Lots of big pixels

[Bill Pierce]

With the announcement of the 2 new Canon DSLR’s with 50 megapixel sensors, a feeling of inadequacy has swept over many photographers. This didn’t happen when Nokia introduced their 41 megapixel cellphone for good reason. Cellphones don’t have large pixels, and large pixels are good pixels when it comes to low noise and dynamic range. You can put a lot of those big pixels on a full frame sensor, produce images that capture fine detail in large prints and still have low noise and a good dynamic range. Notice that the new full frame Canons with their high number of slightly smaller pixels do not reach the high ISO’s that are available with the current 5D Mark III.

(There is another important factor, how the manufacturer’s image processor does its job of dealing with sharpening, noise, e.t.c.. These days most everybody is doing a good job.)

Can you take advantage of these cameras? You’ll need very good lenses used at their best apertures, a tripod mounted camera or a very, very high shutter speed. You should probably bracket focus. For the kind of work I do, that’s silly. For the kind of work Edward Weston did, the only reason it would be silly is because he made small prints. The way galleries work these days, he would probably have to make big prints, and they would knock your socks off. For those of us who don’t normally do that kind of work, try putting your current camera on a tripod, setting the lens at f/5.6, using a low ISO and bracketing focus. Now make the biggest print your set up for. The results should be pretty impressive even when you press your nose against the print. Do you need even better? Would you like even better? What do think?

 

[YYV_146]

50 megapixels isn't that much more than 36 or even 24, if we're talking about maximum print sizes for a given distance. Really big prints on 24 megapixels can be made if I don't expect people to stick their nose right up to the paper. There are people who might find this useful, but I suspect most of them have access to high-end medium format equipment or stitching options already.

As for me, 12 megapixels is enough for ~90% of the time. If I absolutely need to make a super-detailed file, I'll rent a Gigapan and call it a day.

 

[Godfrey]

No interest in 50 Mpixel at all. My photography doesn't need it. 24 is good but a bit of overkill; useful though. 16 is my sweet spot nowadays.

I've won recognition in gallery exhibitions with 20x24 inch prints made with a 5 Mpixel camera.

G

 

[Archlich]

We can always use the camera at 12mp. Just with more options when you want it big big.

Technology is a good thing.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm not a criminologist, forensic expert, but where are some. They might find it helpful. And macro dudes. And paparazzi, they'll have no problem with pixelzoom.

 

[Range-rover]

Well I just purchased a Canon a Full Frame camera a older EOS 1DS it's only 11.1
megapixels in which it has large pixels not the small ones that are stuffed into the
new 50 megapixel's and so far I'm happy with it. I can see landscape pros and some
other's using it, but for me bill I'm happy with the ones I have.

Range

 

[f16sunshine]

I'm looking forward to seeing some printed results from these new models.
Anyone who claims not to be intrigued is probably not being entirely honest 😛

 

[Pioneer]

It appears that Canon is pulling out all the stops to ensure its survival. With this camera they hope to attract the medium format crowd. It will be interesting to see how successful they are.

It would also appear to be a challenge to Sony.

 

[Corran]

When I bought my D800, it was mostly because I needed a second DSLR for the paid work I was doing, but the huge megapixel count was a bonus. However, it turned out to be a fantastic addition and truly left my D700 in the dust. There's so much more options for cropping if needed or printing very big. You might not generally "need" more than X number of megapixels, but, given a choice, would you really choose to have less (given there was no change in the dynamic range or whatever other spec you care about)? I think not.

Sadly, it does show poor technique and minute focus errors, so, it's also a challenge in some respects.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

I just saw a 30-inch by 40-inch print made by a friend. It was made from the file of a Panasonic GX7… a 16Mp micro 4/3 sensor camera. The print was amazing (and no 'uprezing' was involved… it was printed at something like 100 dpi). It looked as good as the 11-inch prints I make from 16Mp Fuji X-Pro1 files. I think, for most of us, we've reached the plateau of needless improvement. I'm sure there are some photographers that can conjure up some reasons they need these big Mp sensors, but… really?

