High MP sensors, LR and computing speed

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

I'm currently using a Canon 7d Mk2, and interested in upgrading to a full-size sensor, for better low-light performance and larger field of view.  Finding I need to pull up shadows frequently,--more than is sometimes possible with current setup-- or get a large architectural feature in the frame without backing up to Shanghai.   There are lots of shots I would like to take but don't, because of the need for high ISO or shooting underexposed and fixing later.

 

Am looking  at the Sony a7R3 with their 24-105 f4 lens.  That, and the Nikon D850 are being reported as being at the top of the list for dynamic range and high ISO performance.

 

My question for those who are using large MP cameras and LR is:  will processing speed in LR slow significantly when I move from a 20MP sensor to a 42MP sensor?   Do you find it problematic?

 

Logical comeback question is--what computer am I using?  1) LR Classic CC, latest update. 2)Dell Inspiron 15 7000 gaming laptop, with Intel i7 processor at 2.8GHz, 16GB ram, Nividia GTX 1060 graphics card, Windows 10.  3)Monitor is a Dell  4K, 3840 x 2160, 24", 30Htz.

 

Will be grateful for your comments.

 

--Michael

 

 

[Colin Woods]

Not really answering your question, but I use the Nikon D750 and its high ISO and dynamic range are astounding. If you are considering changing your equipment from Canon to Sony, you should look at the D750. Its FF 24MP which, I think, is right on the sweet spot for detail and processing speed. I know MDM uses a D850, maybe he will offer his view on processing 48MP files. I have here on Alamy photos taken at 10 000 ISO, they are really clean. I can also easily pull up shots underexposed by three stops and they are superb. The ISO invariance on the D750 is excellent. If you want to I can send you some high ISO and underexposed RAW files so you can have a look. Computer-wise I am on a 2013 iMac and each RAW conversion takes about 8 seconds using DxO PhotoLab (I don't use LR).

[JamesH]

.

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

19 hours ago, Colin Woods said:

Not really answering your question, but I use the Nikon D750 and its high ISO and dynamic range are astounding. If you are considering changing your equipment from Canon to Sony, you should look at the D750. Its FF 24MP which, I think, is right on the sweet spot for detail and processing speed. I know MDM uses a D850, maybe he will offer his view on processing 48MP files. I have here on Alamy photos taken at 10 000 ISO, they are really clean. I can also easily pull up shots underexposed by three stops and they are superb. The ISO invariance on the D750 is excellent. If you want to I can send you some high ISO and underexposed RAW files so you can have a look. Computer-wise I am on a 2013 iMac and each RAW conversion takes about 8 seconds using DxO PhotoLab (I don't use LR).

Thanks, Colin.  That does look like a good option.   I'm starting to shy away from ultra-high MP sensors, as I worry about it showing camera shake, and thus actually reducing sharpness.  I'm probably not the steadiest shooter, though I think I have good technique.

 

I really don't want to change brands, and the 5D Mark4 really is the logical choice.  It apparently doesn't have quite the dynamic range of the Nikon and Sony products, but I have no idea whether it would make a practical difference to me.   I know that ergonomics are very important to me, which is why I chose a Canon to begin with.  It just fits my hand better.  And I'm not eager to learn a new camera system.   Also have the 70-200 f2.8 L lens, which I'd hate to sacrifice. 

 

I'd like to see a new Canon mirrorless as a 5D4 replacement, but if/when that comes, it'll probably have increased sensor MPs.  I know the EOS R is out, but not interested in it.

 

As an aside, do you have good luck with your book images?  I have a book collection, and have considered trying that, but as yet have no experience  with a setup for product shots.

 

Thanks much,

Michael

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

1 hour ago, JamesH said:

I have a D800 and D3300 and used a D7500, 36mp, 24mp and 21mp respectively. You can definitely notice a difference in import, 1:1 preview rendering and general editing, but I much prefer the files the D800 produces so I live with the extra time taken. You can really tell the difference in the images, I can pull back underexposed and nearly black shadows with nearly no noise with the D800, the other two look noisy or grainy even with correct exposure at anything over ISO 100 (in comparison). 

 

My friend uses Canon and from my research on 5D etc Nikon beats them in shadows, much more detail. I would assume the Sony would be similar as Nikon uses quite a few Sony sensors.

