Bill Pierce
Well-known
I wonder what size prints folks make from their digital camera files, mostly because some of the early cameras, with what by today's standards are low megapixel counts, make pretty impressive prints as long are the prints are small. My Digilux II does a pretty impressive 8x10 as does my Sigma DP2. Since Edward Weston did OK with 8x10 prints, I feel pretty good about these older cameras. Sometime I even make 11x14's.
There are a lot of differences outside of megapixels between cameras, but one of the most obvious differences is the large print size possible with cameras that produce large megapixel files. Even my tiny G10 with its 15Mg sensor produces prints on 17x22 inch paper that, if shot under the right condition, people can not tell from similar prints from more expensive cameras with much larger sensors.
In other words, if you don't make big prints, you don't need big megapixels. Sometimes if you have big megapixels, you don't need a big camera. So, how many megapixels is your main camera and what is the biggest print you routinely make? Any other thoughts on the megapixel race?
There are a lot of differences outside of megapixels between cameras, but one of the most obvious differences is the large print size possible with cameras that produce large megapixel files. Even my tiny G10 with its 15Mg sensor produces prints on 17x22 inch paper that, if shot under the right condition, people can not tell from similar prints from more expensive cameras with much larger sensors.
In other words, if you don't make big prints, you don't need big megapixels. Sometimes if you have big megapixels, you don't need a big camera. So, how many megapixels is your main camera and what is the biggest print you routinely make? Any other thoughts on the megapixel race?
Roberto V.
Le surrèalisme, c'est moi
My only digital camera is 6.3MP and I've made 16x20 prints from it. They look great as long as you don't look extremely close.
flip
良かったね！
I generally print 4x6 and sometimes up to 8x12. I think that the lens deficiencies are more obvious than the pixel deficiencies for most purposes. ( I imagine that gives some solace to those who shoot MF and LF. )
However, insofar as I have some decent glass, I would appreciate enough MPx to crop willy-nilly.
However, insofar as I have some decent glass, I would appreciate enough MPx to crop willy-nilly.
sper
Well-known
I have a 21mp 5D2 and at 100% it makes a 13x19 pretty evenly. Same goes for my old Coolscan V. That's pretty much perfect for me because I have a 13x19 printer.
I don't mind the resolution getting higher as long as things like latitude and color also improve. I think the question of 'enough' isn't relevant anymore because very few cameras don't have 'enough.' Really its more like how much are you and your future hard drives willing to deal with. My i7 iMac isn't exactly lightening quick with my 5D raws, and I'm quickly filling up a 1 terabyte RAID.
I think its ironic that marketing people were telling us 6mp was enough when I think it hardly is for anyone but consumers. And now we actually have enough and still we're going to get more, even if we don't need it or want it.
My dream 5D3 would be 20-25mps with ISO 6400 looking like the 5D2's ISO 1600, and far, far more latitude. However I suspect it will be closer to 30mps, and slightly better latitude.
I don't mind the resolution getting higher as long as things like latitude and color also improve. I think the question of 'enough' isn't relevant anymore because very few cameras don't have 'enough.' Really its more like how much are you and your future hard drives willing to deal with. My i7 iMac isn't exactly lightening quick with my 5D raws, and I'm quickly filling up a 1 terabyte RAID.
I think its ironic that marketing people were telling us 6mp was enough when I think it hardly is for anyone but consumers. And now we actually have enough and still we're going to get more, even if we don't need it or want it.
My dream 5D3 would be 20-25mps with ISO 6400 looking like the 5D2's ISO 1600, and far, far more latitude. However I suspect it will be closer to 30mps, and slightly better latitude.
Pablito
coco frío
I have made gorgeous exhibition prints with image size 16x24 from 6mp files shot with a D70. Used AlienSkin Blow Up software.
photogdave
Shops local
I've made really nice 13"x19" prints from the 5MP Panasonic LC1. Plenty of detail in eyelashes, hair etc. Only possible at ISO 100 from that camera though. Oh yeah, this was from out of camera JPEG too!
I'm going to try a 16"x24" from an LX5 JPEG soon. I bet it will look great.
I'm going to try a 16"x24" from an LX5 JPEG soon. I bet it will look great.
Gid
Well-known
Here is an old but interesting article
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting1.shtml
I once read an article that proposed that no more than 4MP were required for any print provided that the viewing distance was appropriate to the size of the print - you don't normally view a billboard poster from 2 inches with a loupe.
