Bill Pierce
Well-known
Are you in distress because your camera, now several years old, doesn’t have enough megapixels? Don’t worry. Just remember the prints from the Canon 5D and the Nikon D700 with their 12 megapixel sensors. Those prints looked pretty good.
Still worried about megapixels? Perhaps megapixels aren’t everything. The Leica M10, twice as many megapixels as the 5D and D700, body only, no lens, costs $7,300, is 37th from the top of the Dx0Mark list of full frame and smaller sensor cameras.
The small, compressed images seen on the internet or even the original files viewed on your big screen computer don’t need many megapixels to look good. Make a print and megapixels start to count, but perhaps not as much as people think. Say you print a 2x3 ratio image typical of uncropped full frame on 11x14 paper with half inch borders. Print that frame from a 12 megapixel Canon 5D raw file and it will have a pixel density of about 330 psi, right between the two pixel densities, 300 and 360, that seem to be contenders for the “you can’t do better than that award.” Truth is, an even bigger print with an even lower pixel density does pretty good because it is normally viewed from a slightly greater distance. Bigger prints viewed from a greater distance or of images like portraits that don’t benefit from razor sharpness can go larger. Unlike prints in an exhibition hall, prints in your living room can go bigger because most people are polite enough to not leap over the sofa so they can press their noses against the glass.
“Sharpness” is dependent on so many things beside megapixels. Some of it, just like the megapixels, is inherent in the cameras. The Leica M10 may score the way it does, edge performance at times falling well behind central performance, in part because sensors don’t like steeply angled edge rays that you get from non retrofocus short focal length lenses - not a problem that bothered film. Nor is wide open performance top drawer across the field with any of the older lenses and quite a few new ones. But, it’s still one of many photographers favorite cameras.
But problems inherent with cameras are peanuts compare to problems with photographers.
Number one, camera movement… One thing that results from staring a 100% views of many digital cameras is the realization that we aren’t really that good at holding a camera steady at 1/30th of a second (or 1/60 or even 1/125). Actually, staring at 100% views has shown us the both human and autofocus aren’t quite as perfect as we had imagined nor depth-of-field as all enfolding. You’re not looking at images and saying “shaky and soft.” It’s subtler than that. It’s just not quite as sharp as it could be (“micro shaky and soft?”). The easy way out is high shutter speeds and small f/stops. Of course, that’s going to mean a high ISO. Digital had taken some of the curse from that, but there are still times when a tripod and a lower ISO and shutter speed make sense. There is also one other thing that makes sense, realizing that many megapixels, razor sharpness and ultimate technical perfection are not a guarantee of a powerful image. Film photographers know that. Maybe digital photographers should, too.
Your thoughts?
Still worried about megapixels? Perhaps megapixels aren’t everything. The Leica M10, twice as many megapixels as the 5D and D700, body only, no lens, costs $7,300, is 37th from the top of the Dx0Mark list of full frame and smaller sensor cameras.
The small, compressed images seen on the internet or even the original files viewed on your big screen computer don’t need many megapixels to look good. Make a print and megapixels start to count, but perhaps not as much as people think. Say you print a 2x3 ratio image typical of uncropped full frame on 11x14 paper with half inch borders. Print that frame from a 12 megapixel Canon 5D raw file and it will have a pixel density of about 330 psi, right between the two pixel densities, 300 and 360, that seem to be contenders for the “you can’t do better than that award.” Truth is, an even bigger print with an even lower pixel density does pretty good because it is normally viewed from a slightly greater distance. Bigger prints viewed from a greater distance or of images like portraits that don’t benefit from razor sharpness can go larger. Unlike prints in an exhibition hall, prints in your living room can go bigger because most people are polite enough to not leap over the sofa so they can press their noses against the glass.
“Sharpness” is dependent on so many things beside megapixels. Some of it, just like the megapixels, is inherent in the cameras. The Leica M10 may score the way it does, edge performance at times falling well behind central performance, in part because sensors don’t like steeply angled edge rays that you get from non retrofocus short focal length lenses - not a problem that bothered film. Nor is wide open performance top drawer across the field with any of the older lenses and quite a few new ones. But, it’s still one of many photographers favorite cameras.
But problems inherent with cameras are peanuts compare to problems with photographers.
Number one, camera movement… One thing that results from staring a 100% views of many digital cameras is the realization that we aren’t really that good at holding a camera steady at 1/30th of a second (or 1/60 or even 1/125). Actually, staring at 100% views has shown us the both human and autofocus aren’t quite as perfect as we had imagined nor depth-of-field as all enfolding. You’re not looking at images and saying “shaky and soft.” It’s subtler than that. It’s just not quite as sharp as it could be (“micro shaky and soft?”). The easy way out is high shutter speeds and small f/stops. Of course, that’s going to mean a high ISO. Digital had taken some of the curse from that, but there are still times when a tripod and a lower ISO and shutter speed make sense. There is also one other thing that makes sense, realizing that many megapixels, razor sharpness and ultimate technical perfection are not a guarantee of a powerful image. Film photographers know that. Maybe digital photographers should, too.