 

I used it on a i7-4790k, 16GB ram SSD, a Lenovo T430 (i5-3320m, 16gb RAM, SSD) and my latest machine is an AMD Ryzen 2400g, 16gb RAM and NVME SSD. All machines seemed to run about the same, exports a bit faster on latest. 16GB+ RAM and a fast SSD for catalogs are a good idea.

 

Anyway, Lightroom is badly optimised so anything you open with it will be slow. I live with it as its a good catalog manager and I've been using it since LR 1.x

 

You should be able to find sample RAW files for any camera online.

James, thanks for replying.  With a range of MP sizes, you can probably answer this question: for handheld shots, have you sometimes found you get less sharpness from the high pixel cameras, due to it recording ever smaller movements?   That's something I've begun to think about.

 

 

[JamesH]

.

[Marianne]

I went from using a Nikon D700 and D5100 (as a lighter weight/backup camera) to mirrorless and I haven't looked back.

 

I have a micro 4/3rds and a full frame mirrorless - the OMD E1 (16MP) and the Sony A7rii (42MP).  8 GB RAM and a 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 on my 2013 Retina Laptop, where I usually sort and do some processing, and 8GB RAM on my 2011 iMac, which also has an Intel Core i7.

 

I notice a huge decrease in speed between the Sony and Olympus files when using lightroom and while I love the Olympus for its incredibly light weight and stellar photos in good light, and even up to 600-800 ISO at times (I have to expose them pretty perfectly), the dynamic range of the Sony and the low light performance even above 16,000 is amazing. I regularly shoot handheld at night at 2500 and get beautiful low light images. I thought the D700 was amazing but the Sony even blows that away. If I wasn't 4'11" with a bad back and neck I might have gone for the D850 and kept all my old lenses.

 

You can keep some of your old glass with the Sony. One favorite is the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 which I use with a manual adapter (Velo - about $40-50) on the Sony and get amazing shots.

 

Both have great steady shot features and while I could hand hold back in college film days at 1/8-1/15, since having Lyme Disease back in my 30's before I began my photo career, I was lucky to hand hold at 1/60th until I went to mirrorless, where I've even gotten decent results at 1/4.

 

The 42 MP does show every flaw at 100-200%, so you need excellent glass, but you may find that you can keep some of your Canon glass if you go to Sony. Not sure a move to the D850 would let you do that. The Sony G lenses are excellent, but even the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 (not one of the Master lenses) is terrific. The Olympus is noticeably lighter since the lenses are much smaller. Although the Sony isn't much lighter than the D5100 (which I got to save my back and neck after a bad car accident), the picture quality is in an entirely different league than any other camera I've owned. I worked as a photo assistant for a photographer using a $30,000 medium format digital back (24MP - back in 2007-2010) and this tiny and light camera that costs of fraction of that blows it out of the water. Hard to go wrong with today's cameras as long as your lenses are good. That's why I went with primes to start, and kept some Nikon glass.  

 

I'd love to know if anyone here has the 24-105mm f/4 for the Sony. What do you think? I only have primes for it so far but thinking a zoom for travel would be a good investment, though the Olympus is a great travel camera. 

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

3 hours ago, Marianne said:

I went from using a Nikon D700 and D5100 (as a lighter weight/backup camera) to mirrorless and I haven't looked back.

 

I have a micro 4/3rds and a full frame mirrorless - the OMD E1 (16MP) and the Sony A7rii (42MP).  8 GB RAM and a 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 on my 2013 Retina Laptop, where I usually sort and do some processing, and 8GB RAM on my 2011 iMac, which also has an Intel Core i7.

 

I notice a huge decrease in speed between the Sony and Olympus files when using lightroom and while I love the Olympus for its incredibly light weight and stellar photos in good light, and even up to 600-800 ISO at times (I have to expose them pretty perfectly), the dynamic range of the Sony and the low light performance even above 16,000 is amazing. I regularly shoot handheld at night at 2500 and get beautiful low light images. I thought the D700 was amazing but the Sony even blows that away. If I wasn't 4'11" with a bad back and neck I might have gone for the D850 and kept all my old lenses.

 

You can keep some of your old glass with the Sony. One favorite is the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 which I use with a manual adapter (Velo - about $40-50) on the Sony and get amazing shots.

 

Both have great steady shot features and while I could hand hold back in college film days at 1/8-1/15, since having Lyme Disease back in my 30's before I began my photo career, I was lucky to hand hold at 1/60th until I went to mirrorless, where I've even gotten decent results at 1/4.

