Hm, I tried in internet explorer and chrome. When I download the picture it's only 548 kB and quite low-res unless I convert it to an equally grainy bmp? That one indeed is ~3MB.
It would be great if a bit more silicon could be used for the group photo next time. The image sensor conference and such a "medium" quality picture. That is no good marketing.
I believe there is a vast amount of silicon in this photo, appearing above the group in the form of granite. Are you complaining about the resolution of the image? This photo was taken with my Nikon P900 and is about 12Mpix after cropping down from 16Mpix. ISO 100, 1/800s, f3.2, 30mm. The version on the blog may be lower resolution. Personally I am quite satisfied with the captured image. BTW, "no good marketing" is "no good english"
I read the Exif data and it confirmed my visual impression, that the pixels are too small for a better quality picture. 12 Mpix is not the issue. Have a look at the grass and you see structures, I know mainly from smartphone pictures. Sorry, english is not my profession or mother language.
Are you looking at the 4516 × 2461 image? Why would larger pixels improve your visual impression? I don't know what you are referring to, but it is a JPEG image so maybe compression artifacts are what you are seeing? (Although they don't seem bad to me.)
As usual in science here a reference: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup
"Finally, on the subject of sacrifices, the small form factor and lower cost of these superzooms come at a hefty cost compared to larger-sensor counterparts: not only do the smaller sensors yield noisier images, but the small pixels put high demands on lens' resolving power. And since these lenses can't perform miracles, what results are images that won't be nearly as detailed as similar shots taken on larger-sensor ILCs with equivalent focal length lenses."
Thanks for the general comment from DPR about superzooms that explains what you meant. The quote refers to potential mismatch of some lenses to pixel resolution and may be true for some superzoon models, and even for fixed focal length cameras with high sensor resolution. On the other hand, DPR lauds the Nikon P900 for its super sharp lens, which is probably integrally designed to match the pixel pitch of the 2/3" sensor. They also say "The lens is excellent as is the image stabilization required to shoot as long focal lengths" (see the 2017 superzoom round up & review in DPR). So, it is not about smaller pixels per se, it is about optical and sensor resolution match.
Now, as it turns out, we shot the 2013 group photo at about the same location in about similar circumstances with an EOS5D, and at about the same FOV & pixel resolution. I just did a comparison to the images and frankly I see little difference. In fact, the EOS5D displayed some terrible color distortions resulting in green and magenta edges to people's shirts in 2013. There is also a Nokia 808 Pureview smartphone image from 2013 which in many ways is superior looking, likely due to 4x pixels on the same FOV, and no color issues. You can access all these pics on the IISS website and do the same comparison. There was an EOS5D attempting to shoot the scene in 2019 but there were some technical issues and we may or may not see that photo.
In conclusion, I do not agree with your claim that smaller pixels impacted the image quality in this case. More pixels, bigger pixels and bigger/better lenses are always helpful. Big pixels lead to big glass and not something one would want to carry around to a conference. In fact, I went on safari with the P900 and compared images with other photographers lugging huge pieces of glass and far more expensive DSLRs, and they all agreed that there was little final difference in the images we shot, except I could shoot faster in the case of quick sightings and my arms did not hurt at the end of the day.
Nice! Looking forward to a higher resolution picture though. Hard to decipher some people in the back
ReplyDeleteOnce you click on the picture, it opens in large format and then you can download the it as a full resolution 3MB file.
DeleteHm, I tried in internet explorer and chrome. When I download the picture it's only 548 kB and quite low-res unless I convert it to an equally grainy bmp? That one indeed is ~3MB.
DeleteOK, I see. I've added a download link to the post. Hope it works better this time.
DeleteThank you!
DeleteIt would be great if a bit more silicon could be used for the group photo next time. The image sensor conference and such a "medium" quality picture. That is no good marketing.
ReplyDeleteand grab some images of the group using different technology sensors! not just a handheld camera, use also 3D, UV to LWIR, QIS etc. ;-)
DeleteI believe there is a vast amount of silicon in this photo, appearing above the group in the form of granite. Are you complaining about the resolution of the image? This photo was taken with my Nikon P900 and is about 12Mpix after cropping down from 16Mpix. ISO 100, 1/800s, f3.2, 30mm. The version on the blog may be lower resolution. Personally I am quite satisfied with the captured image. BTW, "no good marketing" is "no good english"
DeleteI read the Exif data and it confirmed my visual impression, that the pixels are too small for a better quality picture. 12 Mpix is not the issue. Have a look at the grass and you see structures, I know mainly from smartphone pictures. Sorry, english is not my profession or mother language.
ReplyDeleteAre you looking at the 4516 × 2461 image? Why would larger pixels improve your visual impression? I don't know what you are referring to, but it is a JPEG image so maybe compression artifacts are what you are seeing? (Although they don't seem bad to me.)
DeleteAs usual in science here a reference:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2015-superzoom-camera-roundup
"Finally, on the subject of sacrifices, the small form factor and lower cost of these superzooms come at a hefty cost compared to larger-sensor counterparts: not only do the smaller sensors yield noisier images, but the small pixels put high demands on lens' resolving power. And since these lenses can't perform miracles, what results are images that won't be nearly as detailed as similar shots taken on larger-sensor ILCs with equivalent focal length lenses."
Thanks for the general comment from DPR about superzooms that explains what you meant. The quote refers to potential mismatch of some lenses to pixel resolution and may be true for some superzoon models, and even for fixed focal length cameras with high sensor resolution. On the other hand, DPR lauds the Nikon P900 for its super sharp lens, which is probably integrally designed to match the pixel pitch of the 2/3" sensor. They also say "The lens is excellent as is the image stabilization required to shoot as long focal lengths" (see the 2017 superzoom round up & review in DPR). So, it is not about smaller pixels per se, it is about optical and sensor resolution match.
DeleteNow, as it turns out, we shot the 2013 group photo at about the same location in about similar circumstances with an EOS5D, and at about the same FOV & pixel resolution. I just did a comparison to the images and frankly I see little difference. In fact, the EOS5D displayed some terrible color distortions resulting in green and magenta edges to people's shirts in 2013. There is also a Nokia 808 Pureview smartphone image from 2013 which in many ways is superior looking, likely due to 4x pixels on the same FOV, and no color issues. You can access all these pics on the IISS website and do the same comparison. There was an EOS5D attempting to shoot the scene in 2019 but there were some technical issues and we may or may not see that photo.
In conclusion, I do not agree with your claim that smaller pixels impacted the image quality in this case. More pixels, bigger pixels and bigger/better lenses are always helpful. Big pixels lead to big glass and not something one would want to carry around to a conference. In fact, I went on safari with the P900 and compared images with other photographers lugging huge pieces of glass and far more expensive DSLRs, and they all agreed that there was little final difference in the images we shot, except I could shoot faster in the case of quick sightings and my arms did not hurt at the end of the day.