back alley
IMAGES
i still like looking at my rd1 6mp images...
At what point do Megapixels become irrelevant
- Thread starter literiter
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 66
- Views 6K
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
i come from the film world with a negative size of 24mm x 36mm.
The best retail scanners, imo, are either 4000 ppi (coolscan),
or Minolta 5400 (5400 ppi) or the monster Flextight X5 at 8000 ppi.
Since 24mm is 0.955 inch, a minimum resolution would be,
4000x 6000 = 24mp resolution for a negative.
i currently scan at 2000ppi on a Pakon Kodak scanner and
use 3200 ppi on the Minolta Scan IV. So I am getting around
6mp - 15mp on the scanners.
raytoei
The best retail scanners, imo, are either 4000 ppi (coolscan),
or Minolta 5400 (5400 ppi) or the monster Flextight X5 at 8000 ppi.
Since 24mm is 0.955 inch, a minimum resolution would be,
4000x 6000 = 24mp resolution for a negative.
i currently scan at 2000ppi on a Pakon Kodak scanner and
use 3200 ppi on the Minolta Scan IV. So I am getting around
6mp - 15mp on the scanners.
raytoei
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
+1
I think this depends on the picture's intended viewing size. I no longer take many pictures that will be printed larger than 16x20....and in all likelihood no bigger than 8x10. So for me, I'd rather shoot my R-D1 than the D700 it replaced.
literiter
Well-known
I use a Nikon CS9000. A scan of a 35mm color negative will give me about a 30+ meg file. Nice to know that is about 24 megapixels.
I don't know what I can achieve for dynamic range, because I don't really have a decent enough digital camera to compare, but it seems I can pull quite a bit out of that negative.
Do you have any idea of comparative dynamic range between film done this way and a good digital camera.?
lynnb
Veteran
High-megapixel cameras can show, in clinically sharp detail, every minute skin imperfection in a woman's face. Usually not desirable or recommended! I'm very happy with 12, and even then often have to reduce Clarity in post. Unless it's a large group picture where a great deal of enlargement is required.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I'm not big on digital, but I do have/have had enough of them. My limited impression is there are many more important features to consider than Megapixels.
Grahamb
Member
The only time my digi comes out of the bag is for bird photography, and if i am at a shoot where the hits are to be kept, i will take my minotla 800si / 400mm and slide,
Back to the digi count on px, and big prints, to me and i may be on my own here, but the big prints, just do not do it for me. Up to 20" is more than enough, when you have to stand the other side of the gallery to view a print, not the same as getting in close and personal.
Back to the digi count on px, and big prints, to me and i may be on my own here, but the big prints, just do not do it for me. Up to 20" is more than enough, when you have to stand the other side of the gallery to view a print, not the same as getting in close and personal.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
oh please.
no need to lecture me. i've been working with digital imaging and digital cameras since 1985. ...
G
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I see people post blurry, mis-focused D800e shots all the time... when I see people using medium format digital heldhed (like on America's Next Top Model) I have to chuckle, my experience has been that if you aren't going to tripod mount the camera then there is no point.... Fast shutter speeds help but even then there is usually a difference between the tripod shot and the handheld shot. (For that matter I see a difference between those flimsy travel tripods and the larger tripods.)
So really the divide is when/where you need to start using a tripod to get any benefit out of those megapixels? It seems to be LESS than the D800 and likely the A7r threshold of 36mp unless someone changes the laws of physics. Or you can always shoot every shot at 1/4000 at f/5.6.
Spending more to have a compact FX camera like the A7r becomes rather pointless if you're lugging a tripod to get the most out of it... better to get a lessor camera and save a few bucks for the same end results.
And if you must have an A7r or D800e then your priority should be on getting a great tripod before better lenses....
But who listens to me when there are pretty cameras to buy?
So really the divide is when/where you need to start using a tripod to get any benefit out of those megapixels? It seems to be LESS than the D800 and likely the A7r threshold of 36mp unless someone changes the laws of physics. Or you can always shoot every shot at 1/4000 at f/5.6.
Spending more to have a compact FX camera like the A7r becomes rather pointless if you're lugging a tripod to get the most out of it... better to get a lessor camera and save a few bucks for the same end results.
And if you must have an A7r or D800e then your priority should be on getting a great tripod before better lenses....
But who listens to me when there are pretty cameras to buy?
thegman
Veteran
No need for the tone Godfrey, no offence was meant. You merely said that "more's always better", and as you know, that's wrong.
I have no idea about your technical knowledge or background, and certainly did not lecture you, I simply pointed out a mistake.
