Is 10 meg enough, Dlux-4 M8, Looking for insight from users

[jaapv]

That is a quite surprising insight. To begin with, it disregards the main factor in this equation, being focal length. A resolution limit imposed by DOF ( which is a highly debatable quantity anyway) does not exist at all. DOF does not exist in the focal plane, where resolution is seen.

I've heard that ~10 megapixels is the upper limit for handheld photography. Any higher, and motion blur (even at 1/250) and depth of field (even at f/16) limits the detail you'll see in the image.

 

[antiquark]

That is a quite surprising insight. To begin with, it disregards the main factor in this equation, being focal length. A resolution limit imposed by DOF ( which is a highly debatable quantity anyway) does not exist at all. DOF does not exist in the focal plane, where resolution is seen.

I think the rule is based on a 35mm film camera with a normal (50mm) lens.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

10mpx on a APS-c or larger sensor is ample for the prints you are suggesting. and yes canon is after a pissing contest.

Since i would like to print larger than "5x7 or 11x14," Canon's higher megapixel offerings suit me. I wouldn't be satisfied with such limitations with film, so why would i with digital? Certainly not a "pissing contest." Canon gives some customers what they want. And, others, who don't need the 21MP i have in the 5D2 don't have to use them. I believe one is free to shoot at lower than 'max' resolution on these cameras.

They're certainly not compromising quality for sales sheet specs.

Not sure why so many people are falling for the anti-MP marketing rap. A company claims lower resolution is now the objective, and people buy into that spiel. Sure. "Let's not pay for the engineering and innovation, and instead we'll tell everyone that our tech and budget limitations are actually BENEFITS!" That's the Leica way. They did it with the film M- and R- lines. It's like a Jedi mind trick. "You don't Need features. You don't Want automation. Progress bad."

That said, to the OP, yes, it seems 10+ MP with an APS-C or larger sensor should be adequate for those print sizes. But, if you're 'serious,' i wouldn't recommend a G10 as your primary digital camera. Get a Canon EOS if you want to use primes, or a Nikon if you want to use zooms.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I've heard that ~10 megapixels is the upper limit for handheld photography. Any higher, and motion blur (even at 1/250) and depth of field (even at f/16) limits the detail you'll see in the image.

Sometimes the interest in higher megapixels/resolution isn't about capturing additional detail. It's about not wanting to run up against pixelation at the enlargement/printing stage. I'd rather have native resolution than have to 'up-res' to get the desired print size. There's also the potential for cropping — a bad word in the HCB... i mean, RFF forum, but 'normal' people do it....

 

[amateriat]

Not sure why so many people are falling for the anti-MP marketing rap. A company claims lower resolution is now the objective, and people buy into that spiel. Sure. "Let's not pay for the engineering and innovation, and instead we'll tell everyone that our tech and budget limitations are actually BENEFITS!" That's the Leica way. They did it with the film M- and R- lines. It's like a Jedi mind trick. "You don't Need features. You don't Want automation. Progress bad."

Canon appeared to have met their Waterloo with the 50D, which has gotten decidedly mixed reviews on account of excessive pixel-packing. It's a lot like horsepower: if you're not able to harness it properly, those extra ponies will only get you in trouble.

I have an Olympus C-8080. With its 8.1MP sensor, I've been able to get very usable 11 x 17 prints from it, but I'll admit that I'm reaching the camera's outer limits here without using the Hamburger Helper methods (fancy interpolation). The 8080 has both a good sensor and even better lens, so I can get away with more stuff than I otherwise could with other digicams of the day.

Then, too, I read stuff from pundits like David Pogue who swear they get stunning, poster-size prints from four-megapixel cameras (and, in Pogue's case, he's not talking about old, pro-grade dSLRs, either). I say "maybe", but not without a good deal of help.


- Barrett

 

[jaapv]

I think the rule is based on a 35mm film camera with a normal (50mm) lens.

In that case - film has no megapixels.

 

[antiquark]

In that case - film has no megapixels.

It does when you scan it!

 

[jaapv]

Since i would like to print larger than "5x7 or 11x14," Canon's higher megapixel offerings suit me. I wouldn't be satisfied with such limitations with film, so why would i with digital? Certainly not a "pissing contest." Canon gives some customers what they want. And, others, who don't need the 21MP i have in the 5D2 don't have to use them. I believe one is free to shoot at lower than 'max' resolution on these cameras.

They're certainly not compromising quality for sales sheet specs.

Not sure why so many people are falling for the anti-MP marketing rap. A company claims lower resolution is now the objective, and people buy into that spiel. Sure. "Let's not pay for the engineering and innovation, and instead we'll tell everyone that our tech and budget limitations are actually BENEFITS!" That's the Leica way. They did it with the film M- and R- lines. It's like a Jedi mind trick. "You don't Need features. You don't Want automation. Progress bad."

That said, to the OP, yes, it seems 10+ MP with an APS-C or larger sensor should be adequate for those print sizes. But, if you're 'serious,' i wouldn't recommend a G10 as your primary digital camera. Get a Canon EOS if you want to use primes, or a Nikon if you want to use zooms.

So bringing out the M9 with 18 Mp and no AA filter which equalizes the resolution to 21Mp+ cameras is not the Leica way? 😕 And indeed the customer base for the Leica M series does not want automation, nor gimmicks aka " features" so I would say, if there is a Jedi mind trick, the customers are playing it on the company....