Your thoughts?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
My "biggest" camera is 20 MP, and my biggest problem with that is it loads up my hard drive on my laptop too quickly because of file size. I'd definitely need a bigger laptop if I got one of those big megapixel cameras. Most of what I shoot are with 16 MP cameras, and they seem fine for my needs.
Technically, I agree with everything you're saying Bill. But for now, I'd rather concentrate on making better 16 MP images than on making "bigger" images.
Best,
-Tim
Technically, I agree with everything you're saying Bill. But for now, I'd rather concentrate on making better 16 MP images than on making "bigger" images.
Best,
-Tim
kshapero
South Florida Man
I remember when folks said the Epson RD1 with 6 megapixels was awesome.
zuiko85
Veteran
When the title said “Old camera” I got all excited thinking ‘surely he’s talking about film cameras’, but no.
Sorry, just cannot wrap my head around 5-8 years as ‘old’, but I guess in digital it’s positively ancient.
Sorry, just cannot wrap my head around 5-8 years as ‘old’, but I guess in digital it’s positively ancient.
iphoenix
Well-known
Totally agree. A camera that actually takes the picture when the release is pressed, focusses where you want it to and gives you the exposure you've set is my choice. Might take 1/60 sec., but not up to 1/2 to 1 sec. as I recently got from a mid-priced digital.
No wonder film and film cameras are becoming more popular.
lynnb
Veteran
I agree with everything you've mentioned Bill. I've also come to realise that I mostly get better results, technically speaking, with ISO400 film simply because I can use a higher shutter speed to minimise the effect of any relative movement between camera and subject. Tri-X or HP5 are plenty sharp enough for most purposes - if sharpness is your intention - as photographers much better than me have demonstrated.
RichC
Well-known
(a) I take your point that most photographers don't need many megapixels.
However, for those of us who exhibit and sell prints, technology has changed things: there is now the expectation that our photographs are pin sharp even up close. The quality of a typical 35 mm film print is unacceptable to most gallery visitors today, who are used to sharp, noise-free digital images. To them, a 35 mm film colour print larger than about 10 x 8 in. (A4) with its grain and lack of resolution looks like a photo from a cheap mobile phone.
(b) As for the inability to take blur-free photos, carry appropriate gear if you're serious about your photography. First, my camera has built-in image stabilisation, allowing sharp hand-held photographs at low shutter speeds. Second, carry a tripod when needed!
I've just spent 3 years - walking 500 miles - photographing London's lost river Fleet. My camera gear weighed about 5 kg (10 lb), including a tripod and aluminium kitchen steps (the latter to give elevated or unusual views).
A selection of the 100 or so of the Fleet photographs:
However, for those of us who exhibit and sell prints, technology has changed things: there is now the expectation that our photographs are pin sharp even up close. The quality of a typical 35 mm film print is unacceptable to most gallery visitors today, who are used to sharp, noise-free digital images. To them, a 35 mm film colour print larger than about 10 x 8 in. (A4) with its grain and lack of resolution looks like a photo from a cheap mobile phone.
(b) As for the inability to take blur-free photos, carry appropriate gear if you're serious about your photography. First, my camera has built-in image stabilisation, allowing sharp hand-held photographs at low shutter speeds. Second, carry a tripod when needed!
I've just spent 3 years - walking 500 miles - photographing London's lost river Fleet. My camera gear weighed about 5 kg (10 lb), including a tripod and aluminium kitchen steps (the latter to give elevated or unusual views).
A selection of the 100 or so of the Fleet photographs:
dasuess
Nikon Freak
After scanning all my B&W negatives, slides and most of my color negs to digital, I took some time to examine them on my large computer screen. I was amazed to find that virtually all of the images which exhibited sharpness problems were due mostly to poor focusing or camera shake.
leicapixie
Well-known
Digital cameras a few years old regarded as old, almost worthless..
Why do folks need to press noses on a print?
It's idiotic way of "looking" at photographs..
I recently saw some of my old prints done on film and enlarged.
Holy Sherbet! Sharp, no "weird" artifacts of scanned film..
I have made prints for publicity and advertising many feet wide!
These were from film, satisfactory to clients and viewers.
My Leica M3 is now 51 years old mostly used in pro assignments.
The need for more pixels, more larger memory drives and backup drives..
Faster computers, better internet access all to what purpose?
No i am not a fuddy duddy!
I use "toy" digitals and phone camera for quick work.
Cameras are now with their lenses supersized!
I am not going there..
Why do folks need to press noses on a print?
It's idiotic way of "looking" at photographs..
I recently saw some of my old prints done on film and enlarged.
Holy Sherbet! Sharp, no "weird" artifacts of scanned film..
I have made prints for publicity and advertising many feet wide!
These were from film, satisfactory to clients and viewers.
My Leica M3 is now 51 years old mostly used in pro assignments.
The need for more pixels, more larger memory drives and backup drives..
