Bill Pierce
Well-known
Sometimes I wonder how many megapixels we really need. After all, without any resizing, a 16 megapixel camera with the 35mm frame proportions of 2x3 is going to make an approximately 9x13.5 inch print at 360 dpi. That’s a very high quality 11x14. Drop to 240 dpi and you have an image a hair bigger than a 16x20. Good resizing means a decent print at even larger sizes. Your major gain in a sensor with an even bigger megapixel count is as much the ability to crop the image as it is to make a very large print that can be viewed with your nose pressed against the print’s surface.
Of course, that’s all theory - and a rather oversimplified look at the theory. For example, the fewer pixels in a given frame size, the larger they are. And, all other things being equal, that means less noise at high ISO’s. Even fewer pixels has an advantage. And there are an awful lot of other factors that contribute to image quality.
What’s your experience? I routinely make 17x22 inch prints from 12 megapixel cameras. Admittedly, I’m reserving them for low ISO’s with high shutter speeds, studio strobes or a tripod, optimum apertures, e.t.c.. But the big prints look good. And by the time I’m at 16 meg, I can be a high ISO, handholding pig and the large prints look pretty good.
What’s your experience? How many megapixels do you need?
Of course, that’s all theory - and a rather oversimplified look at the theory. For example, the fewer pixels in a given frame size, the larger they are. And, all other things being equal, that means less noise at high ISO’s. Even fewer pixels has an advantage. And there are an awful lot of other factors that contribute to image quality.
What’s your experience? I routinely make 17x22 inch prints from 12 megapixel cameras. Admittedly, I’m reserving them for low ISO’s with high shutter speeds, studio strobes or a tripod, optimum apertures, e.t.c.. But the big prints look good. And by the time I’m at 16 meg, I can be a high ISO, handholding pig and the large prints look pretty good.
What’s your experience? How many megapixels do you need?
michaelwj
----------------
I think I might be in a minority, but more more more (assuming cards and computers can keep up).
My reasoning is not for print size. Its oversampling. Sure, 16 mp can be relatively noise free in each pixel, but oversampling the noise would be better (even if there is more "per pixel" noise). Smoother transitions (tones and edges), less pixelated, less digital artefacts, a truer representation of what the lens delivers.
Re handholding; it only matters if you want to print bigger, if you print an 8 x 10, then you need support for that print size, if you want a 16 x 20, then you're technique will have to be up to snuff. If you only want to view at 100% on screen, then you'll never be happy.
Of course I've been happy with 10 for years!
Cheers,
Michael
My reasoning is not for print size. Its oversampling. Sure, 16 mp can be relatively noise free in each pixel, but oversampling the noise would be better (even if there is more "per pixel" noise). Smoother transitions (tones and edges), less pixelated, less digital artefacts, a truer representation of what the lens delivers.
Re handholding; it only matters if you want to print bigger, if you print an 8 x 10, then you need support for that print size, if you want a 16 x 20, then you're technique will have to be up to snuff. If you only want to view at 100% on screen, then you'll never be happy.
Of course I've been happy with 10 for years!
Cheers,
Michael
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Bill,
Enough.
"Enough" depends on quite a few things. Sufficiently many things that I'd say a range of 6-60 Mp covered most (but not all) the requirements.
Cheers,
R.
Enough.
"Enough" depends on quite a few things. Sufficiently many things that I'd say a range of 6-60 Mp covered most (but not all) the requirements.
Cheers,
R.
waileong
Well-known
Need or want?
Need or want?
Need is not the same as want.
Obviously, all things being equal, I would choose more pixels over less. One can never have too much money, too big a house or boobs too large...
But if things aren't equal, ie if more pixels = more noisy pixels, then I would choose the optimum pixel count based on tradeoffs.
Need or want?
Need is not the same as want.
Obviously, all things being equal, I would choose more pixels over less. One can never have too much money, too big a house or boobs too large...
But if things aren't equal, ie if more pixels = more noisy pixels, then I would choose the optimum pixel count based on tradeoffs.
Bob T
Established
I believe megapixel counts are more for marketing than practical use. Look at smartphone ads.
willie_901
Veteran
The acceptable pixel dimensions are a function of many variables:
Degree of detail in the subject
Print viewing distance
Sophistication of upscaling software
Sophistication of the in-printer upscaling software
Print head technology
Print media
And things I've left out or don't know about
Then there's the black-hole issue of cropping.
I own cameras with 12 and 16 MP. I have a current computer system that has above average performance. While storage space does not concern me, raw file processing speed does. I'm not sure I see much advantage in 24 or more MP. I typically don't crop heavily. If I was committed to landscape photography I would likely feel differently.
