at the EOS R5 (45 megapixels). But after looking at the price, several features, the AF and so on I decided to stay with the lower resolution, remembering the time when 20 megapixels were considered very high. I have to say: Yeah, I don't miss the higher resolution and I'm happy I can save quite a lot of storage. It's just a fact 24 megapixels are enough most of the time - just as 12 megapixels can be fine in many cases. A 4K monitor only has 8 megapixels and those can already look very sharp even when they're really big. So yeah: I'm okay with not having the highest resolution out there. :)
Still salty I blew it so bad.
Can't escape it sometimes 😂
I would have done the same
Hey man, perhaps someday you can be a great photographer as well! (jk ofc haha)
Hey Pete!!
HAHA 🤣
Who played along? Put your scores below for each round. Genuinely curious :) For clarification on the process: Both cameras were shot in the highest quality .JPEG (for each camera) on a neutral camera setting with very little adjustments to exposure, temperature and colour so they both matched. Overall I had to de-sharpen the Sony and sharpen the Fuji. Remember that this test was to look purely at MegaPixels when viewed on very common platforms and see if you can notice. Also who made it to the country song? P.S - There is no biased to Sony. I love all cameras. Canon, Nikon, Fuji. This was a fun experiment to look purely at megapixels when viewed on the most common platforms for distribution and viewing.
That glare made it good ! LOL
Got 1 right and it was pure luck cause I chose randomly tbh 😅✌️🇲🇽
1 right. Hollyyyy! I can't believe it. It's so crazy how we have got ourselves into thinking beter specs make better stuff. Wow! I'm amazed!
Duuuuude! that was cool and the Outro is one of a kind 😂😂
@@DatDNguyen I don't think he did, because that would interfere with the purpose of the video as a whole
The proper way of doing this was 12mp vs 61mp using the A7S and the A7RIV both with the same exact lens. Most of the differences and the way they were trying to tell them apart was due to differences in how the lens behaves with the sensor, not the sensor resolution, which was the purpose of the challenge.
The first one was obvious due to the wider fov, the rest weren’t noticeable. But you’re right, this is a FF vs MF test
This was a sad video from people that supposedly know a ton about cameras. That comparison would have made much more sense as the quality between the two lenses also could have varied. Lastly, they should demonstrate substantial cropping on high vs low mp as even a four year old could make out that difference.
Spot on comment:)
I still wonder how one could tell the difference between 12Mp and 102MP when the pictures are displayed on an 8MP (~ 4K) screen. On top of that the Mac screen has a really high pixel density, at the distance they are at details (single pixels) are so small that our eyes can't make them out
@@Valkaronswhat’s sad is you think ppl care what you have to say… take your negativity elsewhere
This is comforting. I've been a videographer for my whole career but recently I started getting more opportunities to shoot stills and I've been using my Sony A7S III. But since I'm new to the photography world, I've been a little insecure about shooting stills with such a low Mega Pixel count. This makes me put those worries to rest. Thanks!
I shoot on the same and 24 is def a sweet spot because I’m still comfortable to crop and not worry about it but it’s not so many that I spend 9k on a body
Plot Twist: Chris got confused and marked them all wrong. xD
he never knew once the shots are taken ahahah
The perfect Canadian collab doesn't ex-
I wish I could pin more than one comment.
@@thechrishau ahahaha
This is Gerald Undone erasure
Only matti is missing :(
A comment. ♥️
I shoot soooooo many photos on my A7Siii and they look incredible. I can't believe I was so nervous when i bought it lol
they are actually fucking mint!
Is it look alike a7r4 click?
Same, so impressed with the SonyA7Siii photos. Think the only advantage with the A7R4 is you can crop in more.
I don't think you should buy an S series just for photos, even though it can do both
@@L1NKHVH For sure,I got the S as I mainly do video work but just a bonus the pics are really great. If you only taking pics for social media,all you need. With a combination of great lenses,pics will be great.
I was laughing because if it was so hard to even tell the difference, then the winner, right away, was the 12MP camera.
I think the thing to remember is he edited the pictures to look the same, not edited them to take advantage of the megapixels and color. That's a huge factor in this contest.
At the beginning he states that he edited sharpness to match the photos, I feel that somehow distorts the test. It's like judging the colour reproduction of a camera after applying personal profiles to each photo. We also must remember that Fujifilm is "medium format", not true Medium Format. :-)
@@menteasoqquadro yeah I feel it's disingenuous because it creates the false pretense that a 12MP camera can be as good as a 102MP camera, but what it's really doing is saying the 102MP camera can come down to a s 12MP level. Yes we understand that in a lot of different scenarios, 102MP is not needed and it won't matter which camera you use, but we all know this, but specialized cameras are made for specialized reasons.
@@neogod29 professionals would know it at the first place, that medium format has its own place. This video maybe made for beginner who loves watching photography content on UA-cam and feels inferior due to their gears..
@@menteasoqquadro Wouldn't you sharpen images before printing / publishing too? Have you ever heard of someone who prints (SOOC)? :)
@@ZakiQutteineh Printing for an experiment is quite different Zaki
2 weeks later:
The printer service: "Hey Chris, sorry we just made a joke with you, we mixed up the prints for you."
