Resolution vs Atmospherics?

[Uncle Kevriano]

Just recently I have been contemplating whether the resolution on the A7RIV is actually multiplying the issues caused by heat haze and other atmospheric issues, and whether cutting back to a different, lower resolution camera may actually be better.
Today for example, we went to shoot some Bee-Eaters, a relatively rare bird in the UK, and they were at a stupid range really, 80-100 yards probably, and they aren't big, but my shots, even shooting crop mode (26mp) are not as good as my wifes shooting on a 20mp Nikon. Obviously I am aware the RIV is unforgiving of poor technique, and especially underexposure, but I'm not guilty of either. The weather today wasn't helpful, warm and clear, so heat haze evident, but not so much on the Nikon. I don't remember having so many issues before, so I'm wondering if others have notice an increase in these kinds of issues as the resolution of the cameras has increased. I'm seriously considering swapping systems at the moment!

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Hi Kev,
For the same size sensor, as the resolution rises the pixel count rises according and the sensitivity to
reflecting image "defects" either borne of shooting technique or external atmospherics will be magnified
accordingly.

Whilst in well controlled situations where good technique can be closely controlled, and atmospherics
are not extreme, the AR IV will produce very high image quality, Generally speaking however, whilst
in the field these variables can not be so well controlled and your images will be exposed to a high
level of potential quality impact.

I found this with my previous use of the AR IV, and whist in the right conditions the shots can be fantastic
I find the A1 at slightly lower resolution and the A9 II at a much lower resolution are a better fit for the
vagueries of field shooting over studio/and even hide controlled conditions.

Others will no doubt have conflicting views on the AR VI, as it is no doubt a very popular camera, but from
my perspective I would agree with your views that at 60 MP it is more a question of "Horses for Courses"...
whilst lower resolution cameras tend to be more accomodating to small departures from ideal shooting
conditions.

As a frequent shooter in the Middle East I am exposed to some of the most extreme temperatures in the
world and certainly found the AR IV to be more susceptible than my previous and current lower resolution
cameras and including Nikon cameras. The lenses also are another area to be considered in respect of
atmospherics performance particularily.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Thanks Ray. I am a massive fan of the camera. it really is a fantastic beast, especially for Butterflies etc, and I'm sure you've seen my results are fine, I am getting frustrated with the results on certain things, and it's actually starting to annoy me when trying to hit birds in flight now we have the warm weather here, as it's picking up the haze before the bird! I think I will see if the A9III is going to live up to it's expected spec, and either get that or pick up an A9 1 or 2 on the cheap as people upgrade.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Back when i was using the AR7 iV, and particularily for birds in flight, i found its auto focus capability
to be well behind the A9 II (which i bought after my AR7 IV) and gradually transitioned to the A9 II as
my lead camera until buying the A1 which is now my lead camera with A9 II as backup.

I sold my AR7 IV for the reasons as above......great for well controlled photographic conditions but not
for BIF's or variable field conditions in my view.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Back when i was using the AR7 iV, and particularily for birds in flight, i found its auto focus capability
to be well behind the A9 II (which i bought after my AR7 IV) and gradually transitioned to the A9 II as
my lead camera until buying the A1 which is now my lead camera with A9 II as backup.

I sold my AR7 IV for the reasons as above......great for well controlled photographic conditions but not
for BIF's or variable field conditions in my view.

Yep, I've managed some great results. but not without frustration, which is becoming worse. I may just have to go for the A1 and be done with it.

 

[spudhead]

Thanks Ray. I am a massive fan of the camera. it really is a fantastic beast, especially for Butterflies etc, and I'm sure you've seen my results are fine, I am getting frustrated with the results on certain things, and it's actually starting to annoy me when trying to hit birds in flight now we have the warm weather here, as it's picking up the haze before the bird! I think I will see if the A9III is going to live up to it's expected spec, and either get that or pick up an A9 1 or 2 on the cheap as people upgrade.