 

[btgc]

Initially I did see "Lots of bad pixels". When I think about it....sometimes more hardly means better? Well, technically yes, right, it is better. Questions is how this investments return if at all. Agreed on specific uses like experts and such.

 

[Sam N]

We shouldn't suddenly need to start bracketing focus. We already have APS-C sensors with the same pixel density, and they work just fine without bracketing focus. (Yes, we would have to get closer with the same lens to achieve the same angle of view, so we'd have thinner depth of field and that could lead to issues in some situations, but generally you can just stop down a bit and you still get a lot of aperture settings between "not enough DoF" and being diffraction limited.)

Most people who are not commercial photographers do not need or want 50mp (or even 36) or the slightly(?) increased color fidelity that comes with the stronger color filters. However, the commercial workflow is very different than what almost everyone on this site (including myself) does with most of their photos.

For us, post-processing a 50mp file is just a needless pain in the butt. A commercial photographer is likely to have a fast computer and a well sorted out storage system. They may have to shoot with enough space to allow clients and designers to crop, edit, and rearrange their work as needed.

For us, mostly shooting handheld and in available light, some of the resolution will be wasted. A commercial product photographer will almost always be locked down on a tripod anyway. A fashion photographer may be working in the studio with strobes. This saves them a ton of money over a slower and way more expensive medium format rig (yes, I know it's still not quite the same).

For us, color is largely subjective. Many don't have color-managed workflows and those that do may be sharing online with others who do not have calibrated monitors. A commercial photographer has to nail the colors. Clients will not be pleased if the images in the catalog you shot for them don't look like their actual products.

 

[willie_901]

Obviously computer technology improves all the time and the case could be made that post-production work with 50 MP raw files should not be cumbersome.

I suspect those who actually start using 50 MP raw either own high-performance computing gear or will soon add the cost of a serious IT upgrade to their photography budget.

I'm fine with 16 MP... mostly because I try hard to compose in-camera to minimize cropping.

 

[jsrockit]

I'm ok with bigger megapixel counts... I use my A7r (36mp) handheld all of the time. I just use shorter shutter speeds and it works out fine. You never know when someone wants to show your prints big. You can always downsize.

 

[Bill Pierce]

For me, the thing that fascinates me the most about a 50mg sensor is the ability to crop the image and still produce a good print. I know it's not in the HCB spirit, but the ability to crop a grab shot on the street interests me a lot.

 

[DominikDUK]

I admit it does intrigue me especially at this price point. MF Backs will still leave it in the dust for pure image quality but the price is much higher and they are also often not always more cumbersome.
But as you said you need the best lenses, etc... for optimum results. Shooting on the run type photography won't really profit from the high pixel count, fashion photographer many of them already use Canon DSLRs will profit quiet a lot.
I agree lots of potential for cropping.

Currently I rent a phase one back if I need this kind of image quality which comes cheaper than buying the camera/back and required accessories but the Canon camera is a very interesting alternative.

 

[noimmunity]

I guess that some "innovation" was needed between the collapse of the market and the interval before real sensor innovation.

There is a lot of talk about sensor innovation. Organic toppings, layers, DR extensions. MP are just a temporary stop-gap measure that very few people really need. Mostly marketing.

 

[noimmunity]

And why do you think more people need things like Organic toppings, layers, DR extensions?

TBH，I don't think people need any kind of technical improvement. Mostly what is needed is just the patience to look.

However, improvements in things like color depth, dynamic range, S/N ratio and micro-contrast will produce results that are more important for more people, no?

 

[Spanik]

TBH,I don't think people need any kind of technical improvement. Mostly what is needed is just the patience to look.

However, improvements in things like color depth, dynamic range, S/N ratio and micro-contrast will produce results that are more important for more people, no?

How are those "needs" different from "more Mp"? As already said above, how many would benefit from more colour depth if they don't have a calibrated setup? Similar arguments can be made for the other "improvements".

Your first remark is closer home.

 

[Cesium]

50 megapixels isn't that much more than 36 or even 24

This idea is lost on so many people. It may sound like 50 is a lot, but it's a small step from the 36mp we've had available for years.

(imagine 50mp is about the size of the white frame)