Bill Pierce
Well-known
Is there a connection between horsepower and megapixels? I live in an area without much usable public transportation. Driveways and family garages, by necessity, have multiple parked cars. Some of those cars are expensive, sporty and packed with horsepower, not unlike some expensive and sporty digital cameras that are packed with pixels. But the roads here are without sidewalks and have many blind turns. Anyone going full tilt on them in their high horsepower car is in danger of injuring his neighbor. (Truth is, even when you make it to the big highway, there is enough congestion to keep that high power super engine from fulfilling its potential or even clearing the tar out of its system.)
One of the races in today’s competitive camera market is the megapixel race. And like horsepower, there are situations in which you really can’t take advantage of a lot of megapixels. There are a lot of cameras that come in at 20 to 24 megapixels, giants by yesteryear’s standards, that are sneered at by the owners of 40 to 50 megapixel cameras. OK, what can these modest megapixels do? From 24 megapixel flles I can print a 16.67 inch by 11.111 inch image at 360 ppi without resizing. That’s a relatively large prints at a dpi that lets me press my snout against it to inspect for sharpness. A more conventional 300 ppi yields a print of 20 inches by 13.333 inches. And at any conventional viewing distance you could produce a sharp 240 ppi image that was 25 inches long.
To oversimplify, all things being equal, more megapixels let you make bigger prints. But fewer, larger pixels, give you less noise and greater dynamic range. Sony makes a full frame camera with a 12 megapixel sensor that does an outstanding job in low light. It’s not the number one choice for mural sized prints of architecture, but it does an incredible job with low light movies. When you move into the many megapixel range, the medium format cameras have a slight edge on the full frame cameras. Why? Similar pixel count, but bigger pixels. So, when someone looks at your camera, sneers and says, “I have more pixels than you do.” simply reply, “Yes, but mine are bigger!!!”
And is this splitting hairs? You bet it is. Any thoughts?
One of the races in today’s competitive camera market is the megapixel race. And like horsepower, there are situations in which you really can’t take advantage of a lot of megapixels. There are a lot of cameras that come in at 20 to 24 megapixels, giants by yesteryear’s standards, that are sneered at by the owners of 40 to 50 megapixel cameras. OK, what can these modest megapixels do? From 24 megapixel flles I can print a 16.67 inch by 11.111 inch image at 360 ppi without resizing. That’s a relatively large prints at a dpi that lets me press my snout against it to inspect for sharpness. A more conventional 300 ppi yields a print of 20 inches by 13.333 inches. And at any conventional viewing distance you could produce a sharp 240 ppi image that was 25 inches long.
To oversimplify, all things being equal, more megapixels let you make bigger prints. But fewer, larger pixels, give you less noise and greater dynamic range. Sony makes a full frame camera with a 12 megapixel sensor that does an outstanding job in low light. It’s not the number one choice for mural sized prints of architecture, but it does an incredible job with low light movies. When you move into the many megapixel range, the medium format cameras have a slight edge on the full frame cameras. Why? Similar pixel count, but bigger pixels. So, when someone looks at your camera, sneers and says, “I have more pixels than you do.” simply reply, “Yes, but mine are bigger!!!”
And is this splitting hairs? You bet it is. Any thoughts?
Dogman
Veteran
It has been said before, we are now at the point that the only reason to "upgrade" is to get more features, not more pixels.
Hell, I was happy at 12MP, in heaven at 16 and 18MP and now at 24MP I'm still happy but really don't see much improvement...at least for the stuff I shoot.
Hell, I was happy at 12MP, in heaven at 16 and 18MP and now at 24MP I'm still happy but really don't see much improvement...at least for the stuff I shoot.
benlees
Well-known
Crystal clear huge prints seems to be the de facto illusion of modern photography; MP numbers are the easiest to associate with "improvement". As you mention, there is a lot more to it than that. It's not splitting hairs provided you know what you want your pictures to look like.
