[Gimbal]

So bottomline, sensor size has got nothing to do with print snr.

Not in the direct calculation, but the size of the sensor is one of the variables that plays a major role in the outcome of the result displayed in the print graph.

The size advantage can be beaten by superior technology in a smaller sensor, however as the sensor technology is maturing the odds of a major sudden jump in quality is getting smaller and smaller. Which means that eventually (and we are almost there now) all sensors will perform equally per square mm and only the size (and number of pixels) will dictate the quality of the printed output.

[dtmateojr]

Not in the direct calculation, but the size of the sensor is one of the variables that plays a major role in the outcome of the result displayed in the print graph.



The size advantage can be beaten by superior technology in a smaller sensor, however as the sensor technology is maturing the odds of a major sudden jump in quality is getting smaller and smaller. Which means that eventually (and we are almost there now) all sensors will perform equally per square mm and only the size (and number of pixels) will dictate the quality of the printed output.

True. I think we are at a stage where the only factor affecting SNR is sensel pitch. You can't have good high ISO performance beyond a certain density. I just don't understand why manufacturers keep pushing for more megapixels when nobody even prints their photos anymore.

[John Poirier]

True. I think we are at a stage where the only factor affecting SNR is sensel pitch. You can't have good high ISO performance beyond a certain density. I just don't understand why manufacturers keep pushing for more megapixels when nobody even prints their photos anymore.

Really? Nobody even prints their photos anymore? That's quite a statement. Perhaps you could provide evidence to support it.

[HopelessTogger]

Really? Nobody even prints their photos anymore? That's quite a statement. Perhaps you could provide evidence to support it.

My maximum size print has been A3 and even then only for contract tender submissions, presentations and marketing material. I've always wanted to print what I think is my best, but never get round to it, consider the cost including framing and then the hassle of getting the things home (6500 miles away) say maybe next year.

[GeneV]

36mp FF will make little difference to those who only view on screen (even the best monitors like the iMac 5k can only resolve 15mp of detail) and likely not that much difference to those who print (very big prints is where FF 36mp works). It'll be frustrating for those coming off APS-C regards depth of field, it becomes razor thin to the point peoples eyes might be in focus but their noses are a blur of bokeh (this still happens to me shooting the Sony Zeiss 35/1.4 ZA wide open and stopped to f/2 even, on the A7r and it is frustrating). Focus may well be slower than APS-C (have to wait and see) and certainly frames per second as we already know.

If it's the same sensor as in the A7r and Pentax haven't managed to work their magic, expect colour noise creeping in by ISO1600 and unworkable by 6400 (like seriously purple and red blotchy). Not a good sensor for low light in my experience. IBIS should help here however allowing you to avoid such high ISO's.

You'll notice the size and weight difference, even though on paper it doesn't look that much. Apart from the lovely FA Ltds, that new umpteen element zoom glass is going to be big and heavy and that becomes a burden, takes the joy out of shooting for pleasure. It's a shame there's not f/4 zoom glass like Sony/Nikon/Canon, because in my experience the FE 4/70-200 G OSS is just the right size and weight (and it's smokin' hot on the A6000). I also say 70-200 is a wonderful zoom range regardless if on FF or crop. I wouldn't be without it now.

Wide lenses become 1.5x wider and long lenses 1.5x shorter, keep hold of your APS-C bodies if you shoot long. The 4/70-200 G OSS never gets mounted to the A7r, only the A6000. Long glass and APS-C makes sense, economically and in pretty much every other respect unless you're a pro sports shooter/extremely serious birdy snapper. IMO.

Lenses become much more expensive (full frame glass not cheap), unless you're using old manual primes, which is recommended (good read and I agree when I compare the PK FA's to the Sony Zeiss ZA's) . . .

The Problem with Modern Optics ? YANNICK KHONG

Just my ramblings having had Pentax crop and Sony full frame/crop. I'll confess I wish I hadn't bothered going down the Sony FF (A7r) route, painfully expensive and ghastly experience, but the A6000 has been a wee marvel on that zoom. Love the tracking AF-C, AF points coverage, eye detect AF and high burst rate. It's great fun, which is what shooting for pleasure is all about.

I wouldn't write off APS-C as a suitable format for the majority of enthusiast shooters.

I have the same combo of those two Sonys and a lot of Pentax gear. I see a little more benefit on ISO 1600+, because the detail is there and software seems to deal with the FF Sony's noise at high ISO. However, on the whole, I agree that FF is not changing my life. It is breathing some new life into old film lenses.

