Can't escape it sometimes 😂

I would have done the same

Hey man, perhaps someday you can be a great photographer as well! (jk ofc haha)

Hey Pete!!

HAHA 🤣

I wish I could pin more than one comment.

@@thechrishau ahahaha

This is Gerald Undone erasure

Only matti is missing :(

A comment. ♥️

he never knew once the shots are taken ahahah

The first one was obvious due to the wider fov, the rest weren’t noticeable. But you’re right, this is a FF vs MF test

This was a sad video from people that supposedly know a ton about cameras. That comparison would have made much more sense as the quality between the two lenses also could have varied. Lastly, they should demonstrate substantial cropping on high vs low mp as even a four year old could make out that difference.

Spot on comment:)

I still wonder how one could tell the difference between 12Mp and 102MP when the pictures are displayed on an 8MP (~ 4K) screen. On top of that the Mac screen has a really high pixel density, at the distance they are at details (single pixels) are so small that our eyes can't make them out

@@Valkaronswhat’s sad is you think ppl care what you have to say… take your negativity elsewhere

That glare made it good ! LOL

Got 1 right and it was pure luck cause I chose randomly tbh 😅✌️🇲🇽

1 right. Hollyyyy! I can't believe it. It's so crazy how we have got ourselves into thinking beter specs make better stuff. Wow! I'm amazed!

Duuuuude! that was cool and the Outro is one of a kind 😂😂

@@DatDNguyen I don't think he did, because that would interfere with the purpose of the video as a whole

they are actually fucking mint!

Is it look alike a7r4 click?

Same, so impressed with the SonyA7Siii photos. Think the only advantage with the A7R4 is you can crop in more.

I don't think you should buy an S series just for photos, even though it can do both

@@L1NKHVH For sure,I got the S as I mainly do video work but just a bonus the pics are really great. If you only taking pics for social media,all you need. With a combination of great lenses,pics will be great.

😂😂😂😂😂

Do you see a difference with your A73 picture quality wise - color dr etc

Ive been taking photo with my fx3 and its great

don't feel bad, the video is in 4k which is only about 8 megapixels so its completely impossible to see the difference in resolution without zooming in :)

@@tobiasyoder Not to mention the light glare on The big boy

To be fair. KZfaq compression algorithm is brutal. You really can't compare resolutions via KZfaq. Because KZfaq will crush fine detail. Even if the video was posted in 8k

Look at low-light detail. Bigger sensors with fewer pixels seem to do that well.

@@Erowens98 bs youtube supports 8k

At the beginning he states that he edited sharpness to match the photos, I feel that somehow distorts the test. It's like judging the colour reproduction of a camera after applying personal profiles to each photo. We also must remember that Fujifilm is "medium format", not true Medium Format. :-)

@@menteasoqquadro yeah I feel it's disingenuous because it creates the false pretense that a 12MP camera can be as good as a 102MP camera, but what it's really doing is saying the 102MP camera can come down to a s 12MP level. Yes we understand that in a lot of different scenarios, 102MP is not needed and it won't matter which camera you use, but we all know this, but specialized cameras are made for specialized reasons.

@@neogod29 professionals would know it at the first place, that medium format has its own place. This video maybe made for beginner who loves watching photography content on KZfaq and feels inferior due to their gears..

@@menteasoqquadro Wouldn't you sharpen images before printing / publishing too? Have you ever heard of someone who prints (SOOC)? :)

@@ZakiQutteineh Printing for an experiment is quite different Zaki

Big difference looking at a print vs looking at your images on a 27 or 32 inch 5K screen. The 12 Mpixel image falls apart on those devices. But then again who displays their images as 27inch screens on a wall. For wall prints resolution is less important than getting the perfect exposure, light and framing.

Whoever told you it's not enough, probably owns a printing studio. They are killing it with overpriced huge prints right now... Scaming innocent people into thinking that they need to print on XXXXXXXXXXXXXXL paper for their 40/60/100 MP images. That's how they earn money now. Let me tell you, the golden standard for prints is 12-24 MP and the sweet spot is either 16 or 18 MP depending on the size of the print. The SEPTILLION megapixel sensors is just a marketing scheme to attract casual consumers, because they are the majority and they are the ones who believe in this "higher MP = better" crap. My old 1DX and 1DXll took better images than most new cameras to this date. Sadly I fell for the mirrorless hype crap too and "upgraded" to the a7RIV - There's not a single day that passes, where I don't regret selling my 1DXll... I'm THIS close to buying a used 1DXll.

I just bought a sony a7rii used thinking I needed the megapixels for landscape prints, but really like the nikon z's. May return and go with the z6. It's just resizing I will have to figure out when making prints.

@@nogerboher5266 its all about how much you crop and how large you print

@@burritobrosvideos8060 That as well, yeah. With a 12MP sensor you don't really have much room for cropping, at most you can crop out of the image is approx. 20%, maybe not even that much.

Thanks so much! W'ere really having fun these days.

F2.8 is F2.8 everywhere

Saleto Filmmaking absolutely not true🤷🏼‍♂️ Google it😉

@@MadsDreierPhoto um i have 5 years experience with cameras. A7ii -> a7r3, 6d2 -> eos r. I know what i’m talking about ;)

Saleto Filmmaking I have 25 years😂 Just google “Equivalence Also Includes Aperture and ISO” and read it....

@@MadsDreierPhoto lets make this clear, Aperture depend on lens, changing happen on lens with ff standard F stop. How could sensor size affect this. Simple logic ;)

🤣😂😅🤣🤣

He's crazy...

They never pixel-peeped in the video. They never even got to 100%.

The 300dpi rule is BS. 300dpi is too small to make out the dots at under a foot to the human eye. You can’t look at a 2x3 foot print from 12 inches away.

300 DPI is more a guideline rather used as a rule. This is starting point and you may go up or down from here, depends on your size of your print. Majority of all print lab will say 300 DPI on their file requirements. Is not a must-have, they just need a standard measurements.

The 300 dpi rule is not BS, but it is highly misunderstood. 300 dpi came from the Print Production world before the idea of printing with personal printers existed. Printing presses at the time work on what’s called Line Screens and measured in Lines Per Inch (called LPI). And these screens can be anything from a corse 85lpi (News print presses) to 400 LPI (High end commercial Printing presses). The general rule is that the image dpi should be 50% greater than the LPI because you’ll have quality loss when producing the printing plates at their more coarse LPI, so it’s better to have more information up front so that the quality loss is less impactful. If your resolution is lower, then the quality loss becomes more apparent (especially true at lower line screens). This rule holds true right up to the 300 dpi limit. This is because even with the quality loss at 240 LPI at 300 dpi, the human eye can no longer discern the individual ink spots for each of the Process Ink Colors (CMYK) colors without a loupe (like a magnifying glass for printing). This changes with two factors in play; stochastic printing, and variable dot density. Many of today’s large format printers use both these newer printing methods, which significantly change the way the eye perceives the image both at a close up view and more distant view. And as a result, images can be much lower dpi. Most images can get away with as little as 224dpi if they will not be viewed up close like a coffee table book. If it’s on a wall, I’ve produced some as low as 180dpi. What I’ve advised anyone who wants to produce their images, is to keep them saved at the highest resolution they can because there’s no way to know if later down the road, that image may have a need to be produced larger than you did the first time. And it happens more often than you think. Hope this info is helpful.

I'm sorry - not sorry.

Imagine that people claim they can see a difference between 4k and 8k. You can't. People can barely see the difference between fullhd and 4K. All movies we watch in cinemas has been 2K resolution. No one was complaining.

@@webinatic216 Exactly! All people try and justify better resolution when all they should be focusing on is the story they're telling through the photo or video!

@@webinatic216 Vacuous truth. There's no such thing as seeing a difference because those aren't resolutions, but pixel-dimensions.

But this video didn't show anything. They edited everything to bottleneck to the lower mp images in the first place. "claim to be more than just a beginner" r/agedlikemilk

@@webinatic216 it's all a factor of distance and pixel density. Notice how he said at the start that it's unfair if they zoom b/c that would give it away? Full hd is 2.1 megapixels, 4k is a jump up to 12 and 8k is 33. You can blow up a 4k image pretty large before it starts to lose quality, you can make an 8k image even bigger and maintain clarity, the issue in this video is they didn't hit those sizes. The point he should be making is that unless you are making 6ft prints that 12mp camera is pretty great, most consumer screens still rnt even 4k yet so anything in the digital world is fine

This is HUGE. Printing almost always means resampling to a specific size. But really here, the Sony has a lens with way better “microcontrast”.