I have crops from a 5MP camera (Olympus E1) printed to 16 x 12 inches that have more than enough detail for my eyes - even close up.
I have seen many magazine double page spreads from the Nikon D2H (4MP) that had all the detail you could want.
I don't think that MP per se are the deciding factor - more sensor technology and the processing chain. However, its an emotive subject as much to do with "how big is your ...." as real world results.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting1.shtml
I once read an article that proposed that no more than 4MP were required for any print provided that the viewing distance was appropriate to the size of the print - you don't normally view a billboard poster from 2 inches with a loupe.
I have crops from a 5MP camera (Olympus E1) printed to 16 x 12 inches that have more than enough detail for my eyes - even close up.
I have seen many magazine double page spreads from the Nikon D2H (4MP) that had all the detail you could want.
I don't think that MP per se are the deciding factor - more sensor technology and the processing chain. However, its an emotive subject as much to do with "how big is your ...." as real world results.
sper
Well-known
I just don't particularly like having to up sample unless I'm making a REALLY big print.
V
varjag
Guest
I've been to several shows where people presented overblown shots from (common in the day) 6Mp DSLRs. Pretty pathetic quality, but for many people there is no difference really.
> Any other thoughts on the megapixel race?
The mega pixel race is all but over. One example:
Canon Powershot G7 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G9 - Effective Pixels Approx. 12.1 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G10 - Effective Pixels Approx. 14.7 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G11 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G12 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
The new race is high ISO performance and improved dynamic range, and its been going for a few years already.
The mega pixel race is all but over. One example:
Canon Powershot G7 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G9 - Effective Pixels Approx. 12.1 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G10 - Effective Pixels Approx. 14.7 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G11 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
Canon Powershot G12 - Effective Pixels Approx. 10.0 Megapixels
The new race is high ISO performance and improved dynamic range, and its been going for a few years already.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
I think that for more than 99% of all sensor-equipped imaging taking devices the all-determining factor is the quality / size of the LCD screen on the back-side... I see hardly anymore prints made / shown but most often slide-shows on LCD screens....
antipodiain
Newbie
I regularly print A2 size from a 10mp Canon G7 (Americans will have to look up what that is in inches, just as i have to convert to metric measures from their posts, but its BIG). I shoot only JPEGs and print the files more or less how they come out of the camera, usually with only minor modifications to brightness. At low ISO values the prints are extremely sharp, even when viewed close up. I realised some time ago that 10mp is enough for all reasonable purposes, the rest is marketing.
Matus
Well-known
This topic appears again and again. But here is my experience & opinion.
IF you want your print to have fine detail (not every subjects requires that) when viewed close (say around 20") you what those nice 300 or 360 points per inch of information. Contact prints on glossy paper yield up to 600 spi - you may need a weak loupe to see the fill detail.
With the exception of Sigma Foveon Chips all the rest uses Bayer interpolation what takes away some 30% of the information, so for truly detailed prints one may want to downsize the original digital file by about that amount and only then print what was left. So for an A4 print printed at 360 spi you need about 8 Mpix of this "pure" information. That makes it to about 10 - 12 Mpix of original image.
I can see this clearly with my elderly Minolta 7D - it takes 6 Mpix photos which when down sampled to some 4 Mpix look much better (and I use one of the best prime lenses, no issue there). A4 prints from the 7D are just OK, A3 prints where detail is needed lack quite strongly.
***
OK - the above was a bit extreme. In most cases a direct print from digital camera without downsizing will look perfectly fine. So you would need only 8 Mpix camera for nicely detailed A4 print or 16 Mpix for A3 print.
However I find that once the amount of information approaches some 15 - 25 Mpix (strongly subjective) - the resulting printed image observed from this close distance can not anymore be viewed "at once" - it simply became too large. Of course one may still come up close to enjoy the detail of some section of the image, but one can not do that for the whole image at the same time.
So at this large size - if the image is in the printing process "blew up" to large size - from a distance from which the user can still observe the whole image - the image will look perfectly sharp.
Extreme example - imagine you take a digital image with enough data to be printed at native 360 spi on the wall of your room - if you want to observe the whole image - you need to stand several meters from the image - at that distance the 360 spi resolution is not necessary anymore.
***
So - for me a camera with FX sensor that can deliver some 16 - 20 Mpix would be just fine. If I use a camera that can deliver more than that (6x6 or 4x5 film in my case) it is usually not to get more information, but different look and tones - in particular in BW.