Hi kev I do not have a magic answer for you but as you know I have resisted the urge to move to 61 mega pixel for various reasons and I am considering the a1 or waiting for the a9iii, I often look at what people are posting from the range of sony cameras on the forum and often see the argument that the smaller megapixel cameras ie a9 etc do not produce the detail of the larger pixel cameras. I am not sure that is correct and do not want to get in to a debate about that each to their own. So as I say no easy answer and not much help

 

[Brownie]

Hi kev I do not have a magic answer for you but as you know I have resisted the urge to move to 61 mega pixel for various reasons and I am considering the a1 or waiting for the a9iii, I often look at what people are posting from the range of sony cameras on the forum and often see the argument that the smaller megapixel cameras ie a9 etc do not produce the detail of the larger pixel cameras. I am not sure that is correct and do not want to get in to a debate about that each to their own. So as I say no easy answer and not much help

It is true. Resolution is the camera's ability to resolve the lines and differences between two items next to each other. The smaller the pixels, the better the camera's ability to resolve, hence the higher resolution camera. Larger pixels gather more photons per pixel, but don't resolve as much. This can lead to some odd issues like Kevin describes. Another one can be elongated or torn images as a fast moving item moves across tiny little pixels on slower shutter speeds, similar to electronic shutter tearing/warping. This is an extreme case.

What's interesting is that smaller sensors like M-4/3 and APS-C can actually resolve much higher than a FF with larger pixels. For example, it would take a FF sensor of 80MP to equal a M-4/3 20MP sensor since it has 25% the same area as a FF sensor. In other words, the pixels would be the same size. Panasonic's new 25MP sensor is equal in resolution to a 100MP FF. By this we can deduce that a 100MP FF camera is coming soon. Kevin doesn't say if his wife's camera is APS-C or FF, so it's a missing piece of the puzzle.

But, there are trade offs to everything. One example would be that the M-4/3 sensor may resolve more, but cropping is limited. Physics.

And bear in mind that the average user would never experience these problems to any great extent, and would probably not recognize them anyway. The issue here is dealing with advanced users that have high expectations, and rightfully so.

 

[spudhead]

It is true. Resolution is the camera's ability to resolve the lines and differences between two items next to each other. The smaller the pixels, the better the camera's ability to resolve, hence the higher resolution camera. Larger pixels gather more photons per pixel, but don't resolve as much. This can lead to some odd issues like Kevin describes. Another one can be elongated or torn images as a fast moving item moves across tiny little pixels on slower shutter speeds, similar to electronic shutter tearing/warping. This is an extreme case.

What's interesting is that smaller sensors like M-4/3 and APS-C can actually resolve much higher than a FF with larger pixels. For example, it would take a FF sensor of 80MP to equal a M-4/3 20MP sensor since it has 25% the same area as a FF sensor. In other words, the pixels would be the same size. Panasonic's new 25MP sensor is equal in resolution to a 100MP FF. By this we can deduce that a 100MP FF camera is coming soon. Kevin doesn't say if his wife's camera is APS-C or FF, so it's a missing piece of the puzzle.

But, there are trade offs to everything. One example would be that the M-4/3 sensor may resolve more, but cropping is limited. Physics.

And bear in mind that the average user would never experience these problems to any great extent, and would probably not recognize them anyway. The issue here is dealing with advanced users that have high expectations, and rightfully so.

You make many good points and I did not want to quote the m-4/3 but the om1 mk2 I have use of gets some great results and great reach with the 40-150 2.8 with and without 1.4 teleconverter plus it crop factor

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

It is true. Resolution is the camera's ability to resolve the lines and differences between two items next to each other. The smaller the pixels, the better the camera's ability to resolve, hence the higher resolution camera. Larger pixels gather more photons per pixel, but don't resolve as much. This can lead to some odd issues like Kevin describes. Another one can be elongated or torn images as a fast moving item moves across tiny little pixels on slower shutter speeds, similar to electronic shutter tearing/warping. This is an extreme case.

What's interesting is that smaller sensors like M-4/3 and APS-C can actually resolve much higher than a FF with larger pixels. For example, it would take a FF sensor of 80MP to equal a M-4/3 20MP sensor since it has 25% the same area as a FF sensor. In other words, the pixels would be the same size. Panasonic's new 25MP sensor is equal in resolution to a 100MP FF. By this we can deduce that a 100MP FF camera is coming soon. Kevin doesn't say if his wife's camera is APS-C or FF, so it's a missing piece of the puzzle.

