Is 22Mpx Really Enough?!!!

[marktomaras]

Well. The answers have covered the topic, but I will add my two cents as well!  And I will end with a new question, so please help me out by lending your thoughts.

First, for point of reference, I am a photographer, I use a powershot s95, a 5D mark III, Leica M9, a hasselblad V system with film and 50mp digital back, and a 4x5 film camera, with an Imacon 949 scanner. So from point and shoot, all the way to just about the best scanner money can buy, I have played with and used them all.

Pixels and resolution are not only about enlarging to huge sizes, though that is an issue.  Print a series of 40x60 images, and you'll feel that you'd prefer to have more than 22mp.  I am working on a print that large at the moment, I shot it with a canon 1Ds mkIII and I have no choice but to upres it.  When you look closely at it, it looks like it has been up-resed. Step back 5-10 feet, it looks good.

Pixels are not the only thing that give resolution. Lens quality and technique are huge in this regard.  I can tell a massive difference in a 8x10 print from my canon 5d3 compared to the same size print from a scan from my 4x5. 
The detail visible in that print is dense and rich, looks like a different medium.

The same is true for Adams' prints.  I went to a gallery in California and saw Adams prints, large and small, and was super impressed by the detail.  He was a master.

I was just shooting a landscape project this week with my hasselblad.  To maximize resolution, I used a tripod and cable release of course, but even used the  mirror lockup switch, and then let my camera sit untouched on the tripod before I carefully pressed the release by cable, even when  the shutter speed was not slow.  An absolutely still camera greatly increases resolution.

So, is 22mp enough? Yes, absolutely, for normal use, and even a normal to large range of printing.  Now that you have 22mp, focus on getting the best out of the pixels.  Use good lenses, use good technique.

But! Here is the question that I have been wrestling with:  is more than 22 or 24 mp too much for a 35mm sensor?  Canon is probably developing a 39 or 50 mp camera, presumably with a 35mm sized sensor.  The size of the pixels (pixel pitch) is very important.  I think my hasselblad's 50mp are the same size individually as my Canon's 22.  So that means, roughly speaking, if canon goes to 39 or 50 mp, the pixels will be many times smaller.  This would make low light/noise performance suffer I think.  But maybe it will cause other issues as well.  Or will it? Perhaps the developers have some new tricks up their sleeves.

Until now, I thhought 20-25mp is perfect for 35mm format.  Any more and quality suffers.  But maybe that sweet spot for packing pixels on the chip, with about 6 micron sized pixels, is not the plateau I expected it to be.  Can a 50mp canon be good?  Will it be as good as my hasselblad? Better?

[MarkII]

I think that it is worth remembering that the 22MP number is slightly misleading. The Bayer colour filter array and matching anti-aliasing filter mean that the useful colour resolution is around 6MP, with the difference made up by software interpolation when converting from RAW.

Moving to a higher resolution with in-camera downscaling (or a Foveon-like design) would allow you to keep the same 22MP output but with much better pixel level sharpness and colour, while still not stressing the lenses resolving power any more.

22mp is lots for me.  My 2008 iMac, with 4gb ram, would agree too.  If I browse a folder that contains 300 or more RAW files with DPP, I get an insufficient memory error.

I think that is probably DPP wierdness. I am using a similar vintage Apple laptop and routinely process much larger folders of 5DII/III images without problem (Lightroom). It is still usable even with very large (300MB TIFF) panoramas processed using PS.

[Northstar]

So ... my question is ... is our current DSLR technology still coming a long way behind, in the eyes of the Grant Masters? Or ... if you are a Grant Master, will you be happy with 22Mpx or even with the Hasselblad H4D-200MS of 200Mpx, if you are leaving a legacy of works behind? 

Just an FYI canonfanboy, the term is Grand Master, not Grant. 

Interesting topic, it will be fun to see how these dslr's evolve over the next decade.  I'm sure  canon has a larger than 35mm sensor "in the works" and 10 years from now 100mp cameras will be common.

[Menace]

Just had an A1 size canvas delivered this morning from a recent wedding shot using 5dIII and 70-200 2.8 II - all I can say is that 22mp is more than enough for me needs 

[Hector1970]

This is what I like about Canon Rumors. You people out there have so much knowledge and if someone says something technically incorrect it can corrected immediately.
My personal experience is moving from 15MP up to 22MP.
Initially I thought I wasn't seeing much difference in resolution and was wondering was it all an illusion that higher MP was better. What I am learning as time go by is that full frame can give certain really nice aspects to the photo like in terms of depth of field. I can't recreate it on the APS-C sensor. When I go back and forth between the two cameras I start to notice the subtly better resolution.
I may be like alot of people in that you are always looking for more resolution, hoping the small guy way in the distance could actually be zoomed into and be recognised. You hope that a higher MP camera would provide you with this. There is possibly a diminishing return element in so as far as how good can it get.
File size is an issue with 22MP. Unless you upgrade your PC everything slows down. The uploading to PC, the processing and saving all takes longer. Storage becomes a more serious issue. 1 or 2TB Hard drives don't seem to big any more. In fairness to Nikon the D800 seems to be quite impressive but I think I would start to find that file size a little troublesome to deal with. You'd have to upgrade your PC and storage with it.
When the Canon 5d Mark IV comes out and its 48MP will I be tempted. No doubt the dream of greater resolution will tempt me but I will have to consider all the surrounding costs as well.
Master the 5D Mark III first I guess and see can I reach it's limits (like I did with the 500D/Rebel (something something)  - which is still a great camera) .
Keep up these great conversations. You lose me at times with the details technical specs of sensors and lens but it's very interesting
Kind Regards
Fergal

