Just how much resolution you need?

[Moto-Uno]

"Mugent" couldn't have summed it up better!
Regards,Peter

 

[David Hughes]

Digital Resolution?

Digital Resolution?

Hi,

Talking to people in labs and most seem to sell 4x6" and not much else in terms of numbers. So I'd guess 3 megapixels would do more most people's prints.

Then again, there's millions who don't bother with prints and just stick the file in the computer and look at the pictures on screen. under 1 megapixel would do most of them.

Of course the lens comes into it as well, but most of them seem more than adequate.

I still have and use the 5 megapixel Leica Digilux 2 and wonder what non commercial photographers would want 24 or 36 megapixels for. That's bill board or poster size* and they can't have that much wall space.

Regards, David

* 6000 x 4000 as a poster at 100 dpi would be 5 ft by 3ft 4 ins. Even at 200 dpi it would be more than enough and there's a limit to the number of giant photo's you can have in the average house.

 

[ruby.monkey]

The 6Mp provided by my old Pentax K100D suited me fine; the 10Mpx of my GRD3 is more than enough; the 12Mpx from my Olympus E-PM1 is perfectly adequate; the 16Mpx at the heart of my Pentax K5 covers all my needs.

The only camera I own that doesn't provide usable resolution, is the piece'o'crap VGA-resolution doohicky in my phone - and even that would be OK for most online requirements.

 

[mfogiel]

I have started shooting some more portraits recently. My problem is actually, that most of the time there is TOO MUCH resolution, even on a 35mm film shot with the lens wide open. Certainlly, there would be subjects, which benefit greatly from resolution, but even more so from good tonality, but this brings us directly to LF film, not digital... I believe, that the resolution game in digital cameras is there mainly to distract people from the fact, that there is not enough progress in tonality and DR.

MP, C Sonnar 50/1.5 @f 2.0, HANDHELD, Acros in Rodinal:


201211618 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[nikkor-watching]

By coincidence, I remembering poring over a 12 megapixel image and thinking that it was not especially finely detailed. Then I realised that I was viewing it at about 40 inches wide. That size used to be medium format territory. So you could exhibit 35mm at that size perhaps, but if you made a living out of such sizes you would generally migrate to medium format.
I don't need such sizes and with twice the resolution I would crop it to get close ups without carrying longer lenses... 😉

 

[jsrockit]

I'll have to respectfully disagree just a bit there. Obviously many photos work at small sizes, but to have a spectacular landscape at postcard size can be doing it a disservice sometimes I think.

Well sure, there are times where larger size is certianly better... but that isn't what I said. I said it'll still be a great photo in small size too.

That said, I find the M8's resolution to not be enough for anything larger than say 10x15" up close.

 

[icebear]

I wouldn't buy on resolution - quality over quantity, at this point.

Here's another angle on resolution by Ming Thein that's interesting.

.

Interesting take: his point is that we have reached a point of tradeoffs with resolution so high that it imposes limitations on how the camera is used (e.g. 1/2x focal length shutter speed for hand-held use rather than 1/shutter speed as the rule of thumb went in the days of film). Thanks for the link -- it was definitely worth the read.

I have read through his article and I'm not sure if this is a theoretical issue, that I just by chance never experienced but I have not seen too many of my shots being unusable when inspected at pixel level (100%) but maybe this is just an SLR problem ...😉.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Ha! Well if your technique is good, maybe you would never see the issue. In my case my technique is . . . middling.

 

[peterm1]

I recall reading an article years ago that stated that to match 35mm film, using reasonably defendable assumptions a digital resolution of around 24 megapixels (plus maybe a bit more) was needed. That seemed to gain reasonable acceptance at the time. If true, then we are only now getting to that with FX cameras although some, like the Nikon D800, are already well beyond it. Of course most people do not actually need that much in practice. I would like it as there is nothing better than being able to look at an image, blow it up and see more, and more, and more detail. But I do not really need it. Besides having this much resolution means that lenses and technique have to be up to it and file sizes are bigger so I then need a faster and more powerful PC to process, plus more storage etc.

I also agree that pixel quality is much more important than pixel number (resolution). I recently bought a D700 with its "measly" 12 megapixel sensor. Its now theoretically outdated technology (such is the pace of change in this game). But boy are those quality pixels! I can shoot in near black conditions at 1600 ASA and there is very little noise, and what there is, is not objectional. If I had to lose that quality in exchange for a 24 megapixel sensor that did not have the quality, then I would not do it. Fortunately sensor quality (and in camera processing software) seems to be getting better too and large file sizes are becoming possible with large resolution sensors. We can have our digital cake and eat it too.