More megapixels - What is all this talk about Crop

[Simonix]

What a load of crop!



All jokes aside. I crop. Sometimes a smidge, sometimes a lot.

I blame my absolute lack of skill. But I also don’t really care what people think either.

Still a very interesting thread though with interesting history and viewpoints.

 

[ScleralGuy]

Good, bad or indifferent 'Crop' is something that has existed since the very first photograph. Sometimes it's used in the wrong context! In the days of printing from negatives we universally cropped, burnt and played with the images.. To-day it's done via a Program on the computer/cellphone or tablet. The wrong lens for a situation on a 50mp camera allows the photographer to offer a more focused image by 'cropping' and still produce acceptable IQ. Try it with a 10mp camera and everything pixelates.. So the more megapixels the better and the 'crop' can then be used to a greater effect. Regards ScleralGuy

 

[MoonMind]

There is almost no need for cropping if you use a 1 inch camera from Sony or Panasonic?
Compact, low weight, affordable. No expensive glass needed.
Right or...wrong?
Looking forward to replies, thanks.

Sorry, Herman, you lost me there.

There's never a need for cropping. 20MP 1" sensors offer somewhat less "cropping power" than higher resolution ones - the latter also profit from bigger sensor areas, but individual pixel sizes don't matter as much as they did ten years ago in terms of possible results (in terms of light gathering, nothing beats surface area).

Anyhow, smaller sensors are a little(!) less "crop tolerant", but there's not a lot in it. I treat my E-M5 III and Z 50 more or less the same, even though the files from the Nikon offer a bit more, but that's only really true for low light. More to the point, I treated files from the Panasonic FZ1000 quite similarily - but in order to do that, had to refrain from using that camera above ISO 800. So, in good light, the differences may appear marginal. Good news if you want to stay compact.

If you're peculiar about image quality though, using a bigger sensor with more resolution will give you more versatile results with a lot more latitude, including cropping options. The same goes for exchangeable lenses - if you want best-in-class, built-in (zoom) will not cut it. But the question remains if you need or want that - if not, choose your poison ...

Small, compact cameras are nice, and they have their place. You can crop files coming from them. As for lenses and versatility in general (not a lot to do with cropping!), that's a completely different kettle of fish. You trade size and portability against versatility and ultimate image quality. Does it matter? Only you can decide that.

M.

 

[John King]

(RANT ON)

EACH AND EVERY GENERALISATION IS FALSE.
This is axiomatic.

Including this one above. And the one made by the author of that article.

I have suggested it as a single means for people with the same problem with composition that I had (and sometimes still have) to help with that specific photographic problem.

I simply cannot believe the vituperation with which this generalisation has been met.

I would have thought that people here would be {insert description of choice here} enough to understand that.

I largely agree with Andrew's responses (@agentlossing ) to the suggestion.

As with all reviewers and commenters in general, one needs to mentally remove their often over the top expressions about whatever subject matter they are writing about.

If I expected this sort of harsh criticism for quoting someone else's unqualified opinion, I would have been posting on DPReview for the last three years. I did not expect it here! Specially not from a group of MODERATORS!

(Rant off)

Sorry if I've offended anyone.

 

[ScleralGuy]

(RANT ON)

EACH AND EVERY GENERALISATION IS FALSE.
This is axiomatic.

Including this one above. And the one made by the author of that article.

I have suggested it as a single means for people with the same problem with composition that I had (and sometimes still have) to help with that specific photographic problem.

I simply cannot believe the vituperation with which this generalisation has been met.

I would have thought that people here would be {insert description of choice here} enough to understand that.

I largely agree with Andrew's responses (@agentlossing ) to the suggestion.

As with all reviewers and commenters in general, one needs to mentally remove their often over the top expressions about whatever subject matter they are writing about.

If I expected this sort of harsh criticism for quoting someone else's unqualified opinion, I would have been posting on DPReview for the last three years. I did not expect it here! Specially not from a group of MODERATORS!

(Rant off)

Sorry if I've offended anyone.