😂😂😂😂😂
I’ve been so pleasantly surprised with my shots on the a7siii. I’ve been shooting with it a lot more because its floppy screen is so useful and my a7iii only for the extra MP
Do you see a difference with your A73 picture quality wise - color dr etc
Ive been taking photo with my fx3 and its great
Dude, I didn't even inspect those images in real life and this still offends my heart. lol
I'm sorry - not sorry.
This is CRAZY! I have to admit that I got every single one wrong 😂 This was really interesting to see!
don't feel bad, the video is in 4k which is only about 8 megapixels so its completely impossible to see the difference in resolution without zooming in :)
@@tobiasyoder Not to mention the light glare on The big boy
To be fair. UA-cam compression algorithm is brutal. You really can't compare resolutions via UA-cam. Because UA-cam will crush fine detail. Even if the video was posted in 8k
Look at low-light detail. Bigger sensors with fewer pixels seem to do that well.
@@Erowens98 bs youtube supports 8k
A fundamental misunderstanding of the use of megapixels. More megapixels allows you to either magnify or crop into an image that in turn magnify the display of that image offering smoother edges or and details. Also a sharper image at 12mp in focus will look clearer than a 105mp out of focus.
Okay, so, first of all, display resolutions:
1080p is roughly 2 megapixels while 4k is about 8 megapixels.
For purely digital display of a static image, cameras with anything more than 10 megapixels will basically all look the same.
For prints it will definitely make a difference if you have a good enough printer. An 8"x10" print at 1200dpi is 115 million dots and obviously with larger format printing the numbers go up from there.
However it's silly that everyone was expecting the higher megapixel camera to make "sharper" prints. That's not how that works. For a high contrast edge in a given composition, say that edge is a one pixel difference on a 12 megapixel camera sensor, (bright on the left, and the next pixel over is dark,) then if you take the same shot with a 102 megapixel sensor, that same edge now occupies about eight more pixels.
That's eight steps of gradation the 12 megapixel camera doesn't have. When you blow that image up to a large format print that sharp jump in contrast seen by the 12 megapixel camera is preserved, however the 102 megapixel image now has a lot of space to show off all of the extra color information it captured at the transition of the edge. Those eight extra pixels, on a digital display, would just be thrown out because the screen doesn't have enough resolution to show them, but on a large format print, those eight pixels could amount to dozens or hundreds of dots, and now it's at a size where your eye can actually discern it.
For general purpose photography, a higher pixel count will result in prints that look softer in areas of hard contrast, while a lower pixel count will comparatively "sharpen" the image. Higher pixel counts basically have the effect of anti-aliasing an image compared to the lower pixel count sensor.
Loving the video game/vhs title aesthetic for this. 🕹📼
Something most people overlook is tonality. Medium format and higher resolution does help capture the more subtle tones. Also, people often confused sharpness with resolution. A picture can be over sharpened and to the untrained eyes, it has more resolution.
We're looking at a UA-cam video so its impossible to accurately judge. This is more a reaction video.
Thank you so much for making this video, one of my biggest pet peeves are people who claim to be more than just a beginner but then choose their cameras for the megapixel size alone 😂😂
Imagine that people claim they can see a difference between 4k and 8k. You can't. People can barely see the difference between fullhd and 4K. All movies we watch in cinemas has been 2K resolution. No one was complaining.
@@webinatic216 Exactly! All people try and justify better resolution when all they should be focusing on is the story they're telling through the photo or video!
@@webinatic216 it's all a factor of distance and pixel density. Notice how he said at the start that it's unfair if they zoom b/c that would give it away? Full hd is 2.1 megapixels, 4k is a jump up to 12 and 8k is 33. You can blow up a 4k image pretty large before it starts to lose quality, you can make an 8k image even bigger and maintain clarity, the issue in this video is they didn't hit those sizes. The point he should be making is that unless you are making 6ft prints that 12mp camera is pretty great, most consumer screens still rnt even 4k yet so anything in the digital world is fine
@@bryanmiller4366 There is also pixel quality of the image taken. There is a video on youtube where they used a cinema camera vs 8K phone video and the cinema camera had more details.
You don't understand how many beginners I've had to stress this megapixel idea to. I shot with a 12.3MP Nikon D90 forever and was fine with larger prints and internet posts. My 24.3MP D750 is better as it's a newer camera and had better dynamic range/ better low light capability. Biggest difference is in cropping itself. Not noticing much else in terms of resolution for what I and most others use.
I do such large prints (90cm +) and even between 20Mpix (Canon 5d MKII) and 50Mpix (Canon 5DSR) there is a visible difference for me, if processing on both maxes out the available image data. It depends on the subject though. Landscapes with lots of detail as well as architecture with fine details usually profit from more megapixels. I couldn't tell from the video how much detail there actually is in the chosen subject for the large print, was pretty dark.
That being said, if the customer is happy with the megapixels you use, then it doesn't matter, if it's only 12MPix or if it's more. Also most photos are looked at from a distance (> 1m) and here the difference will be even less visible.
But that's just my personal preference.
The bottleneck for prints is printer resolution (and paper). Example: If the printer resolution for a 40x60 inch print is 75 ppi, you only need about 13MP image for a sharp print. Therefore, the important question is: What were the print sizes and printer resolution for those sizes?