IF you want your print to have fine detail (not every subjects requires that) when viewed close (say around 20") you what those nice 300 or 360 points per inch of information. Contact prints on glossy paper yield up to 600 spi - you may need a weak loupe to see the fill detail.
With the exception of Sigma Foveon Chips all the rest uses Bayer interpolation what takes away some 30% of the information, so for truly detailed prints one may want to downsize the original digital file by about that amount and only then print what was left. So for an A4 print printed at 360 spi you need about 8 Mpix of this "pure" information. That makes it to about 10 - 12 Mpix of original image.
I can see this clearly with my elderly Minolta 7D - it takes 6 Mpix photos which when down sampled to some 4 Mpix look much better (and I use one of the best prime lenses, no issue there). A4 prints from the 7D are just OK, A3 prints where detail is needed lack quite strongly.
***
OK - the above was a bit extreme. In most cases a direct print from digital camera without downsizing will look perfectly fine. So you would need only 8 Mpix camera for nicely detailed A4 print or 16 Mpix for A3 print.
However I find that once the amount of information approaches some 15 - 25 Mpix (strongly subjective) - the resulting printed image observed from this close distance can not anymore be viewed "at once" - it simply became too large. Of course one may still come up close to enjoy the detail of some section of the image, but one can not do that for the whole image at the same time.
So at this large size - if the image is in the printing process "blew up" to large size - from a distance from which the user can still observe the whole image - the image will look perfectly sharp.
Extreme example - imagine you take a digital image with enough data to be printed at native 360 spi on the wall of your room - if you want to observe the whole image - you need to stand several meters from the image - at that distance the 360 spi resolution is not necessary anymore.
***
So - for me a camera with FX sensor that can deliver some 16 - 20 Mpix would be just fine. If I use a camera that can deliver more than that (6x6 or 4x5 film in my case) it is usually not to get more information, but different look and tones - in particular in BW.
Steve_F
Well-known
I've made prints of A2 size (approx 22x16) using a Fuji S2 (6mp). The glass used is important too. I used my 80-200 2.8 Nikkor.
The shots were head & shoulder for a window display at a hair salon.
Shot in 'RAW' and processed carefully before being interpolated up to size in PS using 'Bi-cubic smoother'
Steve.
user237428934
User deletion pending
I must admit that I use my 5DII most of the time in sRAW mode reduced to 10MP. Processing time of the full 21MP is annoying, so I use them only when I know I want to crop (digital zoom when 50mm is the longest lens I have with me) or when I know I need it larger.
For my Canon Pro 9000 printer (A3+ Format) 10MP is enough.
The Canon powershot Gx is a good example that MP is not everything. They noticed that 15MP is too much for the small sensor and reduced it to increase quality.
For my Canon Pro 9000 printer (A3+ Format) 10MP is enough.
The Canon powershot Gx is a good example that MP is not everything. They noticed that 15MP is too much for the small sensor and reduced it to increase quality.
Matus
Well-known
I agree that the amount of information needed for given print size depends very much on the subject. I also did a few portrait sessions and one tight head shot I took with the 6 MPix DSLR was printed to about A2 on metal plate. And it looked quite nice - but the fine detail was not the point there. I would not do the same with a landscape shot though ...
And in early summer I should get to see a few shots I took during other portrait session taken with 5D MarkII printed up to 1.5 x 1.5 m ...
And in early summer I should get to see a few shots I took during other portrait session taken with 5D MarkII printed up to 1.5 x 1.5 m ...
Steve_F
Well-known
I agree fully. For items such as landscape or anything with very fine intricate detail, that requires fine rendition I would choose my RZ67 every time. That's only because I don't have LF. 
Steve.
Steve.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Yes. Few people seem to realize that the jump from 3 to 12Mp yields only a factor 2 in resolution. Those huge prints from my D70 never gave the impression that something was lacking. Sure, extra resolution is always welcome, but even for a rather advanced user anything more than 6Mp is really not necessary. But people do feel the need...
I'd rather have 6Mp with more dynamic range than 12Mp.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
For a given pixel size (i.e. not more and more on a tiny chip), it's a bit like 35mm, MF and LF: the more megapixels, the smoother the tonality, the detail, the microcontrast. I was astonished by the quality that Zeiss primes deliver on a 6 megapixel D70 -- but it is foolish to pretend that for all subjects you can get the same quality from 6 megapixels as from (say) 18.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.