I've seen different exhibits with large, beautiful colour MF film prints, big grainy prints from 35mm, small prints from 35mm, pixelated cell phone pics, huge LF prints, contact LF prints... They all looked great. Happily, I've never encountered a camera nerd while viewing these exhibits, and I've never heard a comment about cameras. People just look at the pictures.
I've seen different exhibits with large, beautiful colour MF film prints, big grainy prints from 35mm, small prints from 35mm, pixelated cell phone pics, huge LF prints, contact LF prints... They all looked great. Happily, I've never encountered a camera nerd while viewing these exhibits, and I've never heard a comment about cameras. People just look at the pictures.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I guess it's all what you're planning on using the camera for. For covering events, where you take lots of pictures, a high megapixel camera just gums up the works as the huge files, in large quantities, really stresses out the post processing, especially portable post processing.
If you're in a studio or taking only a few images, with the expectation of making huge prints, then I can see the advantage of many megapixels, but I don't shoot like that.
My megapixel range is from 12MP to 20MP, and don't have plans for adding anything larger.
Best,
-Tim
If you're in a studio or taking only a few images, with the expectation of making huge prints, then I can see the advantage of many megapixels, but I don't shoot like that.
My megapixel range is from 12MP to 20MP, and don't have plans for adding anything larger.
Best,
-Tim
Cascadilla
Well-known
My current DSLRs are 24 MP and I'm not really feeling any need for more for the work that I do. I fill up hard drives and M discs fast enough already, and I rarely need to make enormous prints. I have made very sharp 20x24 prints from 16 MP raw files in the past, and I have never needed anything bigger.
BLKRCAT
75% Film
You can't split hairs if you cant resolve them.
Axel
singleshooter
90 percent of my pictures never leave screensize. If I need a large print the upscaling functions in GIMP is perfect for any size I want.
I am not a member in a pixelpeeping-club. So my old 6MP Fuji is still in use like my 14MP Sony is.
I don´t care about pixels and every one of my cameras is blacked out where the manufacturers have left their marks on
No Pixelrace. No cry.
I am not a member in a pixelpeeping-club. So my old 6MP Fuji is still in use like my 14MP Sony is.
I don´t care about pixels and every one of my cameras is blacked out where the manufacturers have left their marks on
No Pixelrace. No cry.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
I am perfectly happy with two 16 megapixel cameras. I can make 10x15 beautiful, sharp prints from my Nikon Df with a number of AI'd Nikkors dating back to the 60's and 70's. I do on occasion yearn for 24 megapixel D3X or 36 megapixel D810, but then I'd would also need to buy a bigger printer, too.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Depends on what the final use is. In the past I've asked a number of my art director/graphic designer colleagues what the largest file is that they'd need for a magazine cover, and the general consensus is that it's about a 30-35mb RGB TIFF file. Even a 6mp Nikon D70 can almost give you that, so the 72mb RGB TIFF files from my 16.2mp D4 are already overkill for them.
Not sure how many of us are making 'big' prints (certainly not me!). 11"x16" is generally my max. Besides, I don't have the room to store a bunch of 40"x60" prints.
Mind you, I did have a couple of billboards done for Hampton Inn a number of years ago, and as I recall the file sizes were 23mb. They looked really good too! Of course that was from 300 feet away
Not sure how many of us are making 'big' prints (certainly not me!). 11"x16" is generally my max. Besides, I don't have the room to store a bunch of 40"x60" prints.
Mind you, I did have a couple of billboards done for Hampton Inn a number of years ago, and as I recall the file sizes were 23mb. They looked really good too! Of course that was from 300 feet away
Ronald M
Veteran
Just replaced one of my 12 MP Nikon D3. 800 and 800E have more MP but not the joy to use. Leica digital RF are fine as is.
Need more MP? Stitch a pano or up rez with new Photoshop algorithm in CC only and high siera.
I hit a wall on new cameras.
