More pixels also helps with keeping geometric adjustments smooth; distortion, tilted horizons, converging verticals, etc. IMO about 14Mp is adequate for that. More is a luxury. 
RichC
Well-known
I concur.
12-16 MP seems to be the sweet spot for most people. Possibly no surprise that this allows prints broadly equivalent in size and quality to 35 mm film. There's a reason why this format dominated all others for so long, and still does, while other formats (including those newer, larger, smaller) fell by the wayside...
Those who require large prints - such as studio and certain commercial photographers - aspire to digital backs or their equivalent, for a sweet spot of 40-50 MP. This allows optimum-quality prints up to about 40 inches or over a metre wide, and meets the most-stringent commercial requirements (for magazines, books, posters, etc.).
I'm in the latter camp, and use a 36 MP Nikon D800E. I consider it acceptable - just. I've used digital Hasselblads, and these have better fidelity, tone and colour. Put prints from my 36 MP Nikon and a 40 MP Hasselblad next to each other, and the Hasselblad print is subtly but clearly superior. I mention this to point out - as others here have done - that sensor dimensions are as crucial as sensor resolution.
I wish I could afford a current digital back, but their price is way out of my reach!
I will replace my Nikon D800E with the 50 MP Nikon D900E when it arrives - even with 36 MP I occasionally print so large (or crop) that image quality suffers.
Before I regularly made large prints for galleries, I subscribed to the "viewing distance formula" - that resolution could be relaxed the larger the print, since the natural viewing distance increases with print size. In reality, people will stick their nose into any print, and a 16 MP one-metre-wide print looks awful from a few centimetres!
The "standard" print resolution of 300 dpi has been used for decades - long predating digital - for good reason: it accords with the typical limit of human visual acuity at close distances.
But if we match 300 dpi with digital resolution, we require 100 MP for a metre-wide print! (It's worth pointing out that this far out-resolves medium-format film.) In practice, medium-format film prints and my 36 MP Nikon D800E prints are "adequate" at one metre wide - I think 50 MP for metre-wide prints is sufficient. A little softness in large prints is acceptable - but not in small prints, where lack of resolution is more intrusive.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Rich,
Exactly. And don't you love it when people tell them they shouldn't?
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Years ago I realised people were looking at 72dpi and 96dpi on their monitors and wondered about prints done like that. To make life easier I did some 13 x 19 at 100dpi and no one commented. I've also done 5 mp pictures from my old Leica Digilux 2 on four sheets of photocopy paper and glued them together carefully. Again, mounted behind glass, no one comments; you have to do it carefully to avoid the light on it hitting the edge of the paper (white) but the shadow of the paper doesn't notice. It even works with fussy pictures taken in the woods with lots of leaves and grass in it.
So my 2d worth is that only pixel peepers worry or notice such things. In any case people look at the subject not the pixels or dots.
Regards, David
Years ago I realised people were looking at 72dpi and 96dpi on their monitors and wondered about prints done like that. To make life easier I did some 13 x 19 at 100dpi and no one commented. I've also done 5 mp pictures from my old Leica Digilux 2 on four sheets of photocopy paper and glued them together carefully. Again, mounted behind glass, no one comments; you have to do it carefully to avoid the light on it hitting the edge of the paper (white) but the shadow of the paper doesn't notice. It even works with fussy pictures taken in the woods with lots of leaves and grass in it.
So my 2d worth is that only pixel peepers worry or notice such things. In any case people look at the subject not the pixels or dots.
Regards, David
Murchu
Well-known
Enough megapixels and of the right quality, that the image quality doesn't break down under inspection. Resolution doesn't bother me, as long as it is not a distracting element, but seeing halos/ aliasing/ artifacts/ pixelisation/ smudged detail from noise reduction/ etc, does.
marcr1230
Well-known
I had a 2 mp kodak dc290 and I thought the output was magnificent
Currently using 16 megapixel M43, printed up to 16x24 with no problems at all
YMMV but for most people 16 mp is overkill
As people have noted - pixel size and sensor size factor into the decision
But for most purposes we should be in the post-pixel counting era
Currently using 16 megapixel M43, printed up to 16x24 with no problems at all
YMMV but for most people 16 mp is overkill
As people have noted - pixel size and sensor size factor into the decision
But for most purposes we should be in the post-pixel counting era
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Sort of. But I do see a difference in some cases between my 10-megapixel M8 and my 18-megapixel M9. I bought the M9 for full frame, not for increased megapixels, but they are different.
Cheers,
R.
I like 16mp minimum. Printed 20x30", they look good. 12mp didn't hold up as well close up.
kuzano
Veteran
My current exploration is "Cost Per Megapixel"
My current exploration is "Cost Per Megapixel"
Last month, I purchased an Olympus E-1. The E-1 is a 5.1 (actually under 5) megapixel camera that many raved about because of the wonderful color rendering of the Kodak sensor. This is my 5th E-1 in the 11 years since it's debut. I paid about 5 "Yuppie Food Stamps" for it. It has less than 300 actuations. That works out to about $20 per megapixel. And the colors are still as wonderful as I remember them.
Then, I decided to pick up a companion body... the consumer level Evolt E-300, about the same age, but not weather proof, and with an 8 Mp Kodak Sensor. I scored one on eBay for $17.00. 12,000 actuations and working great.
That works out to about $2.00 per Megapixel. Even better color and great pictures, which I have printed up to the full size of my Epson R2200 pigment printer, or 13X19 inches.
Based on that price per megapixels and ignoring any other considerations that do NOT concern me, the Nikon D800E, at 36 Megapixels, should be selling for $72 Dollars Retail (SRP).
But I am not worried in the least. The day will come when I can score a D800E in working condition for less than one "Yuppie Food Stamp", or in the case of a price relevant to the E-1, ie. $720.
It's just a matter of time...and sooner than one would like to think. Hear that noise.... It's the sound of prices falling on $3000 camera's.
Yuppy Food Stamps:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yuppie_food_stamp
My current exploration is "Cost Per Megapixel"
Last month, I purchased an Olympus E-1. The E-1 is a 5.1 (actually under 5) megapixel camera that many raved about because of the wonderful color rendering of the Kodak sensor. This is my 5th E-1 in the 11 years since it's debut. I paid about 5 "Yuppie Food Stamps" for it. It has less than 300 actuations. That works out to about $20 per megapixel. And the colors are still as wonderful as I remember them.
Then, I decided to pick up a companion body... the consumer level Evolt E-300, about the same age, but not weather proof, and with an 8 Mp Kodak Sensor. I scored one on eBay for $17.00. 12,000 actuations and working great.
That works out to about $2.00 per Megapixel. Even better color and great pictures, which I have printed up to the full size of my Epson R2200 pigment printer, or 13X19 inches.
Based on that price per megapixels and ignoring any other considerations that do NOT concern me, the Nikon D800E, at 36 Megapixels, should be selling for $72 Dollars Retail (SRP).
But I am not worried in the least. The day will come when I can score a D800E in working condition for less than one "Yuppie Food Stamp", or in the case of a price relevant to the E-1, ie. $720.
It's just a matter of time...and sooner than one would like to think. Hear that noise.... It's the sound of prices falling on $3000 camera's.
Yuppy Food Stamps:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yuppie_food_stamp
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
That is soooo true!
The problem with digital cameras that are in stock is that the minute you go home with it and it is used, it will only sell for 75% of new. Then a year later, it is 50% of new... for all but the most sought after cameras. Now, 75% of $1000 isn't as hard to swallow as 75% of $6000, or even $3000. The great thing though is that in 2-3 years, the D800(e) and A7(r) will be awesome values on the used market.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Even when compared with the D888 65MP full frame with automatic helicopter coupling system at $995 ?
Gid
Well-known
I still use a 10 year old Olympus E1 (5MP) and an Epson R-D1 (6MP). Used appropriately they can produce perfectly acceptable (to me) prints to A3+. I have even larger prints from both that are good enough for me. "good enough for me" is the key point. It is really down to that unless you are being paid, when another's opinion might carry some weight (YMMV). I'm more interested in utility and enjoyment than MPs and although I do have higher MP cameras, I bought them because they gave me something my other cameras didn't - they just happen to have more MPs.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I'm not so sure they are built that well anymore though, and going forward as they use more integrated parts they'll be less repairable. For example, good old Thom lists out the weaknesses in current model Nikons:
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/camera-articles/nikon-dslr-weak-points.html
While we don't keep bodies long enough to develop the dreaded tin whiskers and you may just consider it more Ken Rockwell BS but if you buy a $2000 Nikon AF lens and keep it 20 years... good luck! ;-p
GaryLH
Veteran
I agree w/ both Frank and Jsrocket's comments.
For me, the buy new price point is around 1500 or so.. Mainly because it is a digital gadget and in technology, things are getting superseded year after year after year. Lenses are a different story, once u decide on a camera family to stick to.
