literiter
Well-known
I've been ogling the Sony A7R. 36 megapixels on a 35mm format. Considering lens ability etc., is it a big deal?
At what point do Megapixels become irrelevant
- Thread starter literiter
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 66
- Views 6K
thegman
Veteran
When people stop listening to what manufacturers tell them.
If 6MP was good enough a few years back, it's good enough now, what has changed? Has the world become higher resolution? The only thing that has changed (seriously) is that manufacturers a few years ago said 6MP was plenty, and now they're saying it's not.
If 6MP was good enough a few years back, it's good enough now, what has changed? Has the world become higher resolution? The only thing that has changed (seriously) is that manufacturers a few years ago said 6MP was plenty, and now they're saying it's not.
yossarian123
Sam I Am
I was always very happy with my D700 and it's 12MP files. Now I'm quite happy with the M9 files. Any bigger and it will impact my workflow (processing times, primary/backup storage space).
Godfrey
somewhat colored
As I've said before, I do still regularly shoot with my lovely, ancient Olympus E-1. Five glorious megapixels.. The camera continues to make superb, well detailed, beautiful photographs. ;-)
More pixels gives advantage with respect to available resolution and editing overhead. And if you plan to make very large prints. The two digital cameras I am shooting with now ... Leica M9 and Olympus E-M1 ... create 18 and 16 Mpixel image files, respectively. While "more's always better" when it comes to Mpixels, this is certainly enough for my needs and is a nice saddle point on the benefits:cost curve.
36 Mpixels will indeed tax any system with the additional processing overhead. Whether the benefits warrant that, or the costs of upgrading to accommodate, is up to you personally.
G
More pixels gives advantage with respect to available resolution and editing overhead. And if you plan to make very large prints. The two digital cameras I am shooting with now ... Leica M9 and Olympus E-M1 ... create 18 and 16 Mpixel image files, respectively. While "more's always better" when it comes to Mpixels, this is certainly enough for my needs and is a nice saddle point on the benefits:cost curve.
36 Mpixels will indeed tax any system with the additional processing overhead. Whether the benefits warrant that, or the costs of upgrading to accommodate, is up to you personally.
G
thegman
Veteran
In theory yes, in practice, not always. Pixel size/density will make a big difference when it comes to signal/noise ration. That's why your Olympus E-1 will take vastly nicer looking pictures than a 5MP mobile phone.
Frontman
Well-known
When one uses film?
CliveC
Well-known
When you crop, having megapixels is a great thing.
That being said, I think it's really a case of diminishing returns after 18 megapixels or so. It's very much about the quality of those pixels rather than the sheer quantity.
That being said, I think it's really a case of diminishing returns after 18 megapixels or so. It's very much about the quality of those pixels rather than the sheer quantity.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
2 Megapixels is PLENTY!
2 Megapixels is PLENTY!
Ten year + shot from 2 megapixel Fuji, when it was hot stuff.
2 Megapixels is PLENTY!
Ten year + shot from 2 megapixel Fuji, when it was hot stuff.
Last edited:
hepcat
Former PH, USN
There are SO many factors that are as, if not more important than megapixels. Like Godfrey, I loved my Olympus E1's output. The color was unparalleled in its day. Frankly there still isn't much that bests it. But as clients began asking questions about "megapixels" and expressed dismay that I was shooting gear with "only" five, I moved up to the E3 and then the E5. The E3 at 10 mp and E5 at 12mp were more than adequate and actually remain so today. I switched from Olympus solely because Olympus was taking their line in a direction I didn't want to go. If they'd introduced a 4/3rds E7, I'd probably still be shooting Olympus. I switched to the M8/M9 because I'd shot Leicas for years pre-digital and I wanted to get away from the in-body automation in the new equipment.
I don't find a thing lacking in the 10mp images from my M8, and the M9 is nice primarly because of the "full frame"-lens correlation to the old bodies; a 50mm is a 50mm FOV again. While the output of the M9P is gorgeous, I still take my M8 out just as much.
BTW, when clients ask how many MPs my cameras are now, I reply that they give "5 mb files, large enough to do anything you want to do with them". There usually isn't much discussion after that.
I don't find a thing lacking in the 10mp images from my M8, and the M9 is nice primarly because of the "full frame"-lens correlation to the old bodies; a 50mm is a 50mm FOV again. While the output of the M9P is gorgeous, I still take my M8 out just as much.
BTW, when clients ask how many MPs my cameras are now, I reply that they give "5 mb files, large enough to do anything you want to do with them". There usually isn't much discussion after that.
Pioneer
Veteran
As long as manufacturers need to sell cameras there will never be enough megapickles nor will there be a high enough ISO rating.
For me the M9's 18mp is plenty. I rarely crop (a hangover from my 6mp days) but when I need to, the additional resolution is nice.
For me the M9's 18mp is plenty. I rarely crop (a hangover from my 6mp days) but when I need to, the additional resolution is nice.
Last edited:
Michalm
Well-known
Lol , this is great😛
RichC
Well-known
When we're happy with the quality of prints at the size we prefer.
The number of pixels affects tonal quality, such as smoothness and transitions, as well as image sharpness. I own a Nikon D800E (36 MP), and its image quality surpasses every digital camera I've used - as found in many reviews - except for a 40 MP Hasselblad I borrowed (larger sensor = better tonal quality).
A good yardstick is to compare the quality of prints from digital with those from scanned film negatives.
Because of the rubbish answers on the web, I calculated from first principles using manufacturers' data the effective resolution of film: 645 medium-format film is roughly equal to 35-40 MP under real-world conditions (colour film like Portra, accounting for signal degradations, the effect of film grain, Hasselblad Flextone or other high end scanner, f/8, etc.), and 35mm film is about 20-25 MP. A flat-bed scanners destroys resolution, reducing it by about half. See http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2254748&postcount=1018 for more info.