Need more MP? Stitch a pano or up rez with new Photoshop algorithm in CC only and high siera.
I hit a wall on new cameras.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
So all the guys with the 50 megapixel cameras are are obviously out there searching for the photographic equivalent of the autobahn.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Bill,
I think the print sizes you mentioned (13.33x20 at 300 and 16.66x25 at 240), for better or for worse, fall in the small to medium category today. I don't know which came first, high megapixels or large prints, but if you want to print large (I am speaking of prints commonly seen in galleries today not billboards), or have room to crop, then you are well served by the 40-50 megapixel and medium format digital cameras. Fortunately, I tend to print small (10x15) and crop little, so 24MP work s fine for me.
I think the print sizes you mentioned (13.33x20 at 300 and 16.66x25 at 240), for better or for worse, fall in the small to medium category today. I don't know which came first, high megapixels or large prints, but if you want to print large (I am speaking of prints commonly seen in galleries today not billboards), or have room to crop, then you are well served by the 40-50 megapixel and medium format digital cameras. Fortunately, I tend to print small (10x15) and crop little, so 24MP work s fine for me.
Axel
singleshooter
I see a ongoing failure in the description what megapixels mean in the photography in general.
Only the pictures for close viewing and showing lots of details benefit from the high resolution of xx megapixel sensors.
There is no relation between big prints and the amount of megapixels the original camera has had.
It is not necessary to use a manymegapixelcamera if someone wants to print
a big picture for showing it as a whole one.
Only the pictures for close viewing and showing lots of details benefit from the high resolution of xx megapixel sensors.
There is no relation between big prints and the amount of megapixels the original camera has had.
It is not necessary to use a manymegapixelcamera if someone wants to print
a big picture for showing it as a whole one.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I have lost any hair to split.
When I get a haircut, they charge me $15.00 just to find it!
Seriously, I really don’t think about such things as size or number or whatever on my camera. I had a wonderful associate photographer who, when asked, had to look to see what camera she was using. We used more than one camera at each gig. We were more concerned about what is in front of the camera.
The nameplate on a car or other qualities like horsepower, I’m not interested. However a well made and a car with a long trouble free life, that’s for me. I once owned a 1986 Toyota Corolla that was driven for 16 years and never had to go to the dealer or garage for repair. The last to use it was my son who drove it home one day and said, “Dad, the car still runs great but when I drive and there are puddles of water on the roads I travel, I get my pants wet!”
When I get a haircut, they charge me $15.00 just to find it!
Seriously, I really don’t think about such things as size or number or whatever on my camera. I had a wonderful associate photographer who, when asked, had to look to see what camera she was using. We used more than one camera at each gig. We were more concerned about what is in front of the camera.
The nameplate on a car or other qualities like horsepower, I’m not interested. However a well made and a car with a long trouble free life, that’s for me. I once owned a 1986 Toyota Corolla that was driven for 16 years and never had to go to the dealer or garage for repair. The last to use it was my son who drove it home one day and said, “Dad, the car still runs great but when I drive and there are puddles of water on the roads I travel, I get my pants wet!”
RichC
Well-known
More megapixels the better for me!
My current camera has 42 MP, my previous one was 36 MP. Both are too small and can barely print A1 size (about 33 in. wide) - larger, and print quality drops. Most of my exhibition prints are A2 to A1 size.
My ideal resolution would be about 80 MP, but I can’t afford a medium-format camera.
Viewing distance is a myth. Anyone who sees a large print will step back to take it in, then walk right up to a few inches. So, a print needs to pin sharp both near and far, regardless of its size.
Here’s a few of my prints in an exhibition printed A1 size.
My current camera has 42 MP, my previous one was 36 MP. Both are too small and can barely print A1 size (about 33 in. wide) - larger, and print quality drops. Most of my exhibition prints are A2 to A1 size.
My ideal resolution would be about 80 MP, but I can’t afford a medium-format camera.