But, there are trade offs to everything. One example would be that the M-4/3 sensor may resolve more, but cropping is limited. Physics.

And bear in mind that the average user would never experience these problems to any great extent, and would probably not recognize them anyway. The issue here is dealing with advanced users that have high expectations, and rightfully so.

Excellent point. The Nikon is APSC.

@Gary. Yep, I'm actually very tempted by the OM1, but would want the 150 400, which is mad money. I've seen some shots today that have no evidence of haze, on the same subject in equal conditions to yesterday. I know there is no golden answer here too, it's a downside of the gear we use and our expectations of it too as Tim says. My issue with going to lower resolution is losing the incredible cropping ability the RIV gives when conditions are right. I basically need to stop shooting in bright sun on warm days

 

[Brownie]

Excellent point. The Nikon is APSC.

@Gary. Yep, I'm actually very tempted by the OM1, but would want the 150 400, which is mad money. I've seen some shots today that have no evidence of haze, on the same subject in equal conditions to yesterday. I know there is no golden answer here too, it's a downside of the gear we use and our expectations of it too as Tim says. My issue with going to lower resolution is losing the incredible cropping ability the RIV gives when conditions are right. I basically need to stop shooting in bright sun on warm days

So, do a bit of a estimate:

OM-1, 20MP, w 2X FL equiv. + 150-400 = 800mm equivalence, add built in 1.4 TC. for 1120mm, all optical, no cropping.

The sensor has the same resolution as an 80MP camera, so you still have room to crop. I just posted a bunch of shots that I inadvertently shot in APS-C on my 7IV, for about 14MP. They look great.

BUT...the high resolution is what you're battling to begin with, so going to the M-4/3 doesn't get you anything. In this case you may be further ahead going with an A7 IV for lower resolution and using your current lenses.

There's always a trade off. What's the old manufacturing axiom? Faster, Cheaper, Better. Pick any two, you can't have all three!

 

[spudhead]

Excellent point. The Nikon is APSC.

@Gary. Yep, I'm actually very tempted by the OM1, but would want the 150 400, which is mad money. I've seen some shots today that have no evidence of haze, on the same subject in equal conditions to yesterday. I know there is no golden answer here too, it's a downside of the gear we use and our expectations of it too as Tim says. My issue with going to lower resolution is losing the incredible cropping ability the RIV gives when conditions are right. I basically need to stop shooting in bright sun on warm days

hi yes the 150-400 is a huge cost for sure, I was not suggesting you change brand it is just when you look at what is around and even try it it seems to leave all sorts of questions. I guess with the cost of all gear regardless of brand the cost requires careful decisions, that is why they make this gear, there is always a better more costly option .

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

hi yes the 150-400 is a huge cost for sure, I was not suggesting you change brand it is just when you look at what is around and even try it it seems to leave all sorts of questions. I guess with the cost of all gear regardless of brand the cost requires careful decisions, that is why they make this gear, there is always a better more costly option .

No, and I've invested enough in lenses to make the switch unfeasible really. I will most likely go A1 or A9III when it appears.

 

[spudhead]

No, and I've invested enough in lenses to make the switch unfeasible really. I will most likely go A1 or A9III when it appears.

Right where I find myself if I was not working so much I would jump on the a1 but its difficult to justify with the time I have right now

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

I guess one of the other factors to consider, if you have any aspirations to do any videography in the future , in addition to looking for a high end
still shot camera like the A1, whilst its cost is high, it also has good future proofed video capability at 8K and 4k with the 8k 10bit capability and Raw shooting options recently enhanced by the latest firmware upgrade.

The A9 II certainly does not have this capability to any established level of high end usability , although i cant speak to what the A9 III, if
it becomes a reality, may have.........?

 

[pointreyes]

Excellent point. The Nikon is APSC.