So, ignoring MF digital and concentrating only on "full-frame" digital, the best current full-frame cameras can - just - equal the tonal quality and sharpness of low-grain professional colour film up to "small" (645) medium format. We have a way to go before full-frame digital matches the quality of "large" (6x7) medium-format film.
i haven't mentioned small-sensor digital, as the small size and high pixel density degrades image quality compared with larger sensors: the reason why the 40 MP Hasselblad I borrowed blew off my Nikon D800E despite there being only a minuscule 4 MP difference.
The number of pixels affects tonal quality, such as smoothness and transitions, as well as image sharpness. I own a Nikon D800E (36 MP), and its image quality surpasses every digital camera I've used - as found in many reviews - except for a 40 MP Hasselblad I borrowed (larger sensor = better tonal quality).
A good yardstick is to compare the quality of prints from digital with those from scanned film negatives.
Because of the rubbish answers on the web, I calculated from first principles using manufacturers' data the effective resolution of film: 645 medium-format film is roughly equal to 35-40 MP under real-world conditions (colour film like Portra, accounting for signal degradations, the effect of film grain, Hasselblad Flextone or other high end scanner, f/8, etc.), and 35mm film is about 20-25 MP. A flat-bed scanners destroys resolution, reducing it by about half. See http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2254748&postcount=1018 for more info.
So, ignoring MF digital and concentrating only on "full-frame" digital, the best current full-frame cameras can - just - equal the tonal quality and sharpness of low-grain professional colour film up to "small" (645) medium format. We have a way to go before full-frame digital matches the quality of "large" (6x7) medium-format film.
i haven't mentioned small-sensor digital, as the small size and high pixel density degrades image quality compared with larger sensors: the reason why the 40 MP Hasselblad I borrowed blew off my Nikon D800E despite there being only a minuscule 4 MP difference.
x-ray
Veteran
How large do you print or do you only look at your images on screen? If on screen you only need two or three. If you print 8x10 then ten is plenty.
More important is dynamic range and noise.
I,m a commercial photographer and shoot a 36mp Nikon and 39mp Hasselblas. I can tell you from experience these cameras are brutal on resolution.
If I weren't shooting for clients I'd probably settle in around 18-24.
More important is dynamic range and noise.
I,m a commercial photographer and shoot a 36mp Nikon and 39mp Hasselblas. I can tell you from experience these cameras are brutal on resolution.
If I weren't shooting for clients I'd probably settle in around 18-24.
literiter
Well-known
I am a complete and utter amateur.
I don't shoot to present my work as murals. Big for me is 11 x 14 even though I've done a 16 x 20 on occasion. Mostly I scan a negative or slide, work with it a bit in Photoshop, and if it is good enough to print I print it on a Epson printer most often as an 8 x 10.
What I like is dynamic range. I get good dynamic range from film using Ilford XP2 or Fuji 160 color film. I get the film processed, scan so a 35mm neg gives me a 30meg file, Photoshop it, then if it turns my crank I print it. I can pull all sorts of stuff out of that negative.
I would like comparative dynamic range from a digital camera. Is it possible?
I don't shoot to present my work as murals. Big for me is 11 x 14 even though I've done a 16 x 20 on occasion. Mostly I scan a negative or slide, work with it a bit in Photoshop, and if it is good enough to print I print it on a Epson printer most often as an 8 x 10.
What I like is dynamic range. I get good dynamic range from film using Ilford XP2 or Fuji 160 color film. I get the film processed, scan so a 35mm neg gives me a 30meg file, Photoshop it, then if it turns my crank I print it. I can pull all sorts of stuff out of that negative.
I would like comparative dynamic range from a digital camera. Is it possible?
Ronald M
Veteran
16 is not 33% better than 12MP. You need to compare area, not linear numbers.
Having had and still owning a D40, D200, D700, D3, D800e, Leica M8, M9, the D800e outclasses them all by a decent margin when considering resolution, partly from MP and partly from not using a blur filter over the sensor.
When is enough sufficient, when you see no improvement in the size print you want to make. But MP are not the only thing that contribute.
If you want to see for yourself, google image comparometer and put in the cameras of your choice.
Having had and still owning a D40, D200, D700, D3, D800e, Leica M8, M9, the D800e outclasses them all by a decent margin when considering resolution, partly from MP and partly from not using a blur filter over the sensor.
When is enough sufficient, when you see no improvement in the size print you want to make. But MP are not the only thing that contribute.
If you want to see for yourself, google image comparometer and put in the cameras of your choice.
RichC
Well-known
If you scan with a flat bed and are happy with the results, then any modern digital camera with an APS-C or full-frame sensor of 20 MP or so will give results you'll be pleased with. I prefer Nikons, as I find their colour palette to be more subtle than others Ive tried such as Canons.
literiter
Well-known
Yep! I suspect you are right.
Grahamb
Member
Yep, clean neg every time, no hot pixels
koven
Well-known
Some of my best photos would be that much better if I had more megapixels. Not so much of a hobby for me I do this for living and I have people I compete with.
Its not just about blowing pictures up at huge sizes, higher resolution pictures simply look better at small sizes. You also have more freedom to crop.
Its not just about blowing pictures up at huge sizes, higher resolution pictures simply look better at small sizes. You also have more freedom to crop.
rbsinto
Well-known
- Local time
- 10:30 AM
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,597
The question should really be "at what point did megapixels become irrelevant?"
Similar threads
