How many megs?

jsrockit said:
Relax... I'm allowed to have an opinion as well (espeically 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.
Click to expand...

... which has nothing to do with the question I posed at all.

G
 
Bill Pierce said:
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
Click to expand...

My personal take is that they are their own worst enemy. They have somehow gotten totally into the techno/marketing craze. Market and investment pressure to beat the competition to the market place even though the camera is either not quite ready or the previous gen body is not even Luke warm (<1 yr) before releasing that next gen body. Also seems to me there is that idea of market share driving part of this.. For the average person, the camera phone is good enough.

It is true that as consumers we play a part of this erosion as well, blogging and talking about the next big thing (I am guilty).

This puts us into the mindset of knowing that the price is going to be reduced within a year because they are going to push that next gen, so why buy immediately. While this benefits the consumer... Long term health of the camera maker I wonder about.

How can u maximize your profit when u are going to turn out a next gen so soon?

Gary
 
Last edited:
It's bizarre how the camera companies market and develop products. I mostly know the Nikon line-up and they completely baffle me. They have good cameras with a superior sensors in their DX cameras but they stubbornly or vindictively refuse to release a few key, rational lenses for it ~ or do obvious things like build wifi into the bodies (instead it requires a $300 adapter that juts out). They waste resources developing something like the DF (that took four years!?) when Fuji lays out an entire system with a range of excellent lenses and all of the DF's quirks resolved - in half that time. Then they complain that they are loosing market share to camera phones.

When the camera phone companies realize that they could sell millions of "pro" camera phones (larger sensor, better lenses) then there is going to be a bloodbath in the camera industry and deservedly so IMHO.
 
jsrockit said:
You win. :rolleyes: Is that better?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. I'm not trying to "win" anything. But it seems that attempting to pose a question and get a response to it that makes any sense at all is not to your liking. At which point, let's not pretend to have a discussion. Just pronounce your opinions and stand by them, whether they are relevant to the subject or not.

G

"How many pancakes fit in an elephant's ear?
None; ice cream has no bones."
 
Reichmann is speaking from the perspective of someone who is going to invest a ton of money in native lenses.

Sensor size absolutely matters to those of us whose tastes are not for disposable AF lenses that will be literally worthless come the day the powered mount that they belong too gets "upgraded".
 
Godfrey said:
No, it isn't. I'm not trying to "win" anything. But it seems that attempting to pose a question and get a response to it that makes any sense at all is not to your liking. At which point, let's not pretend to have a discussion. Just pronounce your opinions and stand by them, whether they are relevant to the subject or not.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me explain. My post, that you had an issue with, was in response to:

"Hear that noise.... It's the sound of prices falling on $3000 camera's."

It was only agreeing with that and how I felt about the depriciation of very expensive cameras. I'm more comfortable with depreciation at a certain price level, personally.
 
Frank Petronio said:
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.
Click to expand...

On the other hand they have few moving parts, and in the case of some cameras with global electronic shutters, no actual moving parts at all. Digital components don't wear out, they have vulnerabilities but they're all environmental.

So long as a digital camera isn't kicked down the stairs, dunked in seawater etc, I can't see any reason why it can't be used for a very long time. Wether you'll actually do that or not is a different question.
 
nongfuspring said:
On the other hand they have few moving parts, and in the case of some cameras with global electronic shutters, no actual moving parts at all. Digital components don't wear out, they have vulnerabilities but they're all environmental.

So long as a digital camera isn't kicked down the stairs, dunked in seawater etc, I can't see any reason why it can't be used for a very long time. Wether you'll actually do that or not is a different question.
Click to expand...

Moving parts
- shutters
- switch contacts
- levers and buttons
- af motors and other motors
- dslr have mirror
- movable LCD screens and evf's
- battery, component, etc doors and latches

Pure electronic related
- damaged LCD
- infamous LCD bleed
- ribbon cable damage due to being place to close to moving part
- sensor issues (Nikon d600)

There are still things that can get u, just not as bad... :)

Gary
 
purely Subjective....

since I primarily still shoot film
I could be Quite content with a 10, 12 megapixel camera

For me the look' of 'Hyper Realism'
via too many megapixels or too much PP makes me lose Interest in Digi
 
helenhill said:
purely Subjective....

since I primarily still shoot film
I could be Quite content with a 10, 12 megapixel camera

For me the look' of 'Hyper Realism'
via too many megapixels or too much PP makes me lose Interest in Digi
Click to expand...

The number of pixels doesn't give you hyper-realism. That look is almost always due to image processing. It's a modern aesthetic ... "realer than real" ... which I find grating as well.

The signature of film is of a capture medium with limits that reflect the delicacies of light and shadow the way our eyes see it, sometimes revealing light and shadow that our eyes cannot discern on their own. I work to get that feeling with my cameras, film or digital, and it's one of the reasons I love these old Leica R lenses on the A7. They produce photos that look the way I like photos to look: not perfect, but pleasing and real.

The question of "how many megs" remains an interesting one. I certainly can't imagine that I really needed 24 Mpixel (not to mention 36), my 5Mpixel E-1 still produces very beautiful results. But the high Mpixel capture presents an opportunity for better imaging when you have it—you just have to know what to do with it.

It's in many ways like making 4" square print with a Hasselblad from 6x6 film. You certainly don't need 6x6 film to make a 4" square print, but it opens up possibilities compared to a small negative. :)

G
 
When I buy a camera I never pay megapixel any attention at all. To me its color depth, dynamic range, noise ect. The Nikon D3 still scores very well in low light DXO even thou it's only 12 megapixel. The advantage I see at 36 megapixel is resolution. Good for landscaping.
 
cosmonaut said:
When I buy a camera I never pay megapixel any attention at all. To me its color depth, dynamic range, noise ect. The Nikon D3 still scores very well in low light DXO even thou it's only 12 megapixel. The advantage I see at 36 megapixel is resolution. Good for landscaping.
Click to expand...

+ 1 :) (I agree)...
 
resolution matters less to me as an user, however the usability matters more (i have a preference for RF than autofocus cameras for example). 12mp and up are generally good enough for my use. Software to process raw files is more important now since it matters a lot to final results. I used to own an epson rd1s that produces 6 mp and that's too small for an enlargement. Make me regret a bit since opportunities passed and all i have left is the image produced by the camera. I do understand for others who enlarge often, 24mp will be minimal.
 
As a (sometimes) paid stiff, I think that lately anything more than 6MP is a waste. That is, for newsy stuff. Tritone or duotone on newsprint needs <150dpi and web images can be 1600 pixels across. That's just me but I found out last year that the D2X was just way too much camera for what I was shooting and the file size slowed me down.

Phil Forrest
 
10-12 is fine for most everything. When you consider that quite a lot of billboards were printed from 35mm film, Anything over 16-20 is really overkill.
 
I own 2 Canon 10d's with kitlens and Takumars 28mm and the famous 50/1.4. Every time I considered to buy a new camera with much more pixels. But if I see my pictures on the screen, I dropped my plan. Enough resolution and no abberations. So, for today 6mp is fine for me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom