The Megapixel Spectrum

[GaryLH]

A high mp count is useful if you want/need to crop .
Other than that not so much.
I use a 6mp camera and two higher mp Merrills (and a couple in between).

Like Krotenblender said ...both ends are ok for me.

Exactly.... For me 16mp is all I personally need. The only reason I would go to higher mp count, is mainly to leave a 24 or 40 for prime on the camera and crop. I have been able to get very usable 6-10mp cropped files from my 16mp cameras.

If I want detail, that is where the foveon sensor cameras come into play.

I would love to c Fuji come out w/ a 24 mp sensor and a 16f2 lens. I would leave it permanently attached to the camera and just crop as needed. I think the 16f1.4 is a bit too big.

As it is, I am currently very happy w/ the 12mp Panasonic lx100.

I know there are others that have a need for higher pixel count sensors.. 36 or better.

Gary

 

[Timmyjoe]

I could see having a high megapixel camera for a few things, but wouldn't want it for a regular shooter. The file sizes are just too big. My 16MP camera fills up camera cards and hard drives fast enough.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Bad Old Days

Bad Old Days

For under 8X10, 6 megapixels is fine, if you are chasing lens quality starting with 11 megapixels would be the minimum but 18 should be fine for the upper end.

I've collecting scanners and cameras from their commercial inception, here's one from an Apple Quicktake, many consider it the first, and sold for $900 in the day. It's 512K, and was good enough to get customers:

 

[Roger Hicks]

Now would be a good time to organize the Small Print movement. As in Polaroid sized prints. Give people a reason to move in close to the wall other than resolution-peeping of grandiosities.

Dear Robert,

My last exhibition was 36 postcard-sized prints, hung 3x12 (3 deep, 12 across).

In 2014 I saw a wonderful interview with the late Lucien Clergue who said that exhibiting big prints was essentially an American idea that he borrowed from one of his transatlantic chums. Few of us have room for them in our houses.

Cheers,

R.

 

[nongfuspring]

I would be happy with 24MP or even more so long as there is a small and a medium RAW setting. Frustratingly many cameras don't have this.

I'm the opposite to most here when it comes to printing. I don't do it often, but when I do it's generally A3 or larger.

 

[sevo]

From a manufacturer perspective it is pretty easy - they increase density because they can, and because it is more profitable. Turning out lower density sensors than possible grows expensive once you depart significantly from state-of-the-art densities, as all other areas of chip fabrication thrive on a perpetual increase of density.

From a photographer perspective, that does not leave much choice, regardless whether they can make use of the ever increasing MP count - the bottom end for APS-C and FF in a new camera now is 12MP. And that is increasingly rare, and will probably be raised to 24 for FF/16 for APS/MFT before the end of next year...

 

[robert blu]

My only digital camera is a fixed lens 24 on aps-c sensor with 12 MP and being a small size printer I'm happy with this. I would say 12 or 16 are more than ok for my use.

robert

PS: I must add I recently had opportunity to see an exhibition including good large prints, please note very good and very large from a LF camera and I was surprised how interesting they were. I guess the high MP count could deliver a similar experience, if the photographer is able enough to use the gear at the maximum of the possibilities...

 

[willie_901]

So, if I talked my local 3rd generation film developer/printer biz to sponsor a 2016 exhibit of international photographers making small prints, how many of you would send a print no larger than say 4x5 or 4x6 and no smaller than a negative (ha ha), plus $5-10 to cover matting costs appropriate to your specs and a thumbnail bio (of course)?

I realize I shouldn't volunteer Andrea without his complicity, but I could do something cool here, even if most of you never will get to Oregon, let alone Eugene.

I'm in.






this meets the antiquated requirement for extra characters

 

[Ronald M]

If storage is an issue, store all but working folders on an external. You should be doing it anyway.

Expert retouchers say it is easier to retouch large files.

I would say for high end well paid work and large prints commanded by clients, the more the better.