@Gary. Yep, I'm actually very tempted by the OM1, but would want the 150 400, which is mad money. I've seen some shots today that have no evidence of haze, on the same subject in equal conditions to yesterday. I know there is no golden answer here too, it's a downside of the gear we use and our expectations of it too as Tim says. My issue with going to lower resolution is losing the incredible cropping ability the RIV gives when conditions are right. I basically need to stop shooting in bright sun on warm days

I shoot on bright sunny warm days with my Sony A7Rii or Fujifilm X-T3 and don't have an issue with haze because those cameras have been converted to infrared. Air pollution on the other hand is normally my problem - the pollen in the air where I live is extremely bad at the moment. I can see a faint cloud of pollen over the farmland of grasses behind my house.

Two years ago, I had to stop using my Hoya R72 (720nm IR filter) on the 70-200 GM (on the A7Rii IR camera) because the lens showed how bad the coatings were on the filter if you boost the contrast really high. Makes me wonder how much detail are the lenses pulling from the atmospheric conditions.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I guess one of the other factors to consider, if you have any aspirations to do any videography in the future , in addition to looking for a high end
still shot camera like the A1, whilst its cost is high, it also has good future proofed video capability at 8K and 4k with the 8k 10bit capability and Raw shooting options recently enhanced by the latest firmware upgrade.

The A9 II certainly does not have this capability to any established level of high end usability , although i cant speak to what the A9 III, if
it becomes a reality, may have.........?

It's not something I consider, I think these features are added as it adds wider appeal, but I am happy with phone video if needed I actually wish they would drop video features and concentrate on the photography side. I have to try and get the A1 past the wife, though I would never need another camera (he says...)

I shoot on bright sunny warm days with my Sony A7Rii or Fujifilm X-T3 and don't have an issue with haze because those cameras have been converted to infrared. Air pollution on the other hand is normally my problem - the pollen in the air where I live is extremely bad at the moment. I can see a faint cloud of pollen over the farmland of grasses behind my house.

Two years ago, I had to stop using my Hoya R72 (720nm IR filter) on the 70-200 GM (on the A7Rii IR camera) because the lens showed how bad the coatings were on the filter if you boost the contrast really high. Makes me wonder how much detail are the lenses pulling from the atmospheric conditions.

I have never used filters on digital, there is no need at all, and they certainly detract from IQ. They can also cause focus issues, especially on the RIV/200 600 combo.

 

[etiennescamera]

Back when i was using the AR7 iV, and particularily for birds in flight, i found its auto focus capability
to be well behind the A9 II (which i bought after my AR7 IV) and gradually transitioned to the A9 II as
my lead camera until buying the A1 which is now my lead camera with A9 II as backup.

I sold my AR7 IV for the reasons as above......great for well controlled photographic conditions but not
for BIF's or variable field conditions in my view.

Interesting to see someone who went exactly the same route I did. I moved from Canon to a Sony A7Riv, later picked up a used A9ii as a backup, realised I was getting a much better keeper rate for wildlife and birds with the A9ii (better auto focus capability and less affected by atmospheric conditions) and started using it preferentially, eventually traded my A7RIV for an A1 and kept the A9ii as my backup.

 

[Clix Pix]

My first FF Sony was the A7R IV, and it didn't take long for me to realize that while I loved the high resolution and great croppability in many situations, there were other times when it actually was somewhat of a hindrance. When I bought the A1, things fell into place quickly and now my solution is to use the A7R IV mostly at home and shooting macro indoors and outdoors, while the A1 takes on the fun and challenges of shooting wildlife and many other kinds of scenes. So far this has worked out really well.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Interesting to see someone who went exactly the same route I did. I moved from Canon to a Sony A7Riv, later picked up a used A9ii as a backup, realised I was getting a much better keeper rate for wildlife and birds with the A9ii (better auto focus capability and less affected by atmospheric conditions) and started using it preferentially, eventually traded my A7RIV for an A1 and kept the A9ii as my backup.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

My first FF Sony was the A7R IV, and it didn't take long for me to realize that while I loved the high resolution and great croppability in many situations, there were other times when it actually was somewhat of a hindrance. When I bought the A1, things fell into place quickly and now my solution is to use the A7R IV mostly at home and shooting macro indoors and outdoors, while the A1 takes on the fun and challenges of shooting wildlife and many other kinds of scenes. So far this has worked out really well.