@@EricLS if it's almost always done, that just means there is actually no benefit to having more pixels, if you shoot close to the angle of view you want to print in the end. High megapixel cameras are very specific tools for a much smaller range of use than people make out to be.

@@DerVagabundli it’s the classic diminishing returns. You can hit R40 insulation in your roof and save a ton vs R13. But then boosting to R150? Not really gonna see a return on investment. Unless there is a hyper-specific reason, like a -50 freezer or something. Like you said, specific tools. At this level of detail lens and diffraction become the deciding factor. I had a LOT of complaints about lenses when the D800 came out and cameras started out resolving all but the absolute sharpest glass.

@@EricLS exactly. And 99% of the time people will see a much greater benefit of buying better glass than better bodies. Too many stories of people spending thousands on new gear only to notice absolutely no improvement in their images...

And you again

@@Saleto sao em đang theo dõi anh hả?

@@phucmapvlog ~~ em dân làm film thì theo chân channel dân làm film là phải rồi

@@Saleto tụi mình có giống đam mê

hi anh

Right now? It’s a 7 year old camera don’t forget..

@@blakemartin1700 It was a Sony A7siii according to the title, not A7S...still only 12 MP....mind blowing!

I have a nikon D3(13yrs old) with 12mp and people think it's a Sony.

Not just Sony. Sony + editing software to increase sharpness.

Too bad the reliability is so bad 😯

Megapixels are overrated

yes true i thought 102 mega pixel would be very nice but... no

Depends on the use case. In most modest-to-moderate sized images viewed 1:1 sure, picking the difference will be difficult. But if you are zooming in / cropping into small areas of an image then resolution becomes hugely important. I have a 4K 32" monitor and even just taking photos on my lowly phoen camera (Note 20+) there is a huge difference when I shoot in 108MP mode vs when I don't when viewing on this screen, especially when zooming or cropping.

if you only do instagram pics of course.

I think the issue is with camera manufacturers deliberately marketing high mega pixels as being the way to go for greater detail. The reason I purchased a Sony 61MP A7R4, was due to the fact that I photograph wildlife and have to crop most of my images. The 61MP is a real advantage over my Sony A9 in that area. In fact, Chris Hau actually suggests in the video that he would use a camera with a greater number of MP's if he cropped a lot of his images.

All at once for a fun time! Enjoy :)

@@thechrishau Great stuff man - your content has seriously increased so much since I started watching a while ago. Always love your work, keep it up!

Same... same

He said in the bigger print sony is 10mp because he cropped it. Looking at them getting it wrong, I believe we got the message which him want to convey, that beginner shouldn't worry about resolution.

Yeah are the Fuji pics just a 12MP crop to match the Sony? If so...waste of time really.

@@jabezhane no. Only the sony 12 was cropped down to 10. So it was 102 vs 10

Yeah I'm not suprised the Sony looked sharper since the Fuji was wide open.

@@getzoutdoor what do you need more mp for if you literally can't tell a difference? It might be much more cost efficient for a photographer to get a lower MP count camera, so FF instead of MF and get a sharper lens to go with it. If you don't print 3m side prints to be viewed from 30cm away, the extra resolution will mainly cause extra hassle and unnecessarily increase cost.

Thanks for saying this! I'll let him know. :)

... which is the whole point of this video. For almost 90% of imaging work, 12mp is definitely enough. The REASON why MP count is important is for those heavily cropping in on images a lot, such as wildlife photography, sport, or even architecture, when PERFECT composition is required, and cropping/straightening/distortion corrections are much more frequent. image quality > resolution, always cinemas are still only 2k-4k resolution, which is crazy because a cinema feels and looks extremely sharp and detailed, when in reality it's not. It's the cinema camera that produces good images, not the pixel count.

If you went over even 8mp for video that'd be crazy haha. 8mp is 4k so 25 would be higher than anything weve ever seen or are maybe even capable of.

Um, yea bro, video resolution is much lower than still photography. For video, pixels are skipped or image is cropped to achive lower vid resolution.

Your camera, whatever it is, is not shooting at 25mp but a much, much lower resolution

It will be. They literally weren’t zooming in, you’ll notice it when cropping. Even the difference between my 12mp a7siii and my 24mp a7iii is a huge difference. The 50mp will help a lot if you do more editing and work in post.