The printer resolution doesn’t change function of the size, right?
Printer resolution is expressed in dots (of ink) per inch, usually 1440 or 2880 dpi, and it is constant. It has nothing to do with the file/photo resolution expressed in ppi.
Gerald Undone would‘ve guessed all right, because he‘s simply Gerald Undone, and Gerald Undone knows everything.
🤣😂😅🤣🤣
He's crazy...
I feel like most of what this says is that you’re really good at editing photos to be blown up large for printing (which is awesome by the way!)
But maybe a possible topic for a future video I personally would love to learn more about the editing for print process and what you were looking for in making those images match so closely.
Thanks for your videos!
The animations between each of the rounds, Amazing! Music selection, even more Amazing!
Thanks so much! W'ere really having fun these days.
The older I get the more megapixels cameras have but the fewer megapixels my eyes have. It's actually quite cost effective.
It's a difference in focus ability and lens quality - that's why the sony was picked every time, instead of it being a 50/50 split (which is expected if it was a random guess)
Stop down the lenses to at least f5.6 to start, and shoot objects with less depth
I also found this when I had a 1080p projector setup, you could easily see on a large screen what shots in a TV show were in focus, and which weren't
So basically 12MP, finally image, cropped or not, is more than "good enough" even when scrutinized by expert eyes. I would still take a 40-50MP camera over just a 12MP in the real world knowing I can crop all the way down to 12MP. Thats a lot of headroom to rescue a badly, or hastily taken photo.
Idk man I’m a pretty decent photographer, I mean I get paid money, and my a7siii shots look noticeably softer than my a7iii when cropped in. At like normal non cropped it’s not too bad, but it’s so bad at like 100 or 200 percent crop in. I think the issue with this test is not allowing them to zoom. Plus only viewing it on a MacBook display makes it so hard because it has less than a 4o resolution and any high res photo is gonna not look that different from another given that even 12mp is higher.
But yeah I agree having the option is way better than only having the 12mp raw
You only get the cropping advantage if the glass is great to begin with.
@@BeatPoet67 most of the Sony glass I shoot with can resolve 40mp so 24 isn’t an issue. Most of the gmaster, tamron, and sigma art glass is enough to resolve the a7riii
@@BeatPoet67 most modern glass, even cheap glass is like 19mp or more
I'm going to go buy another Nikon D300. My favorite DSLR and at 12 mp I always felt it was enough for large prints. This video was an outstanding affirmation of more modest gear. Shoot what you love!
Lucas is killing these edits!! I was literally searching things about this and then you posted LOL!!
Thanks for saying this! I'll let him know. :)
I've been an amateur starting with film back in the 60s. I bought my first serious camera during that time based on the advice of a professional photographer. The one thing that stuck in my mind from his freely given advice was this, "buy good glass first, then use quality film." I got the same advice when purchasing my fist digital camera. "Concerning megapixels, the glass is way more important." As a result I have images shot with 4MP that rival anything shot with a MP count 2 to 3 times that. So, great video guys, you just reinforced advice I was given 50+ years ago. Thanks so much.
Still if you started with film you know that given the same "glass" (quality of lens) there is no comparing a 16"x20" (40cm x 50 cm) print obtained from a 8"x10" (20x25cm) film/camera and one obtained with 35 mm film.
To be honest, shooting at f2.8 on the medium format, the depth of field will be shallower than the full frame. You chose the matching focal length but didn't shoot at same depth of field. That takes away sharpness from the medium format!
Nonetheless, still an interesting video
being a landscape photographer, I love that waterfall picture. Great video and I shoot landscape with 24.6mp, which someone told me was not enough. I am sending them to this video.
Big difference looking at a print vs looking at your images on a 27 or 32 inch 5K screen. The 12 Mpixel image falls apart on those devices. But then again who displays their images as 27inch screens on a wall. For wall prints resolution is less important than getting the perfect exposure, light and framing.
Whoever told you it's not enough, probably owns a printing studio. They are killing it with overpriced huge prints right now... Scaming innocent people into thinking that they need to print on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXL paper for their 40/60/100 MP images. That's how they earn money now.
Let me tell you, the golden standard for prints is 12-24 MP and the sweet spot is either 16 or 18 MP depending on the size of the print. The SEPTILLION megapixel sensors is just a marketing scheme to attract casual consumers, because they are the majority and they are the ones who believe in this "higher MP = better" crap. My old 1DX and 1DXll took better images than most new cameras to this date. Sadly I fell for the mirrorless hype crap too and "upgraded" to the a7RIV - There's not a single day that passes, where I don't regret selling my 1DXll... I'm THIS close to buying a used 1DXll.
I just bought a sony a7rii used thinking I needed the megapixels for landscape prints, but really like the nikon z's. May return and go with the z6. It's just resizing I will have to figure out when making prints.
@@nogerboher5266 its all about how much you crop and how large you print
@@burritobrosvideos8060 That as well, yeah. With a 12MP sensor you don't really have much room for cropping, at most you can crop out of the image is approx. 20%, maybe not even that much.
