Thanks, Andrew! It's hard to ride a line between technical accuracy and not alienating people who are (at the end of the day) on an entertainment platform, but that is something worth being clear about. Glad you enjoyed, I appreciate the kind words.
Better SNR, ISO processors, and backside illumination, is what made the difference in progression. My D200 (10.2mp; 10.92mp) pixel pitch of 6.1 microns, and the old CFV 39mp Medium Format Hasselblad had 6.8 microns. A 45.7mp Nikon D850 has a pixel pitch of 4.35 microns. Backside illumination didn't make higher quality image output, it just made for better low light performance and allowed for high resolution without losing quality. It's sorta like spinning your wheel in a ditch, then putting on smaller wheels with bigger tires maintaining the same diameter, you're still spinning your wheels stuck in the ditch. What has made the greatest leap forwards is stacked sensors. Using the tire analogy is like putting on off-road tires with deep treads. We're starting to get better color separation close to what medium format allows on smaller sensors. The only way we're getting higher image quality is through faster glass i.e. 58mm 0.9 Noct and a larger, higher resolution sensor like the Vera Rubin camera. Which means we've been at the limit of digital 35mm sensors for a very, very long time.
You have a good understanding of how the tech works. I suggest you are leaving out the crucial factor of the artistry. The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon d3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
@@worldadventuretravel I was, and am a fine artist first, then graphic designer before becoming a photographer. Low light, i.e. noise performance is from the ISO processor and circuitry not the sensor. Heat plays a role also. Canon has never had good noise performance even currently. So comparing them to Nikon in that department is like comparing apples to oranges. Who said the artist wasn't more important than the tool? Not me. Film if processed at the highest level exceeds what digital cameras can output on an actual print in both quality and clarity although we don't have super fine grain film in production any longer. No offense but your response is a bit redundant and pointless. What are you trying to say? I've seen good images taken from a Nintendo Gameboy. Art is perception. Judgment of it, is individual.
You have a good understanding of how the tech works. I suggest you are leaving out the crucial factor of the artistry. The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon d3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
Extremely interesting video. I was amazed at the chat about the effects of diffraction being apparent at wider apertures when shooting higher resolution sensors. I had to replay the bit about getting sharper images on the 20MP Canon than with the 45MP Nikon Z7 (and the particular lenses used with it.) I am sticking with DSLRs for now, as there's something I really like about them (and OVFs) and now previously high-end DSLRs are affordable at really affordable prices used. I've just bought a beautiful copy of the original Canon 18MP 1DX for an unbelievably low price and I'm super impressed with it.
Excellent content again. So glad someone is making videos like this. Thanks. Agree with much of what you said. I also think that some smaller low megapixels cameras (like the original Ricoh GRD) have a very unique way of rendering JPEGS. That camera can shoot RAW. But the way that camera renders JPEGS is amazing- not sure what internal algorithms are at play, but pretty unique to my eye. Thanks again Alex. I really appreciate your videos and your style of producing them. Peace and happy trails
I'm already a crop frame user with the Canon M6 mkii 32mp - and I have a bunch of EFs and EF lenses, BUT- I just ordered a Canon d5 mk2- so I can get the full frame experience!- only 21 mp- CAN"T WAIT- arriving tomorrow...I'm going to do those EF lenses justice...
For my consumer photography services: portraits and events, that clients would only be posting online, I'm using my Nikon D90 and/or D7000 with 12 and 16mp respectively. Easy on the cards and drives, a smaller space needed for when I email the images. For my commercial photography services: food, product, real estate, fashion, I'm looking to upgrade to D7200 with 24mp.
I think it's way too easy to get obsessed with gear reviews and upgrades and forget the ultimate truth of photography: The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon D3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. Now I shoot mostly with the EOS 70D at 20 mp. There is no discernible difference in image quality- I upgraded the body for certain other features like the tilting screen. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
I'm considering upgrading from my 24 megapixels APS-C DSLR to the 32 megapixel Canon R7, but that is only because the R7 has features other than its high resolution that I want to have, features my current camera doesn't have. If they made the exact same camera as the R7 but with a 24 megapixel sensor I would want to buy it just as much, I think the resolution of 6000x4000 that 24 megapixels currently gets me is perfectly fine.
I think it's way too easy to get obsessed with gear reviews and upgrades and forget the ultimate truth of photography: The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon D3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. Now I shoot mostly with the EOS 70D at 20 mp. There is no discernible difference in image quality- I upgraded the body for certain other features like the tilting screen. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
Great summary. I think I will take my 12MP Canon 5D out for a spin tomorrow and try some shots at f/16!
Hi Alex, great video. One of the few on UA-cam that explains why doubling the number of megapixels does not double the resolution! Subscribed.
Thanks, Andrew! It's hard to ride a line between technical accuracy and not alienating people who are (at the end of the day) on an entertainment platform, but that is something worth being clear about. Glad you enjoyed, I appreciate the kind words.
Better SNR, ISO processors, and backside illumination, is what made the difference in progression.