Degree of detail in the subject
Print viewing distance
Sophistication of upscaling software
Sophistication of the in-printer upscaling software
Print head technology
Print media
And things I've left out or don't know about
Then there's the black-hole issue of cropping.
I own cameras with 12 and 16 MP. I have a current computer system that has above average performance. While storage space does not concern me, raw file processing speed does. I'm not sure I see much advantage in 24 or more MP. I typically don't crop heavily. If I was committed to landscape photography I would likely feel differently.
nongfuspring
Well-known
I think 16 is enough for me. While more would be nice, I'm not sure if it the difference would really impact what I do significantly. I think I would sooner pick increased ISO and DR over more resolution. Or better lenses.
Big numbers tend to sound pretty good, but once you consider we're talking about length times breadth rather than linear measurement the difference is less dramatic. Also, the difference between 16 and say, 24, isn't really that much in real world terms and is a gap that can easily be closed with better lenses, upscaling, contrast etc.
Big numbers tend to sound pretty good, but once you consider we're talking about length times breadth rather than linear measurement the difference is less dramatic. Also, the difference between 16 and say, 24, isn't really that much in real world terms and is a gap that can easily be closed with better lenses, upscaling, contrast etc.
mdarnton
Well-known
I thought 12 would be enough for me to finally buy a real camera, and when the Nikon D300 came along, I bought one. It's fine for most of what I do. When the D800 came out I thought that would be cool, but over time I'm seeing that it's probably more than I would use even for the more critical archiving work I do, and 24 will be the limit. That's it for me, and I'm in no big hurry to replace the D300, either. When it dies, I'll see what's out there.
redisburning
Well-known
As many as I can get.
Downsizing is awesome!
Downsizing is awesome!
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I'm an unashamed apologist for large photosite sensors in spite of low pixel counts. I loved the RD1 and many folks still do. That camera has held its value better than any other digital out there since a body with a few batteries will still sell for $1000 or more because people know they are getting a unique camera with a good sensor that can really deliver in spite of its 6MP sensor. At ISO 800 it delivers a grain that is fantastic for night time shots in a city.
Even lower than that are the Nikon D2H and D2Hs. I prefer the latter since it has a better buffer and processor. The images out of that camera are extraordinary as long as one isn't looking to make 13x19 inch prints although it can be done. The key, just like with the M8, is to nail exposure and know how to work with the files. At only 4.7MP the sensor is on the very low end but why should that matter? I used one of these cameras for about two years in the Navy and it worked quite well. After that, I used one last year until it was stolen along with my D2X. Following that event, I bought yet another D2Hs and did one photo shoot for an advertising campaign that paid for my D3.
A lot of folks hate the old "low" pixel count sensors but they are very capable tools and in the end, if the customer likes the product it doesn't matter what the image was made with.
Phil Forrest
Even lower than that are the Nikon D2H and D2Hs. I prefer the latter since it has a better buffer and processor. The images out of that camera are extraordinary as long as one isn't looking to make 13x19 inch prints although it can be done. The key, just like with the M8, is to nail exposure and know how to work with the files. At only 4.7MP the sensor is on the very low end but why should that matter? I used one of these cameras for about two years in the Navy and it worked quite well. After that, I used one last year until it was stolen along with my D2X. Following that event, I bought yet another D2Hs and did one photo shoot for an advertising campaign that paid for my D3.
A lot of folks hate the old "low" pixel count sensors but they are very capable tools and in the end, if the customer likes the product it doesn't matter what the image was made with.
Phil Forrest
thegman
Veteran
All things being equal, you may as well get as many pixels as you can. I don't *need* the resolution of 4x5 film, but it's nice to have. Same goes for digital, hardly anyone needs 36MP, but it's nice to have it.
Of course then there are issues with noise etc. but then that varies camera to camera, ISO to ISO etc.
Of course then there are issues with noise etc. but then that varies camera to camera, ISO to ISO etc.
Pioneer
Veteran
I can use my Pentax ist DS 6.1MP camera for a lot of my photography and not run into any resolution problems when printing, but it does happen once in awhile. If I move to my Pentax K5iiS or Leica M9 I have enough image resolution that I haven't yet run into any problems with my prints. But it could probably happen. If it does then I will have to look at other solutions which could include digital cameras with higher resolution, or more likely, a medium or large format film camera coupled with a good drum scan.
For me it is usually the need for a heavy crop that gets me into resolution trouble. It is possible to push the print to large but that has not been an issue yet. But I have found that the biggest problem for me with smaller resolutions is actually dynamic range. Additionally, and probably related in some way, I have found that the larger sensors with higher resolution have smoother tonality. If this is important for you than you need to explore what these high resolution sensors can do for you.