I saw an Interview with a camera developer from canon or red, i don't know the exact brand anymore, where he discussed the effect of higher resolution. What he basically said is that we can't compare sharpness to high resolution. These are are two different things. In fact sharp edges get softer with a higher resolution because they contain more detail. It will look more natural but not as sharp because it's closer to humian sight. It's basically the best and simplest Antialiasing filter.
It's a common misconception to think higher resolution results in sharper images, because it was this way in the beginning of digital video when the resolution of our screens was less than the resolution of our eye, but since a couple of years we surpassed this so higher resolution just means finer details which in return results in combination with our sight in "softer" images.
It is not quite a misconception, just a partial truth. The perception we have of sharpness is also a consequence of local contrast and the capacity of our eyes. A print can be far more detailed than another (higher resolution) and "look les sharp" because of lower local (and micro) contrast. Another factor not to be ignored is the resolution AND contrast of the lens used.
it would be super cool to see the process of how you edited the photos ( mainly seeing if you added sharpness or not a all ! ) either way, Thats the type of video i didn't know I needed but happy i got to see ! !
Yes! Would love to see that video as well.
The author did mention in the comments he had to de-sharpen the Sony while sharpening the Fuji
@@VinDieselS70 I'd like to see that!
First round, first pic, what no one noticed (or knows; perhaps?) is that DoF (depth of field) is also affected by crop factor, so even if both lenses says they're f/2.8, the Fuji lens' DoF is actually f/2.2 or so in full-frame equivalent, so the shallower DoF in pic B gave it away.
This isn't always easy to see, especially as shown in later pics, but knowing that all pics were taken at "f/2.8" makes this a whole lot easier sometimes.
Awesome vid! So interesting, love the transparency and the honesty of seeing you guys do this haha
This is very encouraging for people with entry level cameras.
Did you take in account that f/2.8 on FF is not f/2.8 on the Fuji (if you want equal DOF?)🤔🙈
F2.8 is F2.8 everywhere
Saleto Filmmaking absolutely not true🤷🏼♂️ Google it😉
@@MadsDreierPhoto um i have 5 years experience with cameras. A7ii -> a7r3, 6d2 -> eos r. I know what i’m talking about ;)
Saleto Filmmaking I have 25 years😂 Just google “Equivalence Also Includes Aperture and ISO” and read it....
@@MadsDreierPhoto lets make this clear, Aperture depend on lens, changing happen on lens with ff standard F stop. How could sensor size affect this. Simple logic ;)
My favourite creators all in one video! All Canadian! All Amazing!
All at once for a fun time! Enjoy :)
@@thechrishau Great stuff man - your content has seriously increased so much since I started watching a while ago. Always love your work, keep it up!
Same... same
Thank you so much for this! I have the A7siii and wanted to do some photography for my own home. Need some big prints and thought 12mp wasn't enough. Well now I feel really good about my camera and look forward to taking some nice shots along with my video.
I’ve said this for years to friends and colleagues, but there is still a great deal of value in shooting with high megapixel cameras. Primarily pixel level editing...something that is in demand for a lot of commercial work I do. When you have to start cloning out, air brushing, and removing any imperfections in images a 12mp image is just simply not going to cut it. You said you worked with Toyota and delivered 12mp images to them but you didn’t say what they were used for...because if it’s a campaign for social media then I understand. The majority of content we produce now is being used for social media because that’s where these companies are getting their primary engagement.
What’s more, with the really excellent quality we’re seeing from Adobe Sensei and “Super Resolution” it’s going to make it easier to provide clients extremely high resolution images when they need them. I’ve already put that feature to good use and am extremely happy with the results.
"I'm questioning all my life choices" I cried 😂😂😭
This is valid now. They are not together anymore. sad to see them separated.
"im looking for depth..... They look identical" 😂
I'm honestly shocked that the A7Siii held up with that bigger print. Also, love that waterfall photo!!
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
I have a 16 megapixels camera and I can see the lack of resolution on my wallpaper screen of my 4K 32inch monitor, I downloaded GFX samples it look just amazing (and I far prefered my stills compare to the one I downloaded), how did you exported the still, do you use premiere or DaVinci and what was the export codec please ?
When working with Davinci Resolve, use "grab still" in the color tab, right click on it when it appears in the stills gallery and export as whatever.
@@schmui No I know, I was wondering how he managed the stills for this experiment, which is the most important
@@DarkTrapStudio
Ah ok gotcha. No idea, i don't think it really matters since the whole "test" was flawed and simply broken on so many levels
@@schmui No, Its the most important thing actually and could make the whole test pointless (not that I say Its the case but I don't know since Its not explained)
@@DarkTrapStudio
Well but that's what I'm saying, the test already is completely kaputt.
Great video! But quick side note, what tripped everyone up was that they were expecting the 102 MP photo to be sharper, which is not a feature of higher MPs, but rather the image processing of the camera. I'm just speculating but Sony probably knows it's working with lesser MPs therefore they have to compensate with a little more sharpness. It would be interesting to see the 102 MPs after a sharpen filter is applied. How much sharpening can it take before the image deforms and how much more detail can be gained from this. At the end of the day, 102 MPs vs 12 MPs isn't about getting a better image when matched, it's about getting a lot more forgiveness in the edit. This video shows that really well!
Loved this video! Great idea and a great example of how overrated megapixels are. Would love to collaborate someday 🔥
Megapixels are overrated
yes true i thought 102 mega pixel would be very nice but... no
Depends on the use case.