The biggest single issue in today's fast paced digital camera expansion is the common electronic components that are being used but are not under the camera makers control. U may want to keep it running for 3-5-10-20 years, but as Frank said, the reality of the high integration of these components not only leads to a more complex repair situation but if it is a component that is no longer manufactured and there are no components to canibilized from old bodies, that it folks.. Very different from the days of film pre af and other automation.
Once something gets over that 1500 threshold for me, I start looking for it in the used market if I feel it is worth it. I picked up my sd1 Merrill off the refurb market that way.
Gary
Ps.. 20 yrs on a af lens.. Hmmmm. I think I will be to old and decrepit to c if that is a reality.
For me, the buy new price point is around 1500 or so.. Mainly because it is a digital gadget and in technology, things are getting superseded year after year after year. Lenses are a different story, once u decide on a camera family to stick to.
The biggest single issue in today's fast paced digital camera expansion is the common electronic components that are being used but are not under the camera makers control. U may want to keep it running for 3-5-10-20 years, but as Frank said, the reality of the high integration of these components not only leads to a more complex repair situation but if it is a component that is no longer manufactured and there are no components to canibilized from old bodies, that it folks.. Very different from the days of film pre af and other automation.
Once something gets over that 1500 threshold for me, I start looking for it in the used market if I feel it is worth it. I picked up my sd1 Merrill off the refurb market that way.
Gary
Ps.. 20 yrs on a af lens.. Hmmmm. I think I will be to old and decrepit to c if that is a reality.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Why is this even important at all? And what has it got to do with how much resolution is sufficient to make satisfying photographs?
Buy a camera that produces the results you like and shoot with it until it croaks.
My E-1 is now coming up on 11 years old and produces beautiful 5 Mpixel images, which I've printed to exhibition size (and quality) and won awards with. A wonderful camera. I didn't buy it new ... I bought it in 2008 for $350. Great deal, but if I'd had the $2000+ in 2003 to spend on it, I'd have bought it then.
I have more modern cameras too, of course. The Sony A7 now meets my original notes from 1999 in having a 4000x6000 pixel (24Mpixels) sensor. I suspect that's as big as I'll ever need.
If it's worth $5 to sell in two years is irrelevant. It will be worth FAR more than that as a picture making machine for the foreseeable future.
G
RichC
Well-known
Quite.
Before buying my Nikon D800E, I had a Leica M8 - my main digital camera for 6 years.
The only reason I got a replacement camera was because I needed different features (specifically an SLR and as much resolution as possible - print BIG).
I'll keep using the Nikon until it breaks or I need a camera with a different features. I can envisage using the Nikon for at least the next 5 years... Would seriously think of trading it in if Nikon released a 50 MP camera - but I can't see that happening because files that huge aren't necessary for most people.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here are two quotes from today’s Michael Reichmann column on Luminous Landscape.
“A high quality lens will always trim the sensor when it comes to producing superior image quality.”
“Señsor size and high megapixel count matter little, unless one is making very large exhibition sized prints.”
What we are discussing may be more pertinent to the future of digital photography than we think as indicated by the title of the column, “What matters - Why the camera industry is in the dumper and what can be done about it.”
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/what_matters.shtml
“A high quality lens will always trim the sensor when it comes to producing superior image quality.”
“Señsor size and high megapixel count matter little, unless one is making very large exhibition sized prints.”
What we are discussing may be more pertinent to the future of digital photography than we think as indicated by the title of the column, “What matters - Why the camera industry is in the dumper and what can be done about it.”
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/what_matters.shtml
Relax... I'm allowed to have an opinion as well (especially with regard to how I spend my money). Anyone that knows me personally, as many do here, knows that I use all of my equipment a lot and that I'm not a pure IQ stickler. I feel depreciation is similar to what I'd spend on film anyway.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Great lenses are indeed almost everything. That's why I bought the A7 ... I had this drawer full of marvelous Leica R lenses. Using them on smaller formats was good, but they lost so much of their intended rendering I gave up on doing that.
The A7 body was my last ditch effort to see if I could find a good digital capture body for them. It worked, the A7 itself is near to transparent to my eye: I see what the lenses do. The A7 has more pixels than I need, but it has a good sensor and a good viewfinder, ergonomics and configuration that works for me. That's what matters.
G
The A7 body was my last ditch effort to see if I could find a good digital capture body for them. It worked, the A7 itself is near to transparent to my eye: I see what the lenses do. The A7 has more pixels than I need, but it has a good sensor and a good viewfinder, ergonomics and configuration that works for me. That's what matters.
G