So, though I don't actively think about resolution, it is just one more of those issues in the back of my mind when I am thinking about my picture. Just like the film days, sensor size and resolution can impact your picture. Maybe you don't care but others do.
For me it is usually the need for a heavy crop that gets me into resolution trouble. It is possible to push the print to large but that has not been an issue yet. But I have found that the biggest problem for me with smaller resolutions is actually dynamic range. Additionally, and probably related in some way, I have found that the larger sensors with higher resolution have smoother tonality. If this is important for you than you need to explore what these high resolution sensors can do for you.
So, though I don't actively think about resolution, it is just one more of those issues in the back of my mind when I am thinking about my picture. Just like the film days, sensor size and resolution can impact your picture. Maybe you don't care but others do.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
The Kodak DCS 620 was fine for 24x30 posters back in the day, the rest has been marketing.
Seriously, we did United Way posters that large from 620 files. Working as a designer/art director, I haven't seen a job that hasn't had enough pixels. Most people submit files way too large for what they are being used for because they somehow think the extra dots will magically print somehow. Unless somebody is completely clueless or they make massive crops it's a non-issue.
Sports Illustrated used to print double page full bleed spreads from 2mp cameras and they looked fine. Those 45-foot billboards you see from the highway? They're 11 dpi, a 6mp camera is plenty. The largest file I ever needed was to do a wrap around printed cover for a box of dishes, so a single image was being printed on a good press 84" long at 300 dpi. That company went out of business and NOBODY does this anymore because it's too expensive for a throw away shipped in a cardboard box from Amazon so it's pointless.
The few remaining people who need really large files are photographers like Struth or Gurksy who $$$$ print room sized high end prints that sell for six figures. They can use whatever cameras they like and they certainly aren't DSLRs.
A hobby - I mean artist - photographer can shoot a 36mp D800 and make lovely prints off an Epson or they can shoot a 16mp Fuji and add some noise, call it art, and do the same thing. What does it matter at the craft show or coffee shop gallery?
Seriously, we did United Way posters that large from 620 files. Working as a designer/art director, I haven't seen a job that hasn't had enough pixels. Most people submit files way too large for what they are being used for because they somehow think the extra dots will magically print somehow. Unless somebody is completely clueless or they make massive crops it's a non-issue.
Sports Illustrated used to print double page full bleed spreads from 2mp cameras and they looked fine. Those 45-foot billboards you see from the highway? They're 11 dpi, a 6mp camera is plenty. The largest file I ever needed was to do a wrap around printed cover for a box of dishes, so a single image was being printed on a good press 84" long at 300 dpi. That company went out of business and NOBODY does this anymore because it's too expensive for a throw away shipped in a cardboard box from Amazon so it's pointless.
The few remaining people who need really large files are photographers like Struth or Gurksy who $$$$ print room sized high end prints that sell for six figures. They can use whatever cameras they like and they certainly aren't DSLRs.
A hobby - I mean artist - photographer can shoot a 36mp D800 and make lovely prints off an Epson or they can shoot a 16mp Fuji and add some noise, call it art, and do the same thing. What does it matter at the craft show or coffee shop gallery?
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
Doesn't the processor enter in to the equation? Some how we have cameras taking "acceptable" images at ISO settings that are the stuff of fantasy in film. Does any one know how large a print the D800 will make before falling on it's face?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
To print and frame something at 40MPs, max sized, it is going to be very, very expensive...
I'm at prints size which are priced reasonable for printing and framing at largest possible size with 18MP. My better IQ digital camera is 12MP. And it is good for 8x10 which is OK size.
If someone asking me for their 1:1 almost sized portraits it is impossible with MPs I have. But so far only one request for four-five feet high images.
My film MF cameras gives me more, if scanned. But I haven't print something really large from them. Mostly 8x8, which I could do by wet print now.
If it is macro and wild-life the MPs are very handy for digital zooming, magnification.
I'm at prints size which are priced reasonable for printing and framing at largest possible size with 18MP. My better IQ digital camera is 12MP. And it is good for 8x10 which is OK size.
If someone asking me for their 1:1 almost sized portraits it is impossible with MPs I have. But so far only one request for four-five feet high images.
My film MF cameras gives me more, if scanned. But I haven't print something really large from them. Mostly 8x8, which I could do by wet print now.
If it is macro and wild-life the MPs are very handy for digital zooming, magnification.
redisburning
Well-known
I disagree. I have noticed in editing raw files that the larger the file I start with is, the easier it is to keep an impression of sharpness in the final print.
I would never print an actual 100% pixel view raw if I could help it. If I am targeting 300 dpi, I want 1200 dpi in the raw file. Just works out way better IME and is hardly marketing.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I'm not saying a D800 file isn't superior to an old DCS 620 file, or that a print or poster from each would look as nice. But you'd be surprised how nice some of the old camera files upsized. Certainly not as crisp as a now but hardly unusable, especially for portraits or journalism.