Really, does anyone even care if an image is cropped! More to the point, who cares what Tom, Dick or Harry even cares or thinks! Long live 60+ megapixel cameras and expensive glass.

 

[agentlossing]

John, I feel like most of the time you or others feel like people are responding harshly on this website, they're not. I certainly didn't feel that way, and didn't think anything I read on this thread was vituperative or targeted. Maybe there is some lost in translation aspects of web communication at play here, like most anyplace else on the net.

 

[John King]

John, I feel like most of the time you or others feel like people are responding harshly on this website, they're not. I certainly didn't feel that way, and didn't think anything I read on this thread was vituperative or targeted. Maybe there is some lost in translation aspects of web communication at play here, like most anyplace else on the net.

Andrew, I'm not feeling robust ATM. My wife's away visiting sick relatives in Queensland, I am having a reaction to my last COVID-19 booster, and am having a little bit of difficulty looking after myself. Also got the good news that my osteoporosis in my hips has gotten worse, not better, which is depressing.

I'm sorry if I pissed some people off, but they need to understand that they have also pissed me off, by somehow blaming me for something someone else wrote years ago, with which I partially agree (certainly not totally!).

May as well blame me for largely agreeing with Michael Freeman's thoughts expressed in "The Photographer's Eye", or Harald Mante, or Freeman Patterson ...

 

[bartjeej]

What I love about Cameraderie is the basic assumption that our fellow posters are of good will, and I have to admit that, while every post in this thread has probably been made based on that premise, it hasn't always shone through in the wording of each post as clearly as it could have. But I'm confident that going forward we will maintain the friendly and positive attitude here

Also I don't think I'd ever heard or read the word vituperative, so with some help from Google I learned something new today!

 

[Brian]

(RANT ON)

EACH AND EVERY GENERALISATION IS FALSE.
This is axiomatic.

Including this one above. And the one made by the author of that article.

I have suggested it as a single means for people with the same problem with composition that I had (and sometimes still have) to help with that specific photographic problem.

I simply cannot believe the vituperation with which this generalisation has been met.

I would have thought that people here would be {insert description of choice here} enough to understand that.

I largely agree with Andrew's responses (@agentlossing ) to the suggestion.

As with all reviewers and commenters in general, one needs to mentally remove their often over the top expressions about whatever subject matter they are writing about.

If I expected this sort of harsh criticism for quoting someone else's unqualified opinion, I would have been posting on DPReview for the last three years. I did not expect it here! Specially not from a group of MODERATORS!

(Rant off)

Sorry if I've offended anyone.

<flamethrower>
I cannot believe the level of stupidity in this statement "Heavy cropping is a sign of a rank amateur who is too lazy to compose shots in the viewfinder. These shooters often use wider-than-optimal focal lengths and then attempt to correct compositions by cropping away parts of the subject they don’t want. "

How dare they make it. Putting out a definition that puts the greatest photographers of all time into the category of "Rank Amateur" offends me. I've looked up to these photographers, read their works, learned from them.

I spent the 1980s developing Digital imagers and the 1990s working on Optical network technology that makes the Internet possible. So some idiot can make some stupid statement that insults people I admire.
</Flamethrower>

 

[fredlong]

I've recently embraced cropping. I crop on a regular basis. I would have written this More megapixels - What is all this talk about Crop but Miguel already did. And he wrote it better than I could.

When I "went digital" with 4/3 and then micro 4/3 I was presented with the 4:3 ratio which turns out to work really good for the way I see. I composed tight because there weren't a lot of spare pixels and I like to print big.

During my recent brief foray into "full frame" I found the 3:2 ratio makes me uncomfortable. On my images. It seems fine when I'm looking at other people's images. I cropped almost every image I created with the Sony system. And let's not forget that every 8x10, 11x14 and 16x20 print made from a 3:2 format has been cropped. Back in the 80's we "had" to print 7x10 and 9x12 because cropping was impure.

Now I'm back to a 4:3 ratio system with the Fuji GFX and I have a lot of pixels to spare. I've been consciously learning to compose loose so I CAN crop to fine tune after the shutter clicks. I crop almost every image I create. I guess I'm just lazy and rank

 

[John King]

<flamethrower>
I cannot believe the level of stupidity in this statement "Heavy cropping is a sign of a rank amateur who is too lazy to compose shots in the viewfinder. These shooters often use wider-than-optimal focal lengths and then attempt to correct compositions by cropping away parts of the subject they don’t want. "

How dare they make it. Putting out a definition that puts the greatest photographers of all time into the category of "Rank Amateur" offends me. I've looked up to these photographers, read their works, learned from them.

I spent the 1980s developing Digital imagers and the 1990s working on Optical network technology that makes the Internet possible. So some idiot can make some stupid statement that insults people I admire.
</Flamethrower>

A proper response could have been . . .

<flamethrower on>

<flamethrower off>

Brian, I've spent a goodly part of my life fighting wars in court with Local, State and Federal governments here, so that other people not similarly blessed with both legal knowledge and mental capability didn't have to.

Mostly I won, and in some serious cases. The decision in one case has now become the norm. The Federal government was beaten, and it has finally changed the way the law is interpreted and applied by the courts.

Does that make me a hero? No, it doesn't.
But I would have been a coward had I failed to use those gifts and knowledge for the good of those who didn't have either.

It takes guts and determination to take on the Federal government of any country. But it also takes its toll ...

I don't have a high horse to get off, because I never put myself up on one.
Never thought much of high horses, personally ...

 

[Brian]

The use of effective cropping advances the photographer a step above the casual photographer with their Brownie, Instamatic, or cell phone. With those cameras, the user typically makes the final image by pressing the shutter release. Analyzing the result image and improving it via cropping makes a better image. That is an advancement. Not every one will produce iconic images like the "Thousand Yard Stare" of Capt Ike Fenton. But they will typically be better.

I've been on photo forums for 25 years. I've never seen anyone make the kind of statement that offended me so deeply. An attack on photography. I'm cynical, and have to look deeper as to why such a statement was made. I came to the conclusion that it is related to the size of the imaging detector used. For all practical purposes, 20MPixel is a practical upper limit on u43. This sensor is the same size as a 110 film negative. 35mm frame format is closer to 100MPixel practical upper limit. Several years ago, Canon sent a 120MPixel CMOS APS-C sensor to my old group at work for evaluation. The sensor itself was the AA filter, most optics just cannot resolve that level of detail. They did not have Bernie designing them. We did. The sensor is available on digikey, mostly for the scientific market.

https://www.digikey.com/en/products/detail/canon/2511C002/10269344

So- someone could have produced a 120MPixel APS-C camera years ago. Color and Monochrome. Did not happen. Beyond practical limits? At some point, if you want greater than 100MPixel cameras that actually produce a sharp image, time to go Medium Format, beyond 35mm frame format. Go beyond 20MPixels, shoot larger than u43. The laws of physics are not always convenient, but they are not going to change.

 

[Brian]

A proper response could have been . . .

<flamethrower on>

<flamethrower off>

Yeah, right. To quote the 1940s character "He don't know me very well, do he"

Some 10 years ago I advised Amin to stop using the term "Staff" for Moderators as we are volunteers, do not get paid, and do not Administrate to forum. Comments made are our own. Actions taken are along the lines of the TOS. It used to be that 99.9% of the time was spent posting images and debating equipment. With the hand-over of u43 and shutdown of DPReview, we've been more active than we like. I will call out statements such as the one made. To suggest that I should have left it blank, whatever. Not going to happen. To refer to actions taken in a courtroom- this is a photography forum. A post was made that I did not like, I responded. You did not like the response. You refer to successes in a courtroom. And with that, this thread is closed.

 

[Bobby T]

I have suggested it as a single means for people with the same problem with composition that I had (and sometimes still have) to help with that specific photographic problem.

I don’t understand how calling people who crop, rank amateurs, helps anyone with a problem. Also, it is insulting, therefore against the rules here. So yeah, the moderators are going to take notice and respond.