[normhead]

My experience with the Panasonic LX-7 and Sony RX100 IV teaches a lesson here. I have 8x10’s from both cameras that look good. On screen they are very good indeed. My dslr use siupports my fun as much as my desire to produce high quality output. But really? I don’t need a fraction of what I shoot with.

I shoot a lot hoping for the keepers. It's not very often I have an image in front of me that is going to get a relatively permanent place on my wall. A lot is just practice, so I'm sharp when the moment arrives.

---------- Post added 11-21-21 at 10:47 AM ----------

Interesting thing... more than 50% don't shoot with prints as their target media.

[robgski]

I don't necessarily shoot with printing in mind, but once I did print a few images up to 16"x20", I could see where resolution of the source mattered. Knowing I won't print most of the images I take, most will be viewed on a screen, and that makes me less concerned with resolution. It does make me really think about composition, because a well composed photo will look good even as a thumbnail, and that encourages a closer look.

After watching a lot of videos from Sean Tucker and Dan Milnor, I really am considering making books of some of my photos, if only for myself, so I will probably pay more attention to resolution moving forward.

[normhead]

I, on the other heads have found photos printed 4x6s at 72 dpi can be compelling if the subject matter stands out. Most of my images are not improved with super high resolution. Needing higher resolution depends on subject matter.

Of course I always print at the highest possible resolution, but a good image still looks good at 150 dpi. a 2:1 enlargement sometimes brings out more detail, than 1:1 printing does, in that small details that might be invisible 1:1 are enlarged to a visible size. I'm not convinced that always printing max. res is a good thing. I've never researched it.

[clickclick]

4k monitor and I print 13"x19"

[normhead]

4k monitor and I print 13"x19"

I used to have a canon Pixma pro that printed 13x19. I have never understood the logic. No one makes off the shelf frames for 13"x19" so what the heck dudes? Would it have been so hard to make it 20x16". If they had done so I'd probably be still buying hitter ink cartridges at $200 a pop instead of hauling it off to the dump.

Canon makes cameras, there is absolutely no excuse for this type of failure. If Epson or HP had done it, I'd understand.

[vector]

I have done prints at 24x36, but not very many, more at 16x20. Lately though 12x16 is the desired print size. As I have been improving my skills, prints are my target medium, but I don't get that many print worthy keepers in a year yet, still working on that. 4k TV is a frequently used display. I have dual Asus ProArt 1920x1200 24 inch monitors where I do my photo editing. Honestly 24mp would be adequate for the majority of what I do, but in editing is where I notice the advantage of the K1 at 36mp. Final output is often hard to distinguish but I can push the K1 files harder. I often wonder if 24mp FF would be enough to satisfy me. It's mainly cleaning up noise and lifting shadows that is better on the K1 and every once in a while the extra resolution. Before dumping a ton of money into new glass this year I seriously contemplated a system switch. Since I already have 36mp FF I didn't want to step backwards, so I only considered the 45mp+ FF flagships. They didn't offer enough to sway me (don't do video and don't require tracking) and I really didn't want to have to store and process those larger files. I do worry that a new Pentax FF will be a 45mp or higher monster. I may be shooting with my K1 for a long time, and that is ok with me.

[Lev]

Honestly I was expecting laptop resolution to be most popular rather than 1920 or smaller monitor. But most laptops are using FHD which is 1920x1080.

[Serkevan]

I chose prints (out to 30x20) because I genuinely enjoy the half dozen prints I make a year. Realistically, 1920x1080 (though I do zoom in to ~50% or so to get a kick out of all the little details I can't get from the finder).


I'm probably overgeared for what I do most of the time, but until phones (or compact cameras) have a FA Limited module that actually emulates the real deal, the K-1 isn't going nowhere.

[robgski]

I swore off inkjet printers years ago, too much waste and expense , we have a BW laser printer for household needs, and I have a third party do any printing I need done.

[Lev]

I swore off inkjet printers years ago, too much waste and expense , we have a BW laser printer for household needs, and I have a third party do any printing I need done.

Yep, and besides expensive paper and ink, you have to print daily to avoid clogging of a printhead# which is also expensive!

[normhead]

Yep, and besides expensive paper and ink, you have to print daily to avoid clogging of a printhead# which is also expensive!

The failure of the print head was the last straw for ours. It was relatively cheap to repair, less than the cost of the inks.. The prints we've made in the years since haven't cost us what a set of inks and new print head would have set us back.

[EssJayEff]

Yep, and besides expensive paper and ink, you have to print daily to avoid clogging of a printhead# which is also expensive!

Luckily my wife bought for her business an Epson 3880, one of the few printers that didn't suffer from this flaw. We have not used the printer for more than a year after moving, so it will be interesting to see if it will finally succumb to disuse or keep on printing.

[normhead]

I chose prints (out to 30x20) because I genuinely enjoy the half dozen prints I make a year. Realistically, 1920x1080 (though I do zoom in to ~50% or so to get a kick out of all the little details I can't get from the finder).


I'm probably overgeared for what I do most of the time, but until phones (or compact cameras) have a FA Limited module that actually emulates the real deal, the K-1 isn't going nowhere.

I use it because I have it. Like most, I buy the best I can that fits my budget. It just so happens that you don't have to break the bank to get great IQ these days. You can if you want, but you don't have to.

[normhead]

We are at 85, past experience says that's about the end of it. I wonder if it's the same ~90 voters every time.

[photoptimist]

We are at 85, past experience says that's about the end of it. I wonder if it's the same ~90 voters every time.

Maybe so..

Should we have a poll where people pick how many people they think will participate in a poll?