It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I switched from using Nikon D3s's to Fuji X-E2's then X-T1's around the end of 2013, and did my last two years of weddings on them, so over 100 of the damn things, and liked the jpg's straight out the camera so much I stopped shooting RAW.
The thing is, even with these two in the workshop, I tend to only ever use my iPhone to take a picture these days!
That being said, thanks to those Fuji JPG files I tend to do less RAW editing than I did in my Canon days. Quite often I'll do a light edit to the JPG and that's all I need. I do shoot RAW + JPG so I have the negative if I need it.
Yes, I suppose I don't need 42mp images, but I like the option and allows me to do things that I couldn't do with an 18mb sensor or similar.
Rift Amplification
Brackley, Northamptonshire
www.riftamps.co.uk
What would be your minimum mp rating that you would shoot with? My camera is only 18 megapixels, does that mean I'm pissing in the wind trying to get decent photo's?
I’ve had no real issues with processing in Lightroom, at least once you work out how to get the best from the sharpening and nose reduction, which is a little different from how you’d treat a typical Canikon file. These days I typically import via iPad for quick sorting & initial processing then cloud it up to my laptop for detailed processing if needed. Even just in the iPad I don’t usually have to spend more than a minute processing anything unless it needs really serious work.
An 18mp sensor is more than enough for the vast majority of uses.
Around 12mp in a 35mm sensor was for a long time considered to be the ideal mix of resolution, file size and pixel size, giving a good combination of quality, high ISO usability and speed of processing.
Ok, if you often need to crop heavily or print really big then more pixels is of course good, but more doesn’t always mean better!
For a 12x8” print, 300dpi is industry standard.
but you can easily drop down to 150dpi if printing around 36x24” for example.
I've got great photos from 2/3 sensor, APSC, Micro Four Thirds, 35mm film and my phone. I've got rubbish ones too. The expense of 35mm glass is a red herring for all but a few. I've got a 35" x 20" poster print of one of my shots on the wall over my desk. It was a photo taken with an APSC sensor, there's nothing about it that could tell you whether it was shot on 35mm or not.
I'd say, well composed and exposed, 6mp is enough for most purposes. You won't find a modern m43, apsc or 35mm sensor with so few pixels.
I have a 1 metre print from a nikon d200 - that's an old CCD sensor with 10mp. Looks great - resized and edited for print in photoshop.
I now shoot 24mp and it's fantastic. I've printed to over 1m and it looks great. On screen the detail is awesome, and noise is attractive (as opposed to the noise from the CCD which was nasty).
I've handled 42mp files from an a7rii and it was slower - slower to load and render 1:1 previews, slower to Lightroom process, slower to load into photoshop, photoshop files are enormous... The detail is there if you have good lenses, and the dynamic range is enormous, and I found I could export to 12mp and get absolutely flawlessly clean images from iso 3200 and could easily go higher... But it's overkill for most stuff.
It's fun though - I'd definitely like such a beast, but on balance I'm never going to print big enough and I don't think we'll be getting 42mp screens anytime soon so I found myself exporting to 24ish mp jpegs to minimise noise and get nicer tones than a native 24mp sensor would.
I think if you do professional stock photography, a 42mp Sony or the d850 from nikon is probably the best way to go - they're very anal about noise,resolution etc.
A 12 hour day with a couple of Fuji X series and lenses over your shoulders for example is a much more enjoyable experience compared to big DSLR's
Easier to blend in as well, a real benefit for the reportage guys, and when asked by an arse of a minister if you are the professional photographer as no photos are allowed during the ceremony it's much easier to get away with saying no, i'm just a guest. Not to mention the fact that the shutter noise/mirror slap on most DSLR's is quite noticeable.
An EVF also gives huge advantages as you have to be a bit of a muppet to get the exposure out, so the time saved when you have taken a few thousand images throughout the day once sat in front of the computer is considerable. In fact, most guys I know now shoot considerably less throughout the day as WYSIWYG, again saving lots of time later.
I went from turning up at a wedding with at least £20k worth of gear in my bag at the end of 2013, which weighed god knows how much, to less than £5k in a much smaller, and so much easier carried one.
For me it was like when I switched from working with 'Blad's on sticks, Metz hammerheads and Weston lightmeters to DSLR's exclusively around 2004, the benefits were considerable and outweighed any difference in 'quality'
There are a few 'hipster' types that are shooting weddings on medium format film, and charging a healthy premium, but they are definitely in the minority.
I do know lots of studio based guys that are shooting on medium format digital, but many switched over to Nikon D850's etc when they became available.
If you are a studio based advertising guy then fair enough, investing £40k or whatever in a 'Blad H6D and a few lenses probably makes sense, but for everyone else, why the hell would you!
The detail that comes out of the Hasleblad is outstanding and picks up the tiniest reflections in the diamond dust covered sculpture.
Mind you the photos absolutely kill her Macbook.
I wish the X-T3 had IBS, as this would look to be perfect.