You may know that you've got a lot of experience, but to me you're a dude on the internet saying something that we both agree is incorrect. No lecturing of any sort. If I was going to lecture, it would be about your manners (joke).
literiter
Well-known
I just did, and I agree.
A person can spend an inordinate amount of time and money chasing cameras and megapixels and forget
that really, all you came for, was a nice picture every now and then.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
About 5 when the Leica Digilux 2 appeared and it has old fashions controls like a dial for shutter speeds and a ring for the aperture and another for the zoom. Don't forget that the bigger the print the further people step away from it and the less the dpi shows...
Regards, David
Second that about the E-3, btw.
About 5 when the Leica Digilux 2 appeared and it has old fashions controls like a dial for shutter speeds and a ring for the aperture and another for the zoom. Don't forget that the bigger the print the further people step away from it and the less the dpi shows...
Regards, David
Second that about the E-3, btw.
mdarnton
Well-known
6mp was fine when people's objective was to emulate 35mm film. I don't know about the rest of you, but I never used only 35mm film for my work (a sort of exotic copy work where people do get as close as they can to see details and still want more, no matter what you give them), and my goal is to squeeze 8x10 or at least 4x5 quality out of a 35mm-sized camera. Initially that was a pipe dream, but it becomes more and more possible over time.
My Nikon D300 is a nice camera, but it's not doing 4x5's job for me (It's pretty close to what I used to do with an RB67, I think), and I doubt 36mp will quite pull it off, either.
So, I'll take more, please. However, for the time being what I have, 12mp, is certainly adequate for most of my personal work.
However, it's patently absurd and egocentric for anyone to suggest that 6mp, or 12mp or whatever is enough for everyone. And from my perspective, when people buy a camera they don't need, that lowers the price of (or simply makes possible) the camera I do need, so I'm certainly not going to complain about what other people do, anyway.
My Nikon D300 is a nice camera, but it's not doing 4x5's job for me (It's pretty close to what I used to do with an RB67, I think), and I doubt 36mp will quite pull it off, either.
So, I'll take more, please. However, for the time being what I have, 12mp, is certainly adequate for most of my personal work.
However, it's patently absurd and egocentric for anyone to suggest that 6mp, or 12mp or whatever is enough for everyone. And from my perspective, when people buy a camera they don't need, that lowers the price of (or simply makes possible) the camera I do need, so I'm certainly not going to complain about what other people do, anyway.
RichC
Well-known
I wish! 🙄 The images in my Digital Archaeology series were initially printed 5 feet tall ... and on the day I saw them, everyone who looked at them did indeed stand back, but then they all without exception went in to a few inches!
So viewing distance = great theory that fails when you add human nature to the equation!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear David,
A nice (and very old) theory but I really do not believe it is wholly true. A good print has (or can have) a "magic window" quality that invites us "into" the picture, and this often involves going closer to it: what an older generation disparagingly called "sniffing the print".
See "The Magic Window", http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps magic window 1.html
EDIT: See also the post immediately above this one.
Cheers,
R.
L Collins
Well-known
For documentary work in b&w, printed full frame and at 12x18 max, my m8 @ 10 mpx did fine. Now its a D3s @ 12 mpx, which is MORE than enough. The d800 is cmplete overkill, bogs down the computer, and creates ridiculous storage issues.
daveleo
what?
IMO, this is what it alls boils down to.
I have (what I consider) lovely 11X14 prints from my Leica D3 (5mp, ISO 100), a few 12X18's from the Panasonic LX3 (at ISO 80) and a whole bunch of 8X10's from 12mp and 16mp Nikons.
Just printed a few 12X18's from the Fujifilm X100 (12mp) at ISO320 and I am very pleased with them.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
DanielDuarte
Established
I'm far more attracted to the capability of high ISO performance than I am by megapixels, although I am not sure if that ISO ability is directly associated with the amount of pixels on a sensor.. anyone care to educate me?
Paddy C
Unused film collector
Number of megapixels does not reflect quality so for many photographers (almost all if we're counting all markets) megapixels have already become irrelevant. Screen viewing and sufficient fairly large print output is already covered. Quality of those megapixels is another issue.
I gather camera makers must be wondering what to do about this. If I have to buy lenses like the Zeiss Otus and use a tripod all the time, I'm well out of the game. For most consumers with kit zooms etc. I gather we are already at the limit.
Storage and computational power are never really an issue. Arguments against more megapixels based on these reasons are, at best, only temporary.
I gather camera makers must be wondering what to do about this. If I have to buy lenses like the Zeiss Otus and use a tripod all the time, I'm well out of the game. For most consumers with kit zooms etc. I gather we are already at the limit.
Storage and computational power are never really an issue. Arguments against more megapixels based on these reasons are, at best, only temporary.
Similar threads