 

The 42 MP does show every flaw at 100-200%, so you need excellent glass, but you may find that you can keep some of your Canon glass if you go to Sony. Not sure a move to the D850 would let you do that. The Sony G lenses are excellent, but even the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/2.8 (not one of the Master lenses) is terrific. The Olympus is noticeably lighter since the lenses are much smaller. Although the Sony isn't much lighter than the D5100 (which I got to save my back and neck after a bad car accident), the picture quality is in an entirely different league than any other camera I've owned. I worked as a photo assistant for a photographer using a $30,000 medium format digital back (24MP - back in 2007-2010) and this tiny and light camera that costs of fraction of that blows it out of the water. Hard to go wrong with today's cameras as long as your lenses are good. That's why I went with primes to start, and kept some Nikon glass.  

 

I'd love to know if anyone here has the 24-105mm f/4 for the Sony. What do you think? I only have primes for it so far but thinking a zoom for travel would be a good investment, though the Olympus is a great travel camera. 

Thanks for the info, Marianne.    Dustin Abbott on youtube has a couple of good reviews of the Sony lens.  See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdRC8XQEQEI

 

Seems a lot like other 24-105 f4s.....pretty good, but not wonderful.   Tony Northrup, also on youtube, reviewed a Sigma lens with the same specs, and likes it a lot.   If I end up staying with Canon and buying a 5d4, that's probably what I'll get--though it's not weather-sealed.

 

I think this is a useful thread, and hope we get more comments on it.

 

Michael

[Marianne]

Thanks for the link Michael.

 

Jeff, sensor size affects noise but it's not always the only variable. My 16MP Olympus with a tiny micro 4/3rds sensor is much cleaner at significantly higher ISOs than the CMOS sensor on my old backup camera, the 16MP Nikon D5100.

 

With so much content ending up on the web instead of in print, it almost seems like ever larger MPs are a waste. Still, I opted for the 42MP Sony.  I shoot a lot of fine art and also often sell travel images as large prints, and I also shoot for some magazines and calendar companies, so I figured I might as well go for it. If I was just shooting stock, I might have gone with 24MP, and even for fine art and the other work I do, that would have been more than adequate.  All of today's cameras are so much better than what I started out with - the 6MP Nikon D70 - back when Alamy required them to be up-rezzed to 42MB. 

 

I used to dream of owning a medium format camera, but for the type of work I do, which most of the time requires lugging my equipment around for hours or days at a time, I'm happy to get FF 42MP in such a small package. I'm sure the MF has its advantages, but for my budget and needs the A7rii (which was on sales since it was replaced by the iii), seemed like the best bet for me when I bought it earlier this year. I look forward to checking out all sorts of equipment at PhotoPlusExpo this week, though right now my next big purchase is a new Mac. 

[MDM]

On 23/10/2018 at 17:30, MilesbeforeIsleep said:

Am looking  at the Sony a7R3 with their 24-105 f4 lens.  That, and the Nikon D850 are being reported as being at the top of the list for dynamic range and high ISO performance.

 

My question for those who are using large MP cameras and LR is:  will processing speed in LR slow significantly when I move from a 20MP sensor to a 42MP sensor?   Do you find it problematic?

 

Logical comeback question is--what computer am I using?  1) LR Classic CC, latest update. 2)Dell Inspiron 15 7000 gaming laptop, with Intel i7 processor at 2.8GHz, 16GB ram, Nividia GTX 1060 graphics card, Windows 10.  3)Monitor is a Dell  4K, 3840 x 2160, 24", 30Htz.

 

Will be grateful for your comments.

 

--Michael

 

 

 

On 23/10/2018 at 19:52, Colin Woods said:

Not really answering your question, but I use the Nikon D750 and its high ISO and dynamic range are astounding. If you are considering changing your equipment from Canon to Sony, you should look at the D750. Its FF 24MP which, I think, is right on the sweet spot for detail and processing speed. I know MDM uses a D850, maybe he will offer his view on processing 48MP files. I have here on Alamy photos taken at 10 000 ISO, they are really clean. I can also easily pull up shots underexposed by three stops and they are superb. The ISO invariance on the D750 is excellent. If you want to I can send you some high ISO and underexposed RAW files so you can have a look. Computer-wise I am on a 2013 iMac and each RAW conversion takes about 8 seconds using DxO PhotoLab (I don't use LR).