In most modest-to-moderate sized images viewed 1:1 sure, picking the difference will be difficult. But if you are zooming in / cropping into small areas of an image then resolution becomes hugely important.
I have a 4K 32" monitor and even just taking photos on my lowly phoen camera (Note 20+) there is a huge difference when I shoot in 108MP mode vs when I don't when viewing on this screen, especially when zooming or cropping.
if you only do instagram pics of course.
I think the issue is with camera manufacturers deliberately marketing high mega pixels as being the way to go for greater detail. The reason I purchased a Sony 61MP A7R4, was due to the fact that I photograph wildlife and have to crop most of my images. The 61MP is a real advantage over my Sony A9 in that area. In fact, Chris Hau actually suggests in the video that he would use a camera with a greater number of MP's if he cropped a lot of his images.
This should’ve been the hunger games but with pictures, everyone starts out with a burger and if they lose they have to give it to the winner 😂
So... the best pictures came out of a video camera? Ok thank you guys for saving us some money 🙏🏼👌🏼
i pwn both and the fuji is much better in real life. Much better
@@burritobrosvideos8060 This wasn't "real life"? LOL.
@@decoytv7580 you wouldn't know, you're too broke to use a medium format
Wow CRAZY Only got the first round correct on the computer, I think when you edited it you made it brighter which actually covered up the fact that it was less. That was my thought until the next round I realised it really is CRAZY THEY LOOK THE SAME!! Love your Work Chris!
This was a great video, I'm so glad I picked up a digital back for my Mamiya 645... Thank you for showing this, because it's about the image, not the camera.
What is the dpi on those large prints? I always see people say 300 dpi is “print quality.” If there was no upscaling, those prints have to be like 100-150 dpi from the Sony. Is the 300 dpi rule B.S. or are those prints up scaled?
The 300dpi rule is BS.
300dpi is too small to make out the dots at under a foot to the human eye. You can’t look at a 2x3 foot print from 12 inches away.
300 DPI is more a guideline rather used as a rule. This is starting point and you may go up or down from here, depends on your size of your print.
Majority of all print lab will say 300 DPI on their file requirements. Is not a must-have, they just need a standard measurements.
The 300 dpi rule is not BS, but it is highly misunderstood. 300 dpi came from the Print Production world before the idea of printing with personal printers existed.
Printing presses at the time work on what’s called Line Screens and measured in Lines Per Inch (called LPI). And these screens can be anything from a corse 85lpi (News print presses) to 400 LPI (High end commercial Printing presses). The general rule is that the image dpi should be 50% greater than the LPI because you’ll have quality loss when producing the printing plates at their more coarse LPI, so it’s better to have more information up front so that the quality loss is less impactful. If your resolution is lower, then the quality loss becomes more apparent (especially true at lower line screens).
This rule holds true right up to the 300 dpi limit. This is because even with the quality loss at 240 LPI at 300 dpi, the human eye can no longer discern the individual ink spots for each of the Process Ink Colors (CMYK) colors without a loupe (like a magnifying glass for printing).
This changes with two factors in play; stochastic printing, and variable dot density. Many of today’s large format printers use both these newer printing methods, which significantly change the way the eye perceives the image both at a close up view and more distant view. And as a result, images can be much lower dpi. Most images can get away with as little as 224dpi if they will not be viewed up close like a coffee table book. If it’s on a wall, I’ve produced some as low as 180dpi.
What I’ve advised anyone who wants to produce their images, is to keep them saved at the highest resolution they can because there’s no way to know if later down the road, that image may have a need to be produced larger than you did the first time. And it happens more often than you think.
Hope this info is helpful.
300 PPi (pixel per inch) is file resolution; DPI (dot per inch) is printer resolution (dots of ink per inch). Usually 1440 or 2880 dpi for photo printing, 720 dpi for text. They are two different types of information and are not directly correlated.
@@EricLS There is a confusion here between pixels per inch (ppi) and dots per inch (dpi): 300 PPi (pixel per inch) is file/image resolution; DPI (dot per inch) is printer resolution (dots of ink per inch). Usually 1440 or 2880 dpi for photo printing, 720 dpi for text. They are two different types of information and are not directly correlated.
Here I was thinking Sona A1 will be a game-changer in my photography lol
It will be. They literally weren’t zooming in, you’ll notice it when cropping. Even the difference between my 12mp a7siii and my 24mp a7iii is a huge difference. The 50mp will help a lot if you do more editing and work in post.
@@RiceCubeTech use Adobes new enhance function to up the resolution 4 times, problem solved in post :) Takes 12mp up to 48mp.
@Aries Yes you can
@@camjonny It increases the pixel number of an image by inventing new structures. It does not increase the resolution. That´s the difference between resolution and illusion... ;- )
I found it very interesting that 3 highly professional photographers couldn't tell the difference. That will definitely help me pick my future cameras.
