Bill Pierce
Well-known
I’ve been asked to elaborate further on my comments on Canon’s 50mg sensor. Here goes.
What most folks are most interested in from more megapixels is the ability to create larger prints while still holding fine detail. When you talk about megapixels, you are talking about the number of pixels in a given area,the surface of a sensor. When you talk about print size, you are normally talking about the width and/or height of the print. So jumping from a full frame 12.5 megapixel sensor, something pretty common in professional cameras of just a few years ago, to today’s 50 mg, you only increase the width or height by a factor of two. The level of detail you saw in an 8x10 print will now be maintained in a 16x20 print, not a 32x40 print.
Fighting against the increase in fine detail is increased noise level of smaller pixels if you take pictures at very high ISO’s, the need for better lenses/more accurate focus and the degradation of the image from camera motion and mirror slap.
(On the other hand, one hopes that viewers look at larger prints from a further distance.}
Street and news photographers and their kin gain from the ability to crop in to the image from a high megapixel sensor. Architectural photographers, landscape photographers and all those folks who can use a tripod even at low ISO’s, raise an SLR mirror before taking the picture and use a good lens accurately focused at its optimum aperture will be able to make stunning large prints.
If there is a message, it is this - to take advantage of the larger megapixel count you are going to have to use excellent shooting technique, not just a sensor with more megapixels. And, if you quadruple the pixel size, you only double the dimensions of the print that will have the same level of fine detail if you are one of those folks who press their nose against the print.
For me, it’s real simple. For the most part, you have to be interested in big prints and be a slow, methodical shooter. If you are a sports, wildlife, street or news photographer who is always cropping, here's something you should also investigate. If you think a brace of Sigma Quatros would be nice, but already own a lot of Canon gear, here's something you should probably investigate. But, the most complete answer is not going to come until theses cameras have been in the hands of a variety of photographers for a reasonable period of time.
Your predictions?
What most folks are most interested in from more megapixels is the ability to create larger prints while still holding fine detail. When you talk about megapixels, you are talking about the number of pixels in a given area,the surface of a sensor. When you talk about print size, you are normally talking about the width and/or height of the print. So jumping from a full frame 12.5 megapixel sensor, something pretty common in professional cameras of just a few years ago, to today’s 50 mg, you only increase the width or height by a factor of two. The level of detail you saw in an 8x10 print will now be maintained in a 16x20 print, not a 32x40 print.
Fighting against the increase in fine detail is increased noise level of smaller pixels if you take pictures at very high ISO’s, the need for better lenses/more accurate focus and the degradation of the image from camera motion and mirror slap.
(On the other hand, one hopes that viewers look at larger prints from a further distance.}
Street and news photographers and their kin gain from the ability to crop in to the image from a high megapixel sensor. Architectural photographers, landscape photographers and all those folks who can use a tripod even at low ISO’s, raise an SLR mirror before taking the picture and use a good lens accurately focused at its optimum aperture will be able to make stunning large prints.
If there is a message, it is this - to take advantage of the larger megapixel count you are going to have to use excellent shooting technique, not just a sensor with more megapixels. And, if you quadruple the pixel size, you only double the dimensions of the print that will have the same level of fine detail if you are one of those folks who press their nose against the print.
For me, it’s real simple. For the most part, you have to be interested in big prints and be a slow, methodical shooter. If you are a sports, wildlife, street or news photographer who is always cropping, here's something you should also investigate. If you think a brace of Sigma Quatros would be nice, but already own a lot of Canon gear, here's something you should probably investigate. But, the most complete answer is not going to come until theses cameras have been in the hands of a variety of photographers for a reasonable period of time.
Your predictions?
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
I predict the megapixel race will continue, given a few brief intervals for other fads to hit the market such as high-ISO performance.
Camera manufacturers are beholden to the market and where they'll make the highest profits which keep them in existence...and it seems people (whether they understand the physics of them or not) want more megapixels.
Camera manufacturers are beholden to the market and where they'll make the highest profits which keep them in existence...and it seems people (whether they understand the physics of them or not) want more megapixels.
De_Corday
Eternal Student
As a nikon shooter, I worry that this will spark a race that will prolong the wait for a true heir to the D700--a truly PJ capable camera in a less-than pro size. Rather than a baby D4, Nikon opted to go with the big sensor on the D800, and Canon is responding in kind.
rscheffler
Well-known
A couple thoughts:
This revival of the MP race benefits the camera manufacturers more than just selling yet another new camera. As the MP count dramatically increases, lens performance is accordingly strained, and it leads to a justifiable position for yet more lens upgrades, keeping the whole upgrade cycle turning. And since production tolerances have to be tighter, etc., for these lenses to break through to new performance capabilities, they can be priced accordingly.
