At what point do Megapixels become irrelevant

[Mcary]

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?

If you compare sensors of the same size and generation example the sensor in the Nikon D4/DFs 16MP sensor vs The Nikon's D800 36 MP the sensor with the lower pixel count/density will generally give better results at high ISO. Now if you were to compare the D800 to older generation FF sensors the D800 may provide provided better higher ISO performance despite its higher pixel count/density thanks to improvements in sensor design, production and the camera's software.

 

[jsrockit]

But who listens to me when there are pretty cameras to buy?

Why do you care how others spend their money?

 

[hepcat]

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?

Well said!

 

[hepcat]

Why do you care how others spend their money?

I don't really think he does. I think what he's referring to is the tendency we each show sometimes of ignoring good advice.

For example, someone posted earlier about a medium format digital sensor capturing every flaw and blemish in a woman's skin in clinical detail. There has been an old saw that says for a woman over 30, use a #1 diffuser. For over 45 use a #2.

So, if that's the case, how important is a 40mp Hassy sensor in doing portraiture if the output needs to be modified anyway and that kind of "sharp" is not only unnecessary, but has a need to be blunted either in camera or in PP?

If you can't achieve maximum "sharpness" with a 40mp camera unless its on a heavy studio tripod but the majority of your work is hand-held, are you really getting what you paid for?

How many of the complaints we hear about resolution and sharpness really come from folks who maximize the ability of their gear?

I view a lot of these discussions as coming from the old definition of "mil-spec" (military specifications) as "measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk and cut with an axe." While the equipment is competent, it's not always used in a manner that allows for it's competence to be maximized. Folks buy gear with the highest specs they can find, and then shoot it on auto hand-held. Personally, I buy MY equipment used with the highest specs I can find, and then shoot it on auto, hand-held and expect the advertised results.

<grin>

 

[gm13]

Interesting that Canon's flagship 1D X is 18.1mp and Nikon's D4 is 16.2, granted that may be a compromise for speed but it does say something about pixel count.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I don't care what people buy other than the guy who made the point that the cycle of people constantly churning their digital cameras makes for a good used market, where one can buy a highly competent D300 or 5D for only a few hundred bucks.

For example, thanks to the $800 Ricoh GR and $1000 Nikon A, I can get a $200 Panasonic GX1 with a $175 14mm lens and have pretty much the same thing... other than bragging rights.

 

[jsrockit]

Thanks for the explanation Frank. I guess I misinterpreted you. There are great camera deals out there these days.

 

[hepcat]

I don't care what people buy other than the guy who made the point that the cycle of people constantly churning their digital cameras makes for a good used market, where one can buy a highly competent D300 or 5D for only a few hundred bucks.

For example, thanks to the $800 Ricoh GR and $1000 Nikon A, I can get a $200 Panasonic GX1 with a $175 14mm lens and have pretty much the same thing... other than bragging rights.

I did just that.. I have a Panny GX1 with the kit zoom I bought like-new, used for $200. It turns out some pretty nice images for an interchangeable lens point & shoot. One of these days, I'll buy an M adapter for it. I just haven't gotten 'round to it yet.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I did just that.. I have a Panny GX1 with the kit zoom I bought like-new, used for $200. It turns out some pretty nice images for an interchangeable lens point & shoot. One of these days, I'll buy an M adapter for it. I just haven't gotten 'round to it yet.

They are the best bang for the buck around these days. I used a cheap Russian 50/2 LTM on a cheap adaptor and got some really nice portraits with it.

 

[Addy101]

This is from my Apple Quicktake, the first commercial digital camera (not 35mm with digital back). I've been doing digital cameras and scanning from the get.

This is lousy, unbelievable people paid hundreds of dollars for this. To be honest, before the APS-C DSLR I had zero interest in digital cameras and I couldn't understand why all those people bought these digital cameras.

How many mp is enough? depends 😉
For most, 6mp is enough, but more is always nicer.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

To me 16mp on my Canon Rebel DSLR is too heavy already.
My wife still prefers FujiFilm 6MP camera, due to bad auto modes in Canon.
At this resolution it is no problem to print small.
My Canon 5D with 12MP is optimum for larger prints without eating of disk space and CPU power in PP.
My Epson v500 real resolution seems to be below 10MP for 135 format.
But I printed 10x12 or something like this and it is fine.

 

[shadowfox]

"At what point do Megapixels become irrelevant?"

A: When you and I stop counting them.

 

[jsrockit]

Personally I feel it is nice to get a 20x30" print that holds up at even close inspection.

 

[rbrooks]

12x18 max, my m8 @ 10 mpx did fine.

I find that my 400 iso b&w negatives scanned at 4000dpi on my Nikon 9000 max out at about 12x18. This is a nice size as it prints on an A3+ printer.
Alternatively 3200 iso b&w negatives print well at 10x15. This is also a nice size as it fits on the standard A3.

 

[benlees]

This is from my Apple Quicktake, the first commercial digital camera (not 35mm with digital back). I've been doing digital cameras and scanning from the get.

Kind of works as a non photo photo. Looks kind of cool.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Personally I feel it is nice to get a 20x30" print that holds up at even close inspection.

Even then, a great deal depends on subject matter, viewing distance, and who is doing the inspecting.

Cheers,

R.

 

[aeturnum]

At what ISO does grain become irrelevant? Never - what people consider "good enough" is a personal judgement. I don't find anything over 12 megapixels particularly compelling, but if the overall image looks good who cares what the underlying numbers are?

 

[alan davus]

Personally I feel it is nice to get a 20x30" print that holds up at even close inspection.

I wonder though what percentage of users who are forever chasing the latest high megapixel cameras do ever print this large? Very small.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I loved the 6Mp sensor in the R-D1.
After that, I loved the 4.1Mp sensor in the Nikon D2Hs. I still do and still want a D2Hs. Two images from that camera were good enough to pay for my D3, so megapixels don't matter to me.
Yeah, I shoot a D3 but not for its resolution. I use it because it's a fantastic full frame camera.
The M9 was good but files were a bit large. I filled most of a terabyte drive with mostly M9 images in only about 10 months of use.
The M8 was a little more manageable but like the M9 the data was very dense and files were pretty big.
I prefer lower resolution smaller size files so 4-6Mp was fine for me. I've been working almost completely for web publications the last year or so and if not web, printing on newsprint (so I need even less resolution.) Having a smaller file that is manageable with my ancient IBM X41 on the road is better than having a file like an uncompressed DNG from my old M9 which would choke that little laptop and force me to miss deadlines.

Horses for courses though. If I were printing big and it needed to be digital, I'd use the highest resolution medium format sensor I could get my hands on.

Phil Forrest

 

[David Hughes]

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.

Yes, I'm aware of that and the best/posh film camera and tripod (these days) are used for it. And I've seen my slides 10 or 12 ft high when standing on the stage beside them...

But as for digital, I've experimented to see what people actually see when they look at a picture and most of them don't notice half the things we claim on forums.

Tlaking to people in labs, I discovered I'm rare as I ask for 5 x 7's as most just want 6 x 4. So I guess actual standards are pretty low. Hence my answer.

I often wonder why everyone on forums talks as though billboards are normal. But then I'm wrong or non-PC about a lot of things. I even like P&S's. And I judge cameras by the prints or slides, and that seems wrong going by some of the threads here. (Ask my opinion about a wine and the answer will involve a corkscrew and a couple of glasses; these days that seems a minority method compared to reading the back label and looking at the price tag.)

Regards, David