For me, 25 or 18 seems to be a sweet spot. Although I do love my 36 MP Nikons also.

As for camera manufactures strategy, a survey of PRO PHOTOGRAPHERS was taken some years back as to whether more pixels were needed or better high ISO quality.
It was established more MP was the favorite.

My D750 is pretty darn nice at 6400 and I use it that way regularly.

I might add a M to my M9 because it is better at high iso.

 

[krötenblender]

So, if I talked my local 3rd generation film developer/printer biz to sponsor a 2016 exhibit of international photographers making small prints, how many of you would send a print no larger than say 4x5 or 4x6 and no smaller than a negative (ha ha), plus $5-10 to cover matting costs appropriate to your specs and a thumbnail bio (of course)?

Film only or gazillion DigiPixels printed on small sensor sized paper also? - Either way, I would probably participate.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

As for camera manufactures strategy, a survey of PRO PHOTOGRAPHERS was taken some years back as to whether more pixels were needed or better high ISO quality.
It was established more MP was the favorite.

.

I would also second this. If you need to reduce noise you can downsample but if you need more details or a crop you can't squeeze from a low Mpx sensor what's not there in the first place. Now, of course, there are special needs and for people with these needs, say wildlife videophotographers, there exist special cameras (for example, I think starting from December they can drop some 30,000 US$ on the Canon ME20F-SH and get 2.2 Mpx but ISO 4,000,000).

GLF

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

My last digital camera was a 5DMkII. It was 'fine,' but i can't recall an instance where i had a film scan or raw digital file that i thought was too large.

I think most of us buy equipment based on potential. The potential of the imaging chain and the potential that it'll be used in an ideal circumstance to yield an ideal image. That we rarely, if ever, actually get there is sorta irrelevant, isn't it? I think we're in a state of paranoia that we won't be prepared in that situation.

I know i have a lot of images that could be improved by some technical means, either by equipment or by technique. I also feel that i buy equipment at a certain level so that i can't use that as an excuse when something fails, whether we're talking about photography or tennis or whatever.... But, the fact that i do fail only furthers my interest in 'better' equipment.

That all said, there's always a 'sweet spot' as it relates to cost and convenience. We could have all achieved sharper results with an 8x10 camera than with 35mm film. We can get sharper results with a medium format digital back than a Canon 5Ds. We do what we can with the more realistic setups.

I want either a 5Ds/r or a Sony A7IIr. I want 40+ MP. In five years, i'll likely want/expect 75 MP. It wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking, that 6MP was "good enough for a double-truck magazine spread." If you told a photographer he could be shooting with 24MP at that time, you'd likely have been laughed at. Where does it stop? Where ever computer processing and storage make the MP count unwieldy. Other than that, it's just storage space, and not much different than keeping binders of negatives you'll never print, just because you only get one 'keeper' on a roll. There's going to be 'waste' in the process. And, even though this type of waste is now really about how large you want to print, i want the ability to print large... at some point. 250MP seems nutty, but there are two things to consider: someone, somewhere will want and use it; and it's a demonstration of technical prowess by a manufacturer. Bugatti makes a car that'll do 200+ MPH, despite the fact that no one outside of TopGear will get it up to that speed.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

My last digital camera was a 5DMkII. It was 'fine,' but i can't recall an instance where i had a film scan or raw digital file that i thought was too large.

I think most of us buy equipment based on potential. The potential of the imaging chain and the potential that it'll be used in an ideal circumstance to yield an ideal image. That we rarely, if ever, actually get there is sorta irrelevant, isn't it? I think we're in a state of paranoia that we won't be prepared in that situation.

I know i have a lot of images that could be improved by some technical means, either by equipment or by technique. I also feel that i buy equipment at a certain level so that i can't use that as an excuse when something fails, whether we're talking about photography or tennis or whatever.... But, the fact that i do fail only furthers my interest in 'better' equipment.