No but the other 3 are... also all 4 definitely have their experience with looking for detail I’m sure
They're more videographer than photographer honestly. The highest resolution they can see is probably 4k 😂
@@Krekkertje look back @ the large print. It's a clear difference which camera (medium format) has more shadow detail and controlled contrast. The Sony A7s3 looks "crushed" by comparison. It's videographers looking at prints.
jeeze, canva is taking over, every video in the last week have been sponsored by them but i do love them so much, i recently started an entire rebrand using them
Love it. Would love to see it as a serious. like 12 vs 102 "Street edition" , or 12 vs 102 "landscape edition", or 12 vs 102 "Portrait edition" . I know I dont have the chance to put these high end bodies into the test against each other.
“I got both wrong.....COOL”. ~Peter😂
sony killing the game rn 🔥
Right now? It’s a 7 year old camera don’t forget..
@@blakemartin1700 It was a Sony A7siii according to the title, not A7S...still only 12 MP....mind blowing!
I have a nikon D3(13yrs old) with 12mp and people think it's a Sony.
Not just Sony. Sony + editing software to increase sharpness.
Too bad the reliability is so bad 😯
loved this video man!! hahaha I refuse to go over 25mp for video personally!
If you went over even 8mp for video that'd be crazy haha. 8mp is 4k so 25 would be higher than anything weve ever seen or are maybe even capable of.
Um, yea bro, video resolution is much lower than still photography. For video, pixels are skipped or image is cropped to achive lower vid resolution.
Your camera, whatever it is, is not shooting at 25mp but a much, much lower resolution
You forgot to take into account that crop factor also affects Depth of Field. If you stopped the Fuji up to f/2.2 you would’ve had a similar depth of field as the Sony at f/2.8
“I’m questioning all my life choices.” Yeah, start with the choice of wearing a hat like that indoors.
And how she pronounce ''Bokeh'' too..
@@Masterfighterx how she pronounces bokeh is the correct way. However you’ve been saying it, you’re wrong.
"Gear doesn't matter.... But gear matters"
- Matti Haapoja.
Haha - this is a great example of that!
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
Wtf I had no idea Chris was there until he gave them the prints 😂😂
What would be an interesting follow up film from this conclusion is your process enlarging both images to print from each camera to look the same :)
Hi Guys ! The Problem here to me is that you put a Zeiss 1,4 optic closed down to 2,8 against a Fuji 2,8 wide open. This is not a fair comparison even with the huge “resolution” difference. The one bringst a lot more details which are way better interpolated for the needed prints resolution . On top of that , you know that the RaW converter / processing workflow of the image and the printing process is going to make a HUUUGE difference on the final results . Basically , more pixels are always better for printing but they have to be the “same” . People tend to confuse the amount of pixels of an image with the quality of the digital information. A bad image will always be bad, a good small image will “break “ at some point through interpolation. AND a very big point when getting the most out of your sensor is FOCUS accuracy………… I’ve been using Nikon DSLRs for years and Fuji Mirroless. It’s been my experience. Thank you Chris for the great Channel , always a pleasure :-)) cheers from Hamburg, Germany.
Cool test. It proves that when you look at two photos at 100% resolution you really can't tell the difference. However there are still a lot of use for more MP. Editing a photo in Photoshop to remove objects is the first thing that comes to my mind. Obisoubly if you also need to crop or like to recomp a shot the higher MP count will help. I liked this test tho, made me want a Sony A7S iii cause I know I can use it professionally.
No it does not. Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
Eye-opening
And you again
@@Saleto sao em đang theo dõi anh hả?
@@phucmapvlog ~~ em dân làm film thì theo chân channel dân làm film là phải rồi
@@Saleto tụi mình có giống đam mê
hi anh
I have an A7s and A7r4 I can definitely tell a difference. I can only assume the 102mp was down sampled to 12mp before printing.
This is HUGE. Printing almost always means resampling to a specific size.
But really here, the Sony has a lens with way better “microcontrast”.
@@EricLS if it's almost always done, that just means there is actually no benefit to having more pixels, if you shoot close to the angle of view you want to print in the end.
High megapixel cameras are very specific tools for a much smaller range of use than people make out to be.
@@DerVagabundli it’s the classic diminishing returns. You can hit R40 insulation in your roof and save a ton vs R13. But then boosting to R150? Not really gonna see a return on investment. Unless there is a hyper-specific reason, like a -50 freezer or something. Like you said, specific tools. At this level of detail lens and diffraction become the deciding factor. I had a LOT of complaints about lenses when the D800 came out and cameras started out resolving all but the absolute sharpest glass.
@@EricLS exactly. And 99% of the time people will see a much greater benefit of buying better glass than better bodies.
Too many stories of people spending thousands on new gear only to notice absolutely no improvement in their images...
I agree with the just gist of what you are saying. I doubt that the 102 Mp file was downsampled to 12 Mp for the enlargement/prnt which is the only way to honestly compare the two sensors. Moreover, remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print. greed although
Interesting, but flawed. One lens is wide open (weakest part of the lens) while the other is stopped down 2 stops. Are the prints 2:3 format or 3:4, the which was cropped to match? My suggestion would be doing another test having both lenses stopped down to eliminate the lens.
He said in the bigger print sony is 10mp because he cropped it. Looking at them getting it wrong, I believe we got the message which him want to convey, that beginner shouldn't worry about resolution.
Yeah are the Fuji pics just a 12MP crop to match the Sony? If so...waste of time really.
