How Many Mega Pixels?

[RichC]

Wow, I do love the logic of these once in a lifetime arguments.

So I shouldn't by a bicycle because one day I may have to escape from a tsunami, I shouldn't diet because one day I might have to survive three weeks in the Atlantic in a lifeboat, I shouldn't got to church because one day ISIS will over run the country, I shouldn't vote because one day... And so on and so forth. None of it makes sense in the real world.

As I see it, buy a 10 x 8 for posters and bigger for billboards. Not a P&S. It's just horses for courses, or the right tool for the job; that's not going to strain anyone's brain is it?

😕
One person suggested that - everyone else gave caveats along the lines of "the right tool" or in this case the right number of megapixels.

And even the lone dissenter has a point: using a higher megapixel camera has few cons (I'm talking here perhaps of trading in a 5 MP camera for a used 12 MP one, say - not buying the new 50 MP Canon!) - but a lot of pros. If the pros aren't of interest, fine, stick with the 5 MP camera.

Even if I personally didn't need a high megapixel camera (which I do), I'd get one with a few more megapixels than necessary - simply because there are no downsides to not doing so (unlike changing film formats, which can be costly and a hassle). A Canon 10D and 20D cost about the same now, and they use the same lenses and are pretty much the same camera except for the latter's higher resolution: I can't see the point of buying the 10D if you had a choice.

 

[Michael Markey]

Even if I personally didn't need a high megapixel camera (which I do), I'd get one with a few more megapixels than necessary - simply because there are no downsides to not doing so .

Actually Rich ...there are.
They tend not to be very good in low light which is one of the reasons why Sony produce a 12mp version of the A7.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

As I see it, I'm happy with what I have but could get bigger and faster but see no reason to be permanently dissatisfied and permanently changing cameras as something else gets advertised.

And it's not just pixels, the lens is far more important and the controls, layout and so on.

(And my money's on being dismissed as easily satisfied and therefore a simpleton... )

Regards, David

 

[John E Earley]

I would get tired very quickly carrying around all those megapixels.

 

[oltimer]

Hi,

As I see it, I'm happy with what I have but could get bigger and faster but see no reason to be permanently dissatisfied and permanently changing cameras as something else gets advertised.

And it's not just pixels, the lens is far more important and the controls, layout and so on.

(And my money's on being dismissed as easily satisfied and therefore a simpleton... )

Regards, David

How true about your statement. You have to have the high quality glass 1st to work on a high pixel camera. Junk will not get you more!

 

[RichC]

Actually Rich ...there are.
They tend not to be very good in low light which is one of the reasons why Sony produce a 12mp version of the A7.

Not true!

Using your example of the Sony A7, the A7r outperforms it: they have essentially the same dynamic range, but, with 50% more pixels, if you downsize the 36 MP A7r images to the 24 MP of the A7, the A7r images are sharper and at high ISOs have less noise. Even if you don't downsize, the A7R and A7 perform similarly up to ISO 3200, where the A7 pulls ahead (but ISO 3200 looks awful from any camera).

In what possible way is the A7 better in low light?

The A7 is a better choice than the A7r if you need a faster (as in quicker operating) camera, don't need 36 MP files or want to spend less money.

Your point holds only for cheap point-and-shoot cameras and camera phones where megapixels are stuffed in as a marketing ploy, not to make a better camera.

 

[RichC]

Hi,

As I see it, I'm happy with what I have but could get bigger and faster but see no reason to be permanently dissatisfied and permanently changing cameras as something else gets advertised.

And it's not just pixels, the lens is far more important and the controls, layout and so on.

(And my money's on being dismissed as easily satisfied and therefore a simpleton... )

Not a simpleton at all. There's no point in the hassle and cost of upgrading if you don't need new gear.

And I also agree that camera resolution is only one aspect of choosing a camera. I went with Nikon because of the camera's ergonomics and choice of lenses, in addition to the resolution. I expect to use my Nikon D800E for many years. Prior to that, I had a Leica M8 (owned for 5 years), and before that an Epson RD1 (3 years). I try to minimise gear, so I only own one digital camera at a time.

(Unfortunately, no one makes the camera I want: a Nikon F3 or Olympus OM2 with a digital sensor - I only use manual lenses and centre-weighted metering, and ignore everything else on digital cameras, though I have been known to change the ISO from 100 to 400 on occasion! I mentioned "ergonomics" earlier - which to me means removing 90% of the crap from every digital SLR I've used! I bought the Epson RD1 and Leica M8 in an attempt to achieve the simplicity of a film camera - but even after using a digital rangefinder for nearly a decade, I still hated the viewfinder! I guess I'm a "tunnel vision" SLR guy...!)

 

[Michael Markey]

I think that you find that there is general agreement that higher pixell cameras have more noise above base iso.
I use two and find that to be true.
The Sony A7 camera to which I was ref is the A7S with only 12mp .