Viewing distance is a myth. Anyone who sees a large print will step back to take it in, then walk right up to a few inches. So, a print needs to pin sharp both near and far, regardless of its size.
Here’s a few of my prints in an exhibition printed A1 size.
Attachments
Bill Pierce
Well-known
I think you are right when it comes to many gallery exhibitions of contemporary photographers. Earlier works, not so much. Often, when I look at giant prints I wonder if that picture would be as impressive if reduced in size to one of Edward Weston's contact prints. Recently I made a very big print of a picture of my dog. It really impressed everybody but my wife, who treasures her wall space, and my dog who doesn't really respond to two dimensional works. I lean towards agreeing with my wife and dog.
icebear
Veteran
I recently had a 1/2 frame crop of an image taken with my lowly 18mp MM printed 20x30 inch, that's effectively from a 9mp resolution file. Someone with more experience than me was scrutinizing the print up close searching for artifacts in the print and he couldn't find any.
If someone feels better about himself with more horsepower, more cylinders, wider tires and lower suspension ...or more mp's, knock yourself out. Be my guest.
The simple figure of mp's doesn't equal image quality, only the potential for it.
And yes, a boring image doesn't get better with higher resolution either.
If someone feels better about himself with more horsepower, more cylinders, wider tires and lower suspension ...or more mp's, knock yourself out. Be my guest.
The simple figure of mp's doesn't equal image quality, only the potential for it.
And yes, a boring image doesn't get better with higher resolution either.
Dogman
Veteran
One of the most memorable exhibitions I've seen was photography by Man Ray. Some of the prints were contact size--2x3 inches matted in 16x20 frames. And Edward Weston's 8x10 contact prints floored me. But Herman Leonard's photo of Dexter Gordon printed huge was very impressive although it was also impressive when printed on the LP cover.
My opinion obviously doesn't matter to gallery owners but the dominating size of huge prints become visually fatiguing after a short time.
My opinion obviously doesn't matter to gallery owners but the dominating size of huge prints become visually fatiguing after a short time.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
My daily ride for now is 15 years old, 100CAD back then Triumph, made in Canada bicycle. But some parts were replaced due to wear and damages. We have bike lanes and walking trails throughout of all town. We have Velodrome and people riding on bicycles on rural roads all year around. I think, it is luxury of living. And I'm glad to pay property taxes for it. I'm looking forward to keep going on it in winter as long as they not dumping salt like crazy (it is above 0 C and bellow -15 C )
For now, I ride it across ex-farmed fields turned into developing sides to take pictures of centuries old oaks before they are killed. I do it on one dudepower bicycle and it doesn't matter how many horsepower someone else has. They are not allowed to drive where.
Back then, one of our family vehicles in Moscow was Lada Niva. No horse power at all but constant 4WD.
Because of this it has no wheels spinning off the red light and it was going faster than special Merc editions which are more common in Moscow than Lada Niva.
If I'll get a chance, our next family vehicle is going to be 100% electrical, but not 120K$ Tezla.
In terms of photography, most organic low and to 1600 ISO I ever seen came from Canon 5D 12MP camera.
)For now, I ride it across ex-farmed fields turned into developing sides to take pictures of centuries old oaks before they are killed. I do it on one dudepower bicycle and it doesn't matter how many horsepower someone else has. They are not allowed to drive where.
Back then, one of our family vehicles in Moscow was Lada Niva. No horse power at all but constant 4WD.
Because of this it has no wheels spinning off the red light and it was going faster than special Merc editions which are more common in Moscow than Lada Niva.
If I'll get a chance, our next family vehicle is going to be 100% electrical, but not 120K$ Tezla.
In terms of photography, most organic low and to 1600 ISO I ever seen came from Canon 5D 12MP camera.
Dogman
Veteran
People do that with paintings too--step back and then inspect it closely. They look closely to see the brush strokes. Seems like these people might appreciate the pixel density of the photographic print from up close. Maybe not.