That all said, there's always a 'sweet spot' as it relates to cost and convenience. We could have all achieved sharper results with an 8x10 camera than with 35mm film. We can get sharper results with a medium format digital back than a Canon 5Ds. We do what we can with the more realistic setups.

I want either a 5Ds/r or a Sony A7IIr. I want 40+ MP. In five years, i'll likely want/expect 75 MP. It wasn't that long ago, relatively speaking, that 6MP was "good enough for a double-truck magazine spread." If you told a photographer he could be shooting with 24MP at that time, you'd likely have been laughed at. Where does it stop? Where ever computer processing and storage make the MP count unwieldy. Other than that, it's just storage space, and not much different than keeping binders of negatives you'll never print, just because you only get one 'keeper' on a roll. There's going to be 'waste' in the process. And, even though this type of waste is now really about how large you want to print, i want the ability to print large... at some point. 250MP seems nutty, but there are two things to consider: someone, somewhere will want and use it; and it's a demonstration of technical prowess by a manufacturer. Bugatti makes a car that'll do 200+ MPH, despite the fact that no one outside of TopGear will get it up to that speed.

The hardest part is to get our heads around the idea that now cameras are disposable objects which in a few years become obsolete. I have still the romantic idea that I need to buy the ultimate camera which will be with me for decades and become to show brass and so on but that's an idea of the past. Even lenses become to show age faster than they used to, yesterday lens designed for a 12 Mpx sensor might not be so nice on a 50 Mpx sensor and the latest supersharp lens designed with the 50 Mpx sensor in mind might cause Moire on a 36 Mpx sensor without AA filter (the new 500mm from Nikon has been reported to do this).

GLF

GLF

 

[aizan]

I want 40+ MP. In five years, i'll likely want/expect 75 MP.

sure about that? 75mp makes a 24x36'' print at 300dpi, and 24'' printers take up a good chunk of space and cost $3-4k. not as much as a 44'' printer, but still...

 

[icebear]

18mp Monochrom is plenty good enough. I rarely nail the shots technically so well that I feel the camera gives me any limitations. So it's clearly my fault when something is technically not perfect and I am not gonna lug a round a tripod to change that. To max out the higher pixel count you can forget about any handheld shooting style, so why bother? Just to make the imperfection more visible at 100% view🙄

 

[uhoh7]

M9 is perfect MP count.

But I've been shamed on cropping. Shoot it right. Make a clean kill. Smile with satisfaction.

So far that's been good for me, since I was a born again Leica purist LOL

 

[tyrone.s]

Interesting question. I agree with the previously stated idea that just because I don't need it or use it doesn't mean that others won't. However I've found myself going with the micro four thirds system (e-p3, 12 mp) because it's good enough for me and small enough to carry everywhere with a couple of small primes. I shoot raw (fwtw) and those files are more than big enough for any print I'm likely to do.

Previously I used a Sigma DP1. Apparently that's 4.7 mega pixels in real terms. Largest print was A1, a landscape. Nobody's ever commented about the lack detail in that. Of course there could be more detail, but the photo works as a thing in itself.

 

[Roger Hicks]

From a manufacturer perspective it is pretty easy - they increase density because they can, and because it is more profitable. Turning out lower density sensors than possible grows expensive once you depart significantly from state-of-the-art densities, as all other areas of chip fabrication thrive on a perpetual increase of density.

From a photographer perspective, that does not leave much choice, regardless whether they can make use of the ever increasing MP count - the bottom end for APS-C and FF in a new camera now is 12MP. And that is increasingly rare, and will probably be raised to 24 for FF/16 for APS/MFT before the end of next year...

This must surely be the most convincing explanation so far.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mcfingon]

We are inclined to go for bigger numbers on specification sheets. I'd like an A7R2 and 90 Macro as I think that will make the best 35mm film scans.

 

[tyrone.s]

We are inclined to go for bigger numbers on specification sheets.

Very true. Men, length and numbers tell all. 🙄