@@jabezhane no. Only the sony 12 was cropped down to 10. So it was 102 vs 10
Yeah I'm not suprised the Sony looked sharper since the Fuji was wide open.
@@getzoutdoor what do you need more mp for if you literally can't tell a difference?
It might be much more cost efficient for a photographer to get a lower MP count camera, so FF instead of MF and get a sharper lens to go with it.
If you don't print 3m side prints to be viewed from 30cm away, the extra resolution will mainly cause extra hassle and unnecessarily increase cost.
If you shoot at a distance (e.g. a landscape) you'll definitely find the difference in resolution. The higher MP sensor will be able to resolve smaller details much better than the lower MP one.
Not surprised! I've seen real size prints of full body portraits taken with a phone, and looks great, even at close. Cool video, by the way!
Joseph Ellis's take on this is WAY more accurate and informative. Do yourself a favor if you are seriously interested in this topic.
Ran a test here trying to validate your results on the large print test. Couldn’t do it. 24x30 enlargements.. very visible difference between 12 and 102mp, certainly would never have trouble picking out the GFX. Initially I thought you had reverse engineered the test (picked a print size to support your preformed conclusion). After conducting the same test with largely the same parameters.. I’m left either questioning your eyesight or your integrity. (And I’m not questioning your integrity here, I’m just don’t know how to explain the results you’ve published as the don’t align with what I’m seeing in my re-test).
The essence of youtubers is the same as politicians: they need to say what the followers want to hear.
There have to be huge differences in max achievable image quality, and average shot image quality. But even a smartphone can produce a workable image of a close, well lit scene/subject. In the end, all of them will be the same in a youtube video, probably watched on a phone or tablet :-)
I remain firm on not questioning anyone's eyesight :-)
Im thinking this test is all about the lenses. The mention the Sony has a Zeiss lens which is super sharp. They don’t mention the make of the lens on the medium format camera. If they put a crappy lens on the 102mp camera the Sony with the Zeiss will win every challenge. 🤷🏼♂️
I think they are legit tests but the testing methodnology is flawed, they did note one thing at the start that they adjusted the photos for color crop and SHARPNESS so they massively sharpened the sony. Take a look at the once of the bird on the lake, you can see the sharpening halo on the 12mp one. Plus as they shoot different ratios one is cropped. Still a cool comparison that shows that post processing may have a large effect on end image quality.
Totally are with you on this. As a photographer judge I knew the screen images might be a bit tough to discern - but knew there was no way there would have been any doubt for the enlargement (especially at that size) - as I have seen first hand in my competitions. I suspect there is a lot more going on behind the scenes in post to make it so difficult to tell the difference. Found it hard to believe, honestly. I have an older Nikon (12mp) and a new (46mp) - same lens, since they are interchangeable with both cameras - no difficulty telling which image came from which camera, ever.
@@blujeans9462 Here there are two modern sensors (obviously an aged low res sensor would be too obvious to tell from a new high res one) ... and he did mention he sharpened & color corrected to make the differences less obvious.
Before you question someone's integrity or methodology, pick up two new cameras and test for yourself.
Damnn, A7Siii really punching in every weightclass!
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
Its been said before: the lens is more important than the megapixel count.
After about 10 megapixels, more MP is just diminishing returns. MANY "professionals" are still using 15mp dslrs made 15 years ago.
If you're cropping more than half the image away - maybe go up to 24MP - but even that may be more MP than really needed.
The LENS "makes" the image beautiful - not the sensor size.
My first digital camera was a Kodak DC-4800 with 3 MP. I still remember printing an 11x14 image for a photo competition at a nearby museum. I won first place in the color division for that print. People would ask me what camera I used, thinking it had to be a high end one. They were amazed when I revealed to them it was taken with a $490 3 MP point-and-shoot camera.
This is literally a lens test. The 63mm is one of the weakest G mount lenses, and just as expected, they could tell in microcontrast. Buuuuut I also agree megapixels are worth little for 95% of shooters. I still use the Fujifilm X-T1 which is a 16MP sensor (without AA filter so kind of equivalent to 24MP in detail rendition) and also because I like APS-C for concert photography.
Wow! Now I might actually buy the A7S3
Curious, how big were the "big prints?"
I've actually asked photographers before why they need a 102mp camera and their answer was for "art prints" but how big do you think people are going to actually buy prints? Lol unless someone has a wall the size of a basketball court, you probably will never need it.
I've been using canva for 5-6 years and it's my first time hearing canva sponsoring a content creator!
Thank you for this test. I guess now, it's about choosing the right lens with a lower megapixel. Or sharpening your higher mp.
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
I see the point, but fundamentally this is comparing the two lenses here!. Resolving power is a property of the lens and not the sensor. It might be just that Sony's 50mm lens is better than Fuji 63!
you should do a follow up and get the Angry Photographer to guess
Tl; dr: Lens sharpness > sensor sharpness. As with many camera things, lens >> camera.
Thank you for making this video. I bought a 12MP camera a month ago and all my photo buddies were like "What for???". I already have a 24MP camera, and yes when I have to crop on the 24MP is it nice. But the 12MP camera makes me so happy to have and use.
I love hearing Peter say the 12MP is better for larger prints. So many times, Megapixel snobs say you need more MP to print larger than X size. What do they know.