Ps ...I`m not arguing against more mp .
The more the better in most cases ...just saying that they have a downside too.

 

[JChrome]

Wow, I do love the logic of these once in a lifetime arguments. So I shouldn't by a bicycle because one day I may have to escape from a tsunami, I shouldn't diet because one day I might have to survive three weeks in the Atlantic in a lifeboat, I shouldn't got to church because one day ISIS will over run the country, I shouldn't vote because one day... And so on and so forth. None of it makes sense in the real world.

Well the examples you came up with certainly don't make any sense in the real world. But after printing my own work and feeling limited by a 12mbp sensor, I believe my example fits perfectly.

Here's a real world example for you that happened to me:

A potential client wanted to purchase very large prints. These were of photos I had no original intention of selling. He knew little about the maximum size of the prints I could make without getting pixilated. At the end of the day, I couldn't sell the prints because he didn't want to see the pixels. And no amount of post would get rid of them.

I know what you may say - "oh you weren't a good enough salesman etc". But I worked really hard on the project just to have it fall through.

If I had shot those images with double the megapixels, I would have been fine. At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with 12mbp sensors or taking photos with them. But the way I see it is that higher mbp gives you simply more options when you need them (more post production options and larger resolution size for printing mainly). So I stand by my assertion. If you want to print large or do lots of post production, higher mbp is the way to go.

And why does everyone love to argue the straw man around here? I never argued you shouldn't have fun with your 10 mbp 5d. If you want to shoot it, have fun. I've no problem with that.

 

[RichC]

Ps ...I`m not arguing against more mp .
The more the better in most cases ...just saying that they have a downside too.

No disagreement from me....

 

[Dwig]

... after printing my own work and feeling limited by a 12mbp sensor ... At the end of the day, I couldn't sell the prints because he didn't want to see the pixels. And no amount of post would get rid of them...

Odd, I regularly work with significantly upsampled images and never encounter pixelization that can't be eliminated. True, many of the more extreme examples aren't ticky-tacky sharp, with they are still very satisfying images and show no evidence of pixelization.

One example is a popular image in our gallery. It was taken with a Nikon P7100 (16mp, small sensor) and we regularily sell 48x72" and 45x96" (stetched to shape, not cropped) prints. On balance, the 16mp images from the P7100 are a reasonable match for 35mm Velvia scanned on an Imacon 828 scanner and upsampled to the same sizes. The noise in the P7100's images is about the same as the grain in the film when the digital images are processed favoring sharpness over noise elimination. True, the images from the D800 the photographer currently uses are much smoother and generally easier to work with.

 

[RichC]

Odd, I regularly work with significantly upsampled images and never encounter pixelization that can't be eliminated. True, many of the more extreme examples aren't ticky-tacky sharp, with they are still very satisfying images and show no evidence of pixelization.

One example is a popular image in our gallery. It was taken with a Nikon P7100 (16mp, small sensor) and we regularily sell 48x72" and 45x96" (stetched to shape, not cropped) prints.

I guess it boils down to expectations. I couldn't sell prints that large from my Nikon D800E or Mamiya 645 - both I and my audience would consider them technically inadequate.

Yes, you can resample (as part of my job I once had to compare resampling programs, and SizeFixer was the best), which will prevent visible pixels in such large prints as yours but those 72 and 96 inch images seen close up will be soft and show artefacts.

As I said, I consider the Nikon D800E and medium-format film good for prints up to about 35 inches, and with resampling to about 48 inches at the absolute max (and I would consider them barely adequate). Anything larger and I'd need 4x5 film or an 80 MP digital back.

 

[JChrome]

The noise in the P7100's images is about the same as the grain in the film when the digital images are processed favoring sharpness over noise elimination. True, the images from the D800 the photographer currently uses are much smoother and generally easier to work with.

The D7100 is a very modern sensor. As others have said, not all mbp are created equal. Take a 12mbp sensor from a few generations back and you just can't do printing like that.

But besides, I am not a huge mbp fanboy as I am a larger film size fanboy. I don't shoot digital.

And of course you could make the argument that using 6x9 or 4x5 means your chances of getting that amazing shot are less. You can't setup or shoot cameras like this that fast (as say, a 35mm camera or digital).

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

"I know what you may say - "oh you weren't a good enough salesman etc". But I worked really hard on the project just to have it fall through."

What I normally say is that you can't win them all. And sometimes I think that 9 out of 10 is a good score...

Regards, David

 

[Dwig]

The D7100 is a very modern sensor. ...

The camera I mentioned was the Nikon CoolPix P7100, not the D7100 SLR.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think that if a photo of my beautiful latté can't fill a 1 TB hard-drive, then the camera manufacturers aren't trying hard enough.