 

First of all of course high MP cameras (36MP + for Nikon) require more processing power and RAM but I am not in a position to say what exactly is required as I am familiar only with what I use. However, I would suggest 32GB of RAM rather than 16GB as a minimum and preferably a desktop with a good graphics card rather than on board graphics typical of laptops. This is based on experience as using my 2014 MacBookPro with 16GB of RAM is a lot less comfortable than on my Mac desktop with 32GB of RAM and otherwise similar specs in terms of processor and working drive (SSD or Thunderbolt). The laptop works but is slower, not in terms of time for a raw conversion but in relation to working with Lightroom Classic. Anything that stretches the laptop (panoramas in LR or PS) causes massive slowdown whereas the 32GB machine is fine. So I would think about factoring in the cost of a decent 32GB desktop at some point for anyone considering high MP cameras. 

 

A major advantage of high MP cameras is room for cropping which is something I take advantage of a lot of the time now. This is what sets these high MP cameras apart from the D750 (24MP) as well as build quality and a few other features. The D750 is a beautiful machine in terms of image quality as Colin says but the D850 is in a class of its own as it combines the amazing high MP image quality of the D800, 800E and 810 with the speed of the D5. It is simply astounding for action photography given the size of the images (>45MP) and the AF tracking is unbelievable. In addition, the dynamic range of the D8xx series is deservedly legendary and the low light, high ISO capabilities of the D850 are noticeably better than the D810. As far as DSLRs go, the D850 is the ultimate machine I think.

 

 

 

 

 

[chris_rabe]

Have been working with the 42mpx files for nearly three years now, and initially, they really did my head in.

 

This was mostly a lightroom issue, and I was not far off dropping lightroom entirely when they finally sorted it out. The recent update have improved things again.

 

It's always going to be a bit slower, but it's not a nightmare anymore at least

 

If you don't want to go that high, you can always get the A7iii. Pretty incredible camera for the price, and the Sony mirrorless are way ahead of the Canon and Nikon recent introductions.

 

The 24-105mm F4 G is also a pretty phenomenal lens for it's type.

 

I don't know why anyone would go for a DSLR over mirrorless these days.

[Chuck Nacke]

Michael,

 

90% of my current work is commissioned corporate work and I am currently working with

two D800's and an old D700.  Lately for Alamy I've had to shoot at 3200 ISO and the both

the 800's and the 700 have been great.  A HUGE step up from my old KODAK / NIKON DCS 620

or the FUJI Pro's.  While I love my 800's, I only shoot RAW at 7360 X in 14bit, it is HUGE over

kill for most of my work.  I also love being able to crop, crop and crop and still be way over

3000 X.  I got rid of my heavy 70-200 f2.8 for a 70-200 f4 VR and that tele zoom has become

my major money maker,  it is also easy to carry all day.  For wide I am currently using a TOKINA 16-28 f2.8

and it is just OK, never use it wide open or at 16mm.  One interesting thing is that I have a lot of old

NIKKOR ED glass and it is not as good on the 800's as newer ED NIKKORs.  I have a very old 35-70

f2.8 that I had completely rebuilt and it is not great on the 800's as is my old 105 Micro f4.

 

Another down side to working with the high MP bodies (800's) is that my desk self is full of external

drives, currently have more than 20 1TB WD drives sitting there.

 

For most of my processing I'm using LR and I have spent hours and hours on the telephone with

Adobe tech support trying to sort out processing speed, I have currently using a desktop DELL

with 16 gigs,  a 3.2 processor and upgraded my graphics card, NVIDIA 4GB.  There is a lot of

miss-information about optimizing LR, Adobe knows better and helps sort it all out.

 

SONY and I do not get along, even though I worked for SONY Records in California.  I have

heard that SONY is making all the chips for the NIKON's?

 

I would say look for a refurbished D800,  For my work I prefer the 800's over the newer big MP

NIKON's.  If you go with 30+ MP DSLR's be ready to buy a lot of external drives........

 

Chuck

[MilesbeforeIsleep]

2 minutes ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Michael,

 

90% of my current work is commissioned corporate work and I am currently working with

two D800's and an old D700.  Lately for Alamy I've had to shoot at 3200 ISO and the both

the 800's and the 700 have been great.  A HUGE step up from my old KODAK / NIKON DCS 620

or the FUJI Pro's.  While I love my 800's, I only shoot RAW at 7360 X in 14bit, it is HUGE over

kill for most of my work.  I also love being able to crop, crop and crop and still be way over

3000 X.  I got rid of my heavy 70-200 f2.8 for a 70-200 f4 VR and that tele zoom has become

my major money maker,  it is also easy to carry all day.  For wide I am currently using a TOKINA 16-28 f2.8

and it is just OK, never use it wide open or at 16mm.  One interesting thing is that I have a lot of old

NIKKOR ED glass and it is not as good on the 800's as newer ED NIKKORs.  I have a very old 35-70

f2.8 that I had completely rebuilt and it is not great on the 800's as is my old 105 Micro f4.