[normhead]

Really? Nobody even prints their photos anymore? That's quite a statement. Perhaps you could provide evidence to support it.

We did 4 prints this Christmas... I guess I'm nobody... I always thought so but now it's confirmed.

Not only that, we've really gotten into printing books, in much the same way I used to do photo albums. Honestly, if you aren't printing, you're missing out.

For like 20 bucks you can put together 40 of your best images on a given topic and put a book on your coffee table that will be a joy to you, and every one who visits.

Tess recently did one for her son, with his girlfriend and their dog, she did a copy for herself and a copy for her son. If you have multiple family members it's even more efficient.

[derekkite]

I print up a calendar for my customers, a friend does one for Christmas presents. A neighbor who likes to shoot old rusty trucks did one up, quite nice. They are very nice gifts and quite reasonable, and the quality is very good. Nothing will drive you to improve your technique than having to stare at the same photo for a month.

[fromunderthebridge]

I think what dtmateojr meant by way of hyperbole was that printing nowadays is much less common than it was in yesteryears. I mean now many people just post on photo sharing sites and hoard the raws, when previously people went to a camera shop to print their negs as postcard sized snaps.

Also, this is not to imply that printing is not awesome, which it totally is. Simply rarer than it used to be.

(contributing to thread decay, you're welcome everyone)

[derekkite]

I think what dtmateojr meant by way of hyperbole was that printing nowadays is much less common than it was in yesteryears. I mean now many people just post on photo sharing sites and hoard the raws, when previously people went to a camera shop to print their negs as postcard sized snaps.

Also, this is not to imply that printing is not awesome, which it totally is. Simply rarer than it used to be.

(contributing to thread decay, you're welcome everyone)

I think it is worse than that. It is 'I can't imagine anyone doing anything different than I do', and disregarding the interests and goals of other people.

The only thing we can say with certainty is almost none of us shoot with a Pentax full frame. So what are we all going on about, obviously no one would want one.

[acoufap]

... when nobody even prints their photos anymore.

Until now I don't print photographs by myself. But sometimes I give them to a service provider for printing. Printing by myself is on my agenda for the future. Doing it right with your own printer is challenging, takes time and costs some money. Since I find it is a very interesting topic I even subscribed the specialized german magazine fine art printer some time ago. They cover craftsmanship of printing, framing, making books and a lot more. Look at good prints and you'll see the attraction. Recently Epson and Canon entered the market with new very good fine art printers. Printing is dead? - I don't think so.

[dtmateojr]

It's an exaggeration lol! How many owners of high megapixel cameras print large? 4x6 does not count. 8x10 is small.

My K5 is only 16Mp, and I frequently crop it to 1x2 panorama which reduces it to 8Mp. Even at that size I have 1m wide prints on our wall and I can tell you that you won't see noise and you could stick your nose on it and you won't notice pixelation.

36Mp is a huge waste if you don't print.

[jatrax]

I print 16x24 quite often and 24x36 enough that it is a concern. If the intended use of the image is for facebook then yes 36mp is a huge waste. But i personally am looking forward to seeing what 36mp does on 24x36 or 30x40 print.

[dtmateojr]

Worse case, you could always upsize an image in the computer before printing. You won't gain details but it will prevent pixelation.

[reh321]

36Mp is a huge waste if you don't print.

Not at all!

Another one of my hobbies is train watching. Those who share that other hobby hardly ever print images any more, but we do zoom into an image on a computer screen to get a better view of some portion of a scene or of some small part of something {such as part of a steam locomotive}; the more pixels, the more detail that can be mined later, that the original photographer didn't think to isolate in a separate photo.

Likewise, birdwatchers today will take a picture of a BIF and then crop out a piece; actually zooming in on the BIF can sometimes be very difficult, but cropping to get the same effect is very productive at times ... but not if you don't have enough pixels to make a decent image on their own.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Are you insulting me? Which is heavier a kilo of nails or a kilo of cotton?

I know why you don't want to answer and the reason why you don't want to
The 36mp FF image is the same size as a FF 16mp image 36mmX23.9mm that would mean that both the 36mp image and the 16mp would have to be enlarged by 4.23 times to viewed image ether on a monitor or in print 6x4inchs.

The cropped 36mp cropped is the same size as a 16mp cropped 23.7mmX15.7mm , that would mean that the cropped would have to be enlarged 6.43 times to be viewed at a 6x4inch print or the monitor.

Resolution play's no part in the size of the image, only thing that resolution can change is the resolution you will see in the final prints.