Faster computers, better internet access all to what purpose?
No i am not a fuddy duddy!
I use "toy" digitals and phone camera for quick work.
Cameras are now with their lenses supersized!
I am not going there..
zuiko85
Veteran
About camera shake, well years ago we had a saying; ‘the best lens is a tripod’.
Anyway, switch gears. I’m one of the ‘old farts’ in my 70th year and doing my own B&W now for 50 of those years. Yesterday I got a thrill when, down at a local park filled with people I spot a Leica CL (film!) sporting a CV 40 f1.4 held by a young lady probably in her early 20’s. I engaged her in conversation telling her it was good to see old cameras still being used by young folks. We chatted for a bit and I found she was fairly new at this and was still using a lab to do her B&W, I encouraged her to learn to do that part herself. She was just visiting and lives in New York (3000mi away) but I think she is definitely going to get set set up at least do her own film development. It brightened my whole day.
Anyway, switch gears. I’m one of the ‘old farts’ in my 70th year and doing my own B&W now for 50 of those years. Yesterday I got a thrill when, down at a local park filled with people I spot a Leica CL (film!) sporting a CV 40 f1.4 held by a young lady probably in her early 20’s. I engaged her in conversation telling her it was good to see old cameras still being used by young folks. We chatted for a bit and I found she was fairly new at this and was still using a lab to do her B&W, I encouraged her to learn to do that part herself. She was just visiting and lives in New York (3000mi away) but I think she is definitely going to get set set up at least do her own film development. It brightened my whole day.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Digital, old, hmmm...
When I go hiking and desire a light camera I still use my Leica X1 with its 12 MP bought december 2010.
If correctly exposed the photos when printed are not worse than the ones the camera made 8 years ago...
robert
When I go hiking and desire a light camera I still use my Leica X1 with its 12 MP bought december 2010.
If correctly exposed the photos when printed are not worse than the ones the camera made 8 years ago...
robert
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Yes, 6MPx gave good images and prints. I liked the 8x10s from this generation of cameras. I think that was the point where image quality was no compromise vs. shooting on film.
Today, I'm happy, very happy, at 24MPx. This enables me to make larger prints and prints from crops. For example, a Roseate Spoonbill image, cropped to about half the frame, prints very nicely 20x30" with today's cameras.
File size issues? Hard drives are cheap. We do need to be adept in sizing-down for email, screen, and web.
Today, I'm happy, very happy, at 24MPx. This enables me to make larger prints and prints from crops. For example, a Roseate Spoonbill image, cropped to about half the frame, prints very nicely 20x30" with today's cameras.
File size issues? Hard drives are cheap. We do need to be adept in sizing-down for email, screen, and web.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I used to love my old D2Hs which was 4.7 megapixels. That was possibly my favorite digital camera. One of my most lucrative shoots ever came from two files from that camera. If I could find one with under 100,000 shutter actuations I would buy it.
Phil Forrest
Phil Forrest
I've finally found a sweet spot with the 24mp Fujis... it's all come together IMO i.e. great IQ, fast AF speed, size, weight, small lenses, being able to pull a lot of detail from the sensor, and having enough resolution for largish prints that can be viewed up close. That said, I would use an old 10mp or higher camera and not stress too much. Anything lower just wouldn't be worth it to me since in digital 13x19" is kind of the new 8x10"...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm not cropping or printing huge. Letter size or 4x6.
For me 5MP is enough. I switched my 5D MKII for 12MP RAWs.
Then I need more space on M-E I switch to 10MP JPEG.
For me 5MP is enough. I switched my 5D MKII for 12MP RAWs.
Then I need more space on M-E I switch to 10MP JPEG.
Lee Rust
Member
The R-D1 is still awesome, plus the winding lever actually cocks the shutter AND serves as a thumb rest. For most purposes 6mp is plenty, but I wish the batteries lasted longer.
Ronald M
Veteran
Just replaced a damaged Nikon D3 so I am back to two + D700. I do not often use more than 100 ISO. Actually Kodachrome 25 was my favorite. But I have done D3 @ 1600 for 11x17 prints and they looked fine . I probably used some noise reduction with an edge mask to keep it sharp.
I have printed my D40 (6 MP ) to 11x14 and it is fine also.
Now if you do night football or indoor basketball, I suggest a Nikon D5. I do not and never will.
I have printed my D40 (6 MP ) to 11x14 and it is fine also.
Now if you do night football or indoor basketball, I suggest a Nikon D5. I do not and never will.
willie_901
Veteran
With the D700, dynamic range, shadow region noise and camera electronic noise performance is identical at ISO 100 and ISO 200 (the sensor's native or base ISO).
If ISO 200 is more practical due to camera/subject motion and, or DOF, then using ISO 200 can not degrade image quality compared to ISO 100. The only advantage to using ISO 100 is being able to avoid using ND filters in scenes with bright light, when long shutter times are used to average motion or when DOF must be a narrow as possible.
Here's the data.
DR Data
Shadow Region Noise Data
Read Noise Data