@@RiceCubeTech use Adobes new enhance function to up the resolution 4 times, problem solved in post :) Takes 12mp up to 48mp.

@Aries Yes you can

@@camjonny It increases the pixel number of an image by inventing new structures. It does not increase the resolution. That´s the difference between resolution and illusion... ;- )

Yes! Would love to see that video as well.

The author did mention in the comments he had to de-sharpen the Sony while sharpening the Fuji

The essence of youtubers is the same as politicians: they need to say what the followers want to hear. There have to be huge differences in max achievable image quality, and average shot image quality. But even a smartphone can produce a workable image of a close, well lit scene/subject. In the end, all of them will be the same in a youtube video, probably watched on a phone or tablet :-) I remain firm on not questioning anyone's eyesight :-)

Im thinking this test is all about the lenses. The mention the Sony has a Zeiss lens which is super sharp. They don’t mention the make of the lens on the medium format camera. If they put a crappy lens on the 102mp camera the Sony with the Zeiss will win every challenge. 🤷🏼‍♂️

I think they are legit tests but the testing methodnology is flawed, they did note one thing at the start that they adjusted the photos for color crop and SHARPNESS so they massively sharpened the sony. Take a look at the once of the bird on the lake, you can see the sharpening halo on the 12mp one. Plus as they shoot different ratios one is cropped. Still a cool comparison that shows that post processing may have a large effect on end image quality.

Totally are with you on this. As a photographer judge I knew the screen images might be a bit tough to discern - but knew there was no way there would have been any doubt for the enlargement (especially at that size) - as I have seen first hand in my competitions. I suspect there is a lot more going on behind the scenes in post to make it so difficult to tell the difference. Found it hard to believe, honestly. I have an older Nikon (12mp) and a new (46mp) - same lens, since they are interchangeable with both cameras - no difficulty telling which image came from which camera, ever.

@@blujeans9462 Here there are two modern sensors (obviously an aged low res sensor would be too obvious to tell from a new high res one) ... and he did mention he sharpened & color corrected to make the differences less obvious. Before you question someone's integrity or methodology, pick up two new cameras and test for yourself.

i pwn both and the fuji is much better in real life. Much better

@@burritobrosvideos8060 This wasn't "real life"? LOL.

@@decoytv7580 you wouldn't know, you're too broke to use a medium format

Idk man I’m a pretty decent photographer, I mean I get paid money, and my a7siii shots look noticeably softer than my a7iii when cropped in. At like normal non cropped it’s not too bad, but it’s so bad at like 100 or 200 percent crop in. I think the issue with this test is not allowing them to zoom. Plus only viewing it on a MacBook display makes it so hard because it has less than a 4o resolution and any high res photo is gonna not look that different from another given that even 12mp is higher.

But yeah I agree having the option is way better than only having the 12mp raw

You only get the cropping advantage if the glass is great to begin with.

@@BeatPoet67 most of the Sony glass I shoot with can resolve 40mp so 24 isn’t an issue. Most of the gmaster, tamron, and sigma art glass is enough to resolve the a7riii

@@BeatPoet67 most modern glass, even cheap glass is like 19mp or more

No but the other 3 are... also all 4 definitely have their experience with looking for detail I’m sure

They're more videographer than photographer honestly. The highest resolution they can see is probably 4k 😂

@@Krekkertje look back @ the large print. It's a clear difference which camera (medium format) has more shadow detail and controlled contrast. The Sony A7s3 looks "crushed" by comparison. It's videographers looking at prints.

Agreed. I think a better example would be to compare an old DSLR from the 2000s with a 4MP/6MP sensor to a slightly newer 12MP one with the same mount+lens. Like a Nikon D100 vs D300. You really don't need high resolution for most photos, and the biggest advantage of higher resolutions is the added crop ability. The added detail for architecture/landscape photos is also useful from a higher resolution, but not to the degree that most people may realize. This test failed when they used different lenses across different formats. Hell, an A7Riv would've been a significantly better comparison, as it shares the same sensor size, lens mount, and color science as the A7Siii.

Agreed. There are either obvious or hidden interpolation steps depending on your processing flow and printer driver. And what was the final output device? Chris Hau, comments?