'Where Do You Go for This?'

Guest post by Luke Smith

I was the one at imaging-resource.com who did the stultifying work of making the gajillion look-alike images, which allowed comparison of the capabilities of cameras. We even had a "comparometer." I remember being excited by the amazing output of 12 megapixels. Wow!

DPReview continued this work for a while after I-R effectively shut down. Now, who's left? I seldom got anything useful at all from the forums, but how can we know when there are actual improvements in image quality from the latest cameras?

Mike, TOP readers, where do you go for this?

On the other hand, maybe we can finally get "good enough" results from most cameras, as long as we stick with 24x36mm or bigger sensors, and at least 50 MP.

As an engineer, I hate to think improvements will just stop, even though I can't afford prints bigger than a few feet across.

Luke

Original contents copyright 2023 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John: "Those tests mattered quite a bit before digital became reliably good enough. Now pixel-peeping is a hobby unto itself."

Jeff: "Where do I go for information? I rent or demo the gear from a dealer and make my own pics ands prints using my own style and workflow. There is little reason to change gear these days based on IQ, especially given my smallish print sizes and superb editing software options. More often, decisions come down to viewing experience, handling, controls and ergonomics, etc., none of which can be determined by comments from others. That simple, since the '70s."

Thomas Tveit Rosenlund: "Those kind of tests are not really important any more. In the same class of camera the differences are marginal at best. You really should have double the pixel count/quality to see any meaningful differences on large prints. It is sometimes fun to look at the difference from a 100-MP sensor compared to your current camera, but it's not too important for the actual purchase decision anymore. DxOmark do have the best database comparing sensor image quality when DPReview shuts down."

Mark Sampson: "So much for that slogan from the early days of the internet, 'information wants to be free.' I never believed that; knowledge always comes at a cost."

Comments

[Daniel]

"as long as we stick with 24x36mm or bigger sensors, and at least 50 MP."

Few will ever need this file size. Few actually print large enough to make use of it.

Today it is nearly impossible to buy a camera that takes "bad photos".

"Technically perfect" is not the same thing as "Great Image". Would not throw away the bigger files but in many, if not most cases it is not needed for a fine photograph.

This is just like "it shoots 24 frames per second". When we were shooting MLB, NBA, NFL and the like with 3-5 fps film cameras and getting excellent results. Even with Speed Graphics and a potato masher strobe, one shot at a time of boxing.

It is still the photographer that makes the difference.

[J]

We reached the good enough point some 10 years ago.

[Ken Brayton]

If you don't already know Petapixel has hired the guy's from DPR. So there will be a new version of DPR for a while at least. New hybrids do not have the best track record.

[Stéphane Bosman]

At least 50Mpix? LOL! Is this really a criteria?

I am rather of the opinion that if you could not get the shot you want in the last 40 years, the problem is not in the camera, it is right behind it.

A shot depends on three things: the photographer, the location, the moment. That's it.

[Robert Roaldi]

I believe that the answer is the following. If people think that this info is valuable then they should be willing to pay for it, either by magazine or blog or web site or Substack subscriptions. Expecting some entity like dpreview to deliver this info paid for by the digital advertising model doesn't seem to work.

It would be really handy for people to get access to dpreview's historical data base. As someone who usually buys used equipment, it was great to be able to view old camera specs. I somehow doubt that we're going to be able to access that for free. I hope I'm wrong.

[Ed Hawco]

“…maybe we can finally get "good enough" results from most cameras, as long as we stick with 24x36mm or bigger sensors, and at least 50 MP.”

This reads a bit like the spoof post from a few days ago in that I think it’s pretty well established that 4/3 and APS-C have long been considered “good enough.” In fact, the folklore has Ctein making spectacular wall-sized prints from first-generation iPhones! #itsnotthegunitsthegunner

[Malcolm Myers]

Robert, you could have a Mike Butkus mode, where you pay $3 per test. However, I doubt Jeff B would be interested :(

[Benjamin Marks]

I used DPReviews scene comparisons many, many times -- often for the purpose of talking myself off the ledge of some impulse purchase. For instance there is no meaningful difference (to me) from the output of my Pentax K-1 sensor, and the Nikon Z-9's sensor. That is not to say that there are not differences. I am sure someone will be along to point them out. But from the perspective of my practical image making, I just couldn't see them. I still want the Z9 of course, but I know _why_ I am not buying one just yet.

I literally used no other feature of the site in some years. And much of the accompanying text in the reviews, while well-informed and well-meaning, was besides the point for me. My question was always, "do I need to upgrade from brand Ecchs?" And mostly the answer was "no," which in a way sums up the whole problem that the digital stills marketplace has been having since it adopted the "upgrade every two years" model.

I am sad to see DPReview go away. There are so many things its disappearance demonstrates or reveals: the dangers of having so much decision-making in so few hands, the canary-in-the-coalmine relationship of the site to still photography, the disappearance of so much good work all at once. Yeah. "Sad" about covers it.

We are becoming a people without a history -- or maybe photographers are. That can't be a good thing.

[Daniel]

Looking at the demise of two sites we see a major difference. Sportsshooter.com was a dynamic site for Sports Photographers. Top talent participated and ran it. Then - it ran down and apparently those in charge just let it decay. Now it is gone after a lingering death.

DPreview.com is a dynamic site with a lot of participation. Many reviews and a database of them that is useful and keeps growing. Discussions and For Sale sections are used heavily. Yet it is being killed, most likely by bean counters.

Death takes many forms with neglect, inertia and murder being only three.

[Luke]

Here are a couple of very useful resources I have found:

Gordon Laing at cameralabs.com
and
Mathieu and Heather at mirrorlesscomparison.com

They understand what makes a camera enjoyable to use.

Mr Bosman doesn't even need a camera! "A shot depends on three things: the photographer, the location, the moment. That's it."

Well, I rolled my own Tri-X for many years, and I really enjoy the exposure latitude and immense detail from a modern camera.

[louis mccullagh]

Luminous Landscape is a shadow of its past self. When a site goes down it can be very rapid.

[Bear.]

I held onto my original Sigma DPs Fovean sensor cameras because I enjoy using them and love they way their lenses 'draw' and as sort of a photograph 'sketch pad' because they don't have enough resolution to print much beyond 8 x 10 inches. The risk I take, of course, is that that one brilliant picture, which would be perfect enlarged to 8 x 10 feet won't be possible if they are the only cameras I have with me at the time. I've slowly moved to a Leica Q2 as the physical compromise is not great and it draws beautifully, but it also has sufficient resolution to print very large if I want. Of course, the Leica is orders of magnitude more expensive than the Sigmas...

[Olybacker]

Think it is very much a 'horses for courses' sort of thing. Most wedding albums only have have prints that are relatively small, mostly 7"x5" (two to a page), 8"x6", 8"x8" and maybe 10"x8" so 6 megapixels on a 4/3rds sensor will cope. Certainly a full frame Nikon D700 will handle a wedding album and many other pro jobs as well.

I cannot remember the mp rating required for a 48 sheet poster billboard but I do remember a magazine carrying the image, across a double page full bleed spread, of New York from Barry Lategan's Olympus E-420 almost fifteen years ago.