Canon says their lens updates since 2010 have been made in anticipation of this sensor resolution. I suspect they've actually designed the lenses with much higher resolution in mind. Anyway, it can give some indication of how long this has been in the planning (though Canon's long-running 18MP APS-C sensors are not far off the 50MP FF in terms of pixel density).
While I might not typically benefit from a raw 50MP file printed at full rez, I can appreciate that such a large file will be a great source for oversampling a scene, resulting in 'better' 'sharper' downsized image files at the resolutions I'll typically use and provide to clients.
I agree with a lot of Bill's points. I could benefit from 50MP shooting sports. I wouldn't have to worry as much about being lens-limited when I can crop considerably more into a 50MP file than my current 18MP output. Unfortunately though, the 5Ds doesn't quite match the 'sports shooting' performance I've grown to appreciate with the 1DX. That said, I could instead buy the 7DII at half the price, which has the same 5Ds pixel density, and use it to complement the 1DX in such situations... As it is, on the lowly 18MP 1DX I already see subject motion blur at 1/2000. Increasing the pixel density means that will only become more noticeable. At what point does more pixels result in a trailing off of proportional resolution gain, when it's not possible to use the utmost best shooting technique?
On that point, I just spent more money than I had originally intended on a new tripod and head, to replace my rickety 25 year old beater. I anticipate I'll be using a tripod more often to fully take advantage of future sensor resolution increases.
This revival of the MP race benefits the camera manufacturers more than just selling yet another new camera. As the MP count dramatically increases, lens performance is accordingly strained, and it leads to a justifiable position for yet more lens upgrades, keeping the whole upgrade cycle turning. And since production tolerances have to be tighter, etc., for these lenses to break through to new performance capabilities, they can be priced accordingly.
Canon says their lens updates since 2010 have been made in anticipation of this sensor resolution. I suspect they've actually designed the lenses with much higher resolution in mind. Anyway, it can give some indication of how long this has been in the planning (though Canon's long-running 18MP APS-C sensors are not far off the 50MP FF in terms of pixel density).
While I might not typically benefit from a raw 50MP file printed at full rez, I can appreciate that such a large file will be a great source for oversampling a scene, resulting in 'better' 'sharper' downsized image files at the resolutions I'll typically use and provide to clients.
I agree with a lot of Bill's points. I could benefit from 50MP shooting sports. I wouldn't have to worry as much about being lens-limited when I can crop considerably more into a 50MP file than my current 18MP output. Unfortunately though, the 5Ds doesn't quite match the 'sports shooting' performance I've grown to appreciate with the 1DX. That said, I could instead buy the 7DII at half the price, which has the same 5Ds pixel density, and use it to complement the 1DX in such situations... As it is, on the lowly 18MP 1DX I already see subject motion blur at 1/2000. Increasing the pixel density means that will only become more noticeable. At what point does more pixels result in a trailing off of proportional resolution gain, when it's not possible to use the utmost best shooting technique?
On that point, I just spent more money than I had originally intended on a new tripod and head, to replace my rickety 25 year old beater. I anticipate I'll be using a tripod more often to fully take advantage of future sensor resolution increases.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here are some interesting alternatives to the Canon 50MG…
https://photographylife.com/why-16-megapixels-when-i-could-have-50#more-102064
http://philipbloom.net/2014/12/23/pentax645z/
http://luminous-landscape.com/pentax-645z-in-depth-review/
https://photographylife.com/why-16-megapixels-when-i-could-have-50#more-102064
http://philipbloom.net/2014/12/23/pentax645z/
http://luminous-landscape.com/pentax-645z-in-depth-review/
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
For architecture, instead of a 35mm equivalent lens, I mount a 105 or longer prime, use a panorama head, and stitch to make a big file. I like the results.
Big prints, viewed at a distance? Sure. But, there is something magical about a big print with enough detail you can bring it right up to your nose. That was the magic of large format Polaroids.
My net: There's a role for lots of megapixels.
Big prints, viewed at a distance? Sure. But, there is something magical about a big print with enough detail you can bring it right up to your nose. That was the magic of large format Polaroids.
My net: There's a role for lots of megapixels.