 

Another down side to working with the high MP bodies (800's) is that my desk self is full of external

drives, currently have more than 20 1TB WD drives sitting there.

 

For most of my processing I'm using LR and I have spent hours and hours on the telephone with

Adobe tech support trying to sort out processing speed, I have currently using a desktop DELL

with 16 gigs,  a 3.2 processor and upgraded my graphics card, NVIDIA 4GB.  There is a lot of

miss-information about optimizing LR, Adobe knows better and helps sort it all out.

 

SONY and I do not get along, even though I worked for SONY Records in California.  I have

heard that SONY is making all the chips for the NIKON's?

 

I would say look for a refurbished D800,  For my work I prefer the 800's over the newer big MP

NIKON's.  If you go with 30+ MP DSLR's be ready to buy a lot of external drives........

 

Chuck

Hi Chuck.  Thanks for the post.

A few days ago, I did what everyone (including me, at some point) recommends I not do, and bought a Canon 5D mark 4.  I did it for a few reasons.  My only experience with DSLRs is with the 7D mark 2 (which, I've learned from the 5D4) is a REALLY good crop sensor camera.   But I'm not a terribly experienced photographer, and was reluctant to change systems.  I know the Canon buttons and options pretty well, and was not ready right now to relearn all that--while I'm still learning some aspects of shooting stock (particularly, shooting fast and accurately).  But also, I got what I regard as a really good deal on it--very lightly used (if that) for $2250 US.

 

I bought it not thinking it  would be my camera for all time, and in a year or two, either Canon will come out with the holy grail of DSLRS--and I'll buy that--or I'll move to (probably) Nikon. 

 

I think you're right in your recommendation of the D800 (or perhaps D810).  But I couldn't resist the 30MP system I already know.   So far, it looks like it's going to be just fine.

 

Thanks,

Michael

[MDM]

1 hour ago, Chuck Nacke said:

Michael,

 

While I love my 800's, I only shoot RAW at 7360 X in 14bit, it is HUGE over

kill for most of my work.  I also love being able to crop, crop and crop and still be way over

3000 X.

 

Another down side to working with the high MP bodies (800's) is that my desk self is full of external

drives, currently have more than 20 1TB WD drives sitting there.

 

I would say look for a refurbished D800,  For my work I prefer the 800's over the newer big MP

NIKON's.  If you go with 30+ MP DSLR's be ready to buy a lot of external drives........

 

Chuck

 

Chuck may I ask why you are using 1TB drives rather than say 4 or 8 TB? The 1TB drives are far more expensive on aTB/$ basis and they must take up a lot of space. I could buy a 4TB drive for the price of 2 x 1TB drives of the same spec so basically twice the price. I have 20TB of external drive on my desk with 3 drives only.

 

The ability to crop is a major upside of high MP cameras and the bigger the better (up to a point). I am so used to it now I can't imagine going back. I do a lot of my portraits now in landscape format which gives a lot more stability and just crop in post. 

 

As for cameras, if action and buffer size comes into it, then the D850 is unbeatable.

 

 

 

 

[Starsphinx]

15 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Chuck may I ask why you are using 1TB drives rather than say 4 or 8 TB? The 1TB drives are far more expensive on aTB/$ basis and they must take up a lot of space. I could buy a 4TB drive for the price of 2 x 1TB drives of the same spec so basically twice the price. I have 20TB of external drive on my desk with 3 drives only.

 

The ability to crop is a major upside of high MP cameras and the bigger the better (up to a point). I am so used to it now I can't imagine going back. I do a lot of my portraits now in landscape format which gives a lot more stability and just crop in post. 

 

As for cameras, if action and buffer size comes into it, then the D850 is unbeatable.

 

 

 

 

I have just picked up a 6tb drive from my catalogue for £129.  It came with a bonus free 2 month trial of Adobe photographer subscription (the one that gives you photoshop, lightroom classic, lightroom cc, etc) - which is not worth anything to me as I already have that package - but if anyone is considering new storage and maybe exploring the subscription it is the 6tb seagate on Very catalogue.