Dogman
Veteran
My first DSLR had 8MP. I have done 12x18 inch prints of 1/2 of the total frame that look very nice matted, framed and hanging on the wall. Today I use cameras with 16MP and 24MP. Objectively--clinically--their files are sharper. Viewing them as prints on the wall, you really wouldn't notice much, if any, difference.
However, I do agree that the photographer might be the weakest link. In my glory days, I was able to handhold a nicely sharp shot of a nighttime accident or crime scene at a full one second on a dimly lit street while firing a strobe to fill the foreground. Today, I'm a 70-year old geezer who wouldn't attempt such nonsense. If I've learned anything about photography (and life in general) it's that you have to know your limitations and come up with workarounds.
However, I do agree that the photographer might be the weakest link. In my glory days, I was able to handhold a nicely sharp shot of a nighttime accident or crime scene at a full one second on a dimly lit street while firing a strobe to fill the foreground. Today, I'm a 70-year old geezer who wouldn't attempt such nonsense. If I've learned anything about photography (and life in general) it's that you have to know your limitations and come up with workarounds.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
My 6 mpx Epsons produce very nice pictures. No complaints.
Nokton48
Veteran
I have two Sony Nex-3's I bought new for $250 each and they are still producing what I want. I'll replace them if they stop working.........
So no complaints.
So no complaints.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Nice summary Bill, but if your argument is good enough is good enough, I'm not with you. Often more MP is not the answer; often it is.
Corran
Well-known
The D700's 12mp was perfectly adequate for commercial work, until it wasn't. The D800 was a revelation.
Try delivering 12mp files today to clients with phones that shoot higher resolution, and in decent light will more or less outperform the former (and the defocus argument grows ever weaker with new phone algorithms that can make perfectly smooth background defocus).
The result is the shrinking of the low- to mid-tier market of photography (just like cameras, if you think about it). That said, the tool should match the purpose. I still see people saying "6mp is good enough for anything" but that's pretty much BS. I'd still rather print wet myself, working more in the vein of "art." Somewhat rough (grain) 35mm enlargements to up to 6x9 inches on fiber paper are preferable to perfectly clean inkjet IMO. For larger prints, MF or LF. Or better, contact prints from 4x5 and larger. Most importantly, make a good image and a good print.
Try delivering 12mp files today to clients with phones that shoot higher resolution, and in decent light will more or less outperform the former (and the defocus argument grows ever weaker with new phone algorithms that can make perfectly smooth background defocus).
The result is the shrinking of the low- to mid-tier market of photography (just like cameras, if you think about it). That said, the tool should match the purpose. I still see people saying "6mp is good enough for anything" but that's pretty much BS. I'd still rather print wet myself, working more in the vein of "art." Somewhat rough (grain) 35mm enlargements to up to 6x9 inches on fiber paper are preferable to perfectly clean inkjet IMO. For larger prints, MF or LF. Or better, contact prints from 4x5 and larger. Most importantly, make a good image and a good print.
Range-rover
Veteran
This is a good topic because believe it or not I just purchased two older Nikon's,
a D700 and a D2X and I know that there only 12 megapixel's but I just love the
colors and built. If I need more megapixel's I use my Fuji at 16 and pretty happy
with that. Thanks Bill for putting this on, I saw a lot of the new camera's yesterday
at the New York Photoexpo and I'm pretty happy with the results I get with mine.
a D700 and a D2X and I know that there only 12 megapixel's but I just love the
colors and built. If I need more megapixel's I use my Fuji at 16 and pretty happy
with that. Thanks Bill for putting this on, I saw a lot of the new camera's yesterday
at the New York Photoexpo and I'm pretty happy with the results I get with mine.
So a D700 isn't good enough, but a phone is?
Corran
Well-known
Why does someone need you to shoot their Christmas pictures on your D700 when their phone does just as well from a technical level?
Of course we know about the difference a competent photographer makes - but in the lower to mid-tier job levels the clients probably don't know, can't tell, or don't care.
I did a lot of this kind of work, and many/most "pro" photographers that I know operate solely at this level - $50-100 "sessions" done in gang format. I don't care for this market and have quit trying to race to the bottom and instead go for larger commercial contracts (more lately this is gov't subcontracting work). The point here is, this area is hotly contested and a losing market compared to a quick phone picture. The people making it work are using a lot of props and extreme editing to stand out from the crowd and differentiate from a phone pic. It's still a tough gig.
For higher-end jobs, the type of work I am trying to get, 12mp doesn't cut it.
The biggest complaint against phone cameras is ergonomics and flexibility. For many people who just want a photograph the D700 is no better than a newer-generation phone in technical quality.
Of course we know about the difference a competent photographer makes - but in the lower to mid-tier job levels the clients probably don't know, can't tell, or don't care.
I did a lot of this kind of work, and many/most "pro" photographers that I know operate solely at this level - $50-100 "sessions" done in gang format. I don't care for this market and have quit trying to race to the bottom and instead go for larger commercial contracts (more lately this is gov't subcontracting work). The point here is, this area is hotly contested and a losing market compared to a quick phone picture. The people making it work are using a lot of props and extreme editing to stand out from the crowd and differentiate from a phone pic. It's still a tough gig.
For higher-end jobs, the type of work I am trying to get, 12mp doesn't cut it.
The biggest complaint against phone cameras is ergonomics and flexibility. For many people who just want a photograph the D700 is no better than a newer-generation phone in technical quality.
Range-rover
Veteran
You mean to tell me a Phone is better than a 12 megapixel full frame with a better lens on it.
Corran
Well-known
A newer, flagship phone compared to a 10-year-old DSLR is a lot closer in basic image quality in good light than most people would like to admit. That's technology for you.