You have a new subscriber, thank you again for a really interesting video.
I think it's the lens that held the Fuji back, not the body itself. But as you said, there are other benefits to higher pixel count than just quality alone, so people buying the GFX 100S must know what they're doing. Fuji should need to up their medium format lens game then the market would stir up a lot. Don't get me wrong, I'm an A7S3 user, I love the camera, and for hybrid use it's crazy good. Just sharing my thoughts about how the results were not what people were expecting.
This is such a flawed test. You probably never print that’s why.
1) the “big” print is small by today’s standard, there is absolutely no need for this many megapixels if you print that small
2) more megapixels means you can push more, if you did the same work on both images it’s normal the difference at the end is thin (working with sharpness for a print is a whole world in itself, you probably ended up with an image that is not sharp in both prints)
3) Lenses do not resolve the same way, you can see the lens resolution just as megapixels for lenses (what aperture did you use for both lenses by the way? As everybody knows lenses resolve more when they are stopped down)
4) the cameras sensor tech and lenses are different, you should have used a Sony a7sIII and a Sony a7rIV with the exact same lens
It is absolutely obvious to anyone doing prints that you will end up with something similar if you make a straight comparison. But if you can’t manage to get more out of the higher megapixel image there is an issue somewhere.
Agreed. I think a better example would be to compare an old DSLR from the 2000s with a 4MP/6MP sensor to a slightly newer 12MP one with the same mount+lens. Like a Nikon D100 vs D300. You really don't need high resolution for most photos, and the biggest advantage of higher resolutions is the added crop ability. The added detail for architecture/landscape photos is also useful from a higher resolution, but not to the degree that most people may realize. This test failed when they used different lenses across different formats. Hell, an A7Riv would've been a significantly better comparison, as it shares the same sensor size, lens mount, and color science as the A7Siii.
The fact that you have to pixel peep to even get close to telling the difference is impressive.
Bon bah voila, je n’achète plus d’Alpha One 😂
There are some many limiting factors of the mediums that hinder the accuracy comparison of the 2 sensors' pictures:
1) Screen resolution
2) Export DPI setting - Social media was limited do to the file compression
3) Printer print resolution.
I really need to start printing more! Keep up the great work!
By far, the main advantage of greater mp and medium format is crop-ability and making very large enlargements. Small prints, computer / phone screens are unable to put those advantages to use because of the limited information present on those formats.
Regarding the enlargements: there is something fishy there: a 12 PM sensor is 3000 x 4000 pixels. If we reduce the pixel to just 1 dot, at 200 dpi (instead of the 300 for finer art) that becomes a print 15 in x 20 in, beyond which resolutions falls.
The choice of image for the large print negated the advantages of greater MP and image: The large print should have been the fern where edges are important. Instead the large print had dark rocks and flowing water, both of which hide deteriorated resolution.
And this is why I'll probably never switch from an APSC lol
This was really good! the fact that it even was medium format blew me away on how people is alwayss telling you that it's better
The test is not that reliable in comparing the two cameras/sensors (although it is obvious you do not need a medium format camera if you only see your images on a phone or post them in Facebook), it exemplifies what can be done in post-production that becomes quite amazing. So, remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
This video was great. It shows that no matter the amount of megapixels, the important is to know how to use your camera.
and your processing software, let us be honest here both files having been processed which kills the test but shows what software can do now.
This wonderful video probably just saved me thousands in expensive camera bodies. And for that I thank you Chris. Well Done!
Done all product shots & portraits with my a7siii. Simply love this camera and it's whole 12MP 👍
I always knew that Megapixels weren't has significant as is said, but this one between 12 and 102 blew my mind.
Remember 1-you have not looked truly at the prints/enlargements (because that is where the difference will actually show), but at their representation on a screen, 2-you were not told how much processing and what type of processing was involved with the SONY print.
As a guy who ran a Camera store / print shop, this is 100% lens vs lens test.
We’ve also completely lost sight of megapixels, 12 used to be a LOT. 102 is just cartoonish, only really particularly useful for aero photos
I got all but the leaf correct because I was focusing primarily on dynamic range. The 12mp sensor should have much larger photosites than the 102, and therefore should be able to retain more detail in highlights. Realistically I would say that there is no difference, but comparing them side by side on a large high resolution display it is possible to see ever so slightly more information highlight in the 12mp in most of the photos. Even the Instagram photo had some clipping on the right side that was less significant on the 12mp. Regardless, this illustrates the point extremely well and I'm glad this video exists!
Nice one! This year I bought the Canon EOS R6 Mark II (24 megapixels) coming from the EOS 5D Mark III (22 megapixels, so not a big resolution difference but ten years older). At first I wanted to stay in the same "camera class" looking at the EOS R5 (45 megapixels). But after looking at the price, several features, the AF and so on I decided to stay with the lower resolution, remembering the time when 20 megapixels were considered very high. I have to say: Yeah, I don't miss the higher resolution and I'm happy I can save quite a lot of storage. It's just a fact 24 megapixels are enough most of the time - just as 12 megapixels can be fine in many cases. A 4K monitor only has 8 megapixels and those can already look very sharp even when they're really big.
So yeah: I'm okay with not having the highest resolution out there. :)