To the general wide audience it rarely matters. Back in the day when we needed size/resolution/or speed there was always film to fall back on so you had your new DCS for quick stuff and your Hasselblad or whatever for the nicer stuff, so you could do just fine with a low-res digital body.
Most all of the cameras "advances" and "improvements" have made our lives easier or at least faster. The general public barely notices and, if you look at the cloud of photography out there, the vast majority of images are pretty similar to what people shot twenty years ago.... basketball games, strippers, car crashes, snowdrifts, and cats.
Lots of male togs will just buy whatever is marketed to them because they fetishize cameras. We know that as soon as a 54mp D900 is introduced that a whole bunch of photographers will dump their old D800s for a song. But will it mean we will see better photos published or better art on the wall? hahaha lol
To the general wide audience it rarely matters. Back in the day when we needed size/resolution/or speed there was always film to fall back on so you had your new DCS for quick stuff and your Hasselblad or whatever for the nicer stuff, so you could do just fine with a low-res digital body.
Most all of the cameras "advances" and "improvements" have made our lives easier or at least faster. The general public barely notices and, if you look at the cloud of photography out there, the vast majority of images are pretty similar to what people shot twenty years ago.... basketball games, strippers, car crashes, snowdrifts, and cats.
Lots of male togs will just buy whatever is marketed to them because they fetishize cameras. We know that as soon as a 54mp D900 is introduced that a whole bunch of photographers will dump their old D800s for a song. But will it mean we will see better photos published or better art on the wall? hahaha lol
GaryLH
Veteran
I used to think 6 was great and then came 10 then 12 then 16.. Now we have cameras like the d800 and a7r...
For me, 16mp is about right. 24 maybe perfect in terms of cropping leeway.
The size of my prints do no go beyond 13x19. The average is a 8x10.. But the other aspect here seems to be the expectation on the expected detail. This seems to vary widely.
Gary
For me, 16mp is about right. 24 maybe perfect in terms of cropping leeway.
The size of my prints do no go beyond 13x19. The average is a 8x10.. But the other aspect here seems to be the expectation on the expected detail. This seems to vary widely.
Gary
redisburning
Well-known
that's one way to look at it Frank but the new Zeiss 50MP I own is the best lens I've ever shot with and the 55/1.4 they make is the best lens ever for 35mm and neither makes life easier OR faster.
the kitchen knife I own is made with better steel and a thinner grind than anything even the best smiths could dream of 50 years ago and while it makes my life safer it doesnt really speed anything up.
the digital camera I personally own is quite old now (a 40D) but I get a chance to process files from other cameras from time to time (often because I simply ask for files) and rarely I even have opportunities to shoot them myself and I gotta tell you that I appreciate that. because to me, technical quality is an important part of the final output.
Im not a professional nor am I serious artist when it comes to photography so I am beholden neither by time nor by artistic dogma. I personally DO think my images are better when they are better executed and yes I think more megapixels helps in that.
your "doesn't actually make things better" is my "that's just an excuse".
your site is filled with many lovely pictures and my flickr is not. additionally, many of my images fall under the "cats" subcategory you talk about. but I still like what I do and find more megapixels to be a legitimately useful resource. all else being equal.
the kitchen knife I own is made with better steel and a thinner grind than anything even the best smiths could dream of 50 years ago and while it makes my life safer it doesnt really speed anything up.
the digital camera I personally own is quite old now (a 40D) but I get a chance to process files from other cameras from time to time (often because I simply ask for files) and rarely I even have opportunities to shoot them myself and I gotta tell you that I appreciate that. because to me, technical quality is an important part of the final output.
Im not a professional nor am I serious artist when it comes to photography so I am beholden neither by time nor by artistic dogma. I personally DO think my images are better when they are better executed and yes I think more megapixels helps in that.
your "doesn't actually make things better" is my "that's just an excuse".
your site is filled with many lovely pictures and my flickr is not. additionally, many of my images fall under the "cats" subcategory you talk about. but I still like what I do and find more megapixels to be a legitimately useful resource. all else being equal.
dct
perpetual amateur
I agree, better is the enemy of good (enough).
Yet still, if I look at my older bigger prints out of 3-6 Mpx files: I don't think they would look any better today starting with a big Mpx file. Of course: keeping the correct viewing distance.
What I definitely like with higher resolution is the greater crop capability.
Yet still, if I look at my older bigger prints out of 3-6 Mpx files: I don't think they would look any better today starting with a big Mpx file. Of course: keeping the correct viewing distance.
What I definitely like with higher resolution is the greater crop capability.