My D200 (10.2mp; 10.92mp) pixel pitch of 6.1 microns, and the old CFV 39mp Medium Format Hasselblad had 6.8 microns.
A 45.7mp Nikon D850 has a pixel pitch of 4.35 microns.
Backside illumination didn't make higher quality image output, it just made for better low light performance and allowed for high resolution without losing quality.
It's sorta like spinning your wheel in a ditch, then putting on smaller wheels with bigger tires maintaining the same diameter, you're still spinning your wheels stuck in the ditch.
What has made the greatest leap forwards is stacked sensors. Using the tire analogy is like putting on off-road tires with deep treads.
We're starting to get better color separation close to what medium format allows on smaller sensors. The only way we're getting higher image quality is through faster glass i.e. 58mm 0.9 Noct and a larger, higher resolution sensor like the Vera Rubin camera. Which means we've been at the limit of digital 35mm sensors for a very, very long time.
You have a good understanding of how the tech works. I suggest you are leaving out the crucial factor of the artistry. The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon d3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
@@worldadventuretravel I was, and am a fine artist first, then graphic designer before becoming a photographer. Low light, i.e. noise performance is from the ISO processor and circuitry not the sensor. Heat plays a role also. Canon has never had good noise performance even currently. So comparing them to Nikon in that department is like comparing apples to oranges.
Who said the artist wasn't more important than the tool? Not me.
Film if processed at the highest level exceeds what digital cameras can output on an actual print in both quality and clarity although we don't have super fine grain film in production any longer.
No offense but your response is a bit redundant and pointless. What are you trying to say?
I've seen good images taken from a Nintendo Gameboy. Art is perception. Judgment of it, is individual.
Underrated video, well explained
You have a good understanding of how the tech works. I suggest you are leaving out the crucial factor of the artistry. The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon d3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
Extremely interesting video. I was amazed at the chat about the effects of diffraction being apparent at wider apertures when shooting higher resolution sensors. I had to replay the bit about getting sharper images on the 20MP Canon than with the 45MP Nikon Z7 (and the particular lenses used with it.) I am sticking with DSLRs for now, as there's something I really like about them (and OVFs) and now previously high-end DSLRs are affordable at really affordable prices used. I've just bought a beautiful copy of the original Canon 18MP 1DX for an unbelievably low price and I'm super impressed with it.
Excellent content again. So glad someone is making videos like this. Thanks. Agree with much of what you said. I also think that some smaller low megapixels cameras (like the original Ricoh GRD) have a very unique way of rendering JPEGS. That camera can shoot RAW. But the way that camera renders JPEGS is amazing- not sure what internal algorithms are at play, but pretty unique to my eye.
Thanks again Alex. I really appreciate your videos and your style of producing them.
Peace and happy trails
I'm already a crop frame user with the Canon M6 mkii 32mp - and I have a bunch of EFs and EF lenses, BUT- I just ordered a Canon d5 mk2- so I can get the full frame experience!- only 21 mp- CAN"T WAIT- arriving tomorrow...I'm going to do those EF lenses justice...
I also found a really good deal on a Canon 5D MKII recently and it's amazing !
For my consumer photography services: portraits and events, that clients would only be posting online, I'm using my Nikon D90 and/or D7000 with 12 and 16mp respectively. Easy on the cards and drives, a smaller space needed for when I email the images.
For my commercial photography services: food, product, real estate, fashion, I'm looking to upgrade to D7200 with 24mp.
I think it's way too easy to get obsessed with gear reviews and upgrades and forget the ultimate truth of photography: The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon D3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. Now I shoot mostly with the EOS 70D at 20 mp. There is no discernible difference in image quality- I upgraded the body for certain other features like the tilting screen. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
I'm considering upgrading from my 24 megapixels APS-C DSLR to the 32 megapixel Canon R7, but that is only because the R7 has features other than its high resolution that I want to have, features my current camera doesn't have. If they made the exact same camera as the R7 but with a 24 megapixel sensor I would want to buy it just as much, I think the resolution of 6000x4000 that 24 megapixels currently gets me is perfectly fine.
The R7 is a stunning camera. I'm surprised they loaded it with the R3's AF!
I think it's way too easy to get obsessed with gear reviews and upgrades and forget the ultimate truth of photography: The most compelling, evocative, and memorable images are rarely (if ever) the technically perfect ones- and a photo made by a person with a well-trained artistic eye and solid creative vision will trump one made by someone on a 100mp camera 10 times out of 10. Further, if you apply the same principle to cameras of the same generation from several years ago, there's still a difference. For example, my 2010 Nikon D3100 with a 14.2 mp crop sensor got better shadows, better low light, and far less ISO noise than my 18 mp crop sensor 2013 Canon EOS Rebel SL1. But most importantly, I've used both of those cameras almost daily for a decade and still sell professional fine art quality images from them. Now I shoot mostly with the EOS 70D at 20 mp. There is no discernible difference in image quality- I upgraded the body for certain other features like the tilting screen. The photographer is always going to be more important than the gear.
Do a side by side test..we need real world proof...
A little bit to complicated, but nice idea.