If you are bored you can skim through my Flickr Page. It's not brilliant but I think I am improving slightly
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/

[Fishnose]

But! Here is the question that I have been wrestling with:  is more than 22 or 24 mp too much for a 35mm sensor?  Canon is probably developing a 39 or 50 mp camera, presumably with a 35mm sized sensor.  The size of the pixels (pixel pitch) is very important.  I think my hasselblad's 50mp are the same size individually as my Canon's 22.  So that means, roughly speaking, if canon goes to 39 or 50 mp, the pixels will be many times smaller.  This would make low light/noise performance suffer I think.  But maybe it will cause other issues as well.  Or will it? Perhaps the developers have some new tricks up their sleeves.

Until now, I thhought 20-25mp is perfect for 35mm format.  Any more and quality suffers.  But maybe that sweet spot for packing pixels on the chip, with about 6 micron sized pixels, is not the plateau I expected it to be.  Can a 50mp canon be good?  Will it be as good as my hasselblad? Better?

The short answer is: look at the incredible results from a D800 (or even better, a D800E) with a really good lens in front. The results are quite fantastic. So 36Mp is not at all too many in 35mm.
Considering the fact that the D800 is the first ever 35mm to go over 24Mp, and does it so well, just think what the future holds....

Here's a comparison from DxO - sensor results. Just the sensor. But this is what you were discussing.
Lenses is another issue.

[itsnotmeyouknow]

I think people get so obsessed with technology that they often forget another word starting with tech - technique.  It's not just about sharpness.  There is so much more to it than that.  I have been at exhibitions of the main photographer for Mohammad Ali and an exhibition of Cartier-Bresson's work in Seoul.  Sharpness is not the most important thing in either of their work.  Capturing the moment through technique is.

[gmrza]

Until now, I thhought 20-25mp is perfect for 35mm format.  Any more and quality suffers.  But maybe that sweet spot for packing pixels on the chip, with about 6 micron sized pixels, is not the plateau I expected it to be.  Can a 50mp canon be good?  Will it be as good as my hasselblad? Better?

I think we are getting into the territory of diminishing gains.  As you increase sensor resolution, you need glass that can cope with the sensor.  At the same time, you become more and more limited by diffraction.  There will be a point where there is no alternative but to go to medium format if you want better quality.

How many MP is enough?  That is a question for each individual photographer, based on their needs.  There are a lot of times people shoot in the lower resolutions offered by cameras (SRAW/MRAW etc.) - because the resolution is enough for the use case at hand. - If you only need a 11x14 print, 10MP is enough.  If you are only shooting for the web, even less will do.

Provided you can get lenses that can handle the resolution at a reasonable price, 50MP may be reasonable.  (The pixel density of the 7D is roughly equivalent to 46MP on full frame.)  A 35mm lens that can cope with that kind of resolution is still much cheaper than an equivalent quality lens for a medium format system.  However, your diffraction-limited aperture is going to be getting down to somewhere in the region of f/6.3, I suspect.  That raises the question of how much headroom you have until diffraction kills the benefit of any more MP?

[Ryan708]

The SoNikon Or Nikony sensor is great indeed. But Dxo's scoring is rubbish. Not saying the haselblad isnt worse. But the d800 sensore does NOT have 14.3 shops of dynamic range. An absolute 100% efficient 14 bit system can only get a max of 14 stops DR. Dxo obviously has a flawed testing method.

[tron]

Well a few year ago when 1Ds was introduced 11Mpixes seemed enormous. The same later when the 16Mpix 1DsII and the 21Mpix 1DsIII. The pros always chose these cameras and many of them produced superb work! Now that a higher Mpix camera was introduced it just raised the "standard". They just forget how good a job was being done by these "old" pro cameras. Now when someone introduces a 45Mpix camera they will feel that 36Mpix is not adequate. It is ... a little ... ridiculous!

[RLPhoto]

Please don't beat the DR dead horse again because according to DXO, the d800 is superior to all MF backs. Which is a ridiculous claim.

35mm will never ever resolve more detail than a larger format. That's why LF and MF still exist today.

There is no replacement for displacement. 

[dtaylor]

If one converts a 8x10 film with a modern scanner ... say with 4000dpi ... a single 8x10 film will look like (4000 ppi)(8 in)(4000 ppi)(10 in) = 1280 Mpixels or 1.28Gb !!!!

Ahhh...no. Medium format digital backs were arguably a match for 4x5 at around 40 MP, and definitely by 80 MP.

Still...that's more than 22 MP. (Though part of the IQ comes from the larger format.)

There aren't very many artist / subject / print size combinations which call for 4x5, 8x10, or high resolution MF digital. The difference is obvious when you have a combination which calls for it. But it's rare.

[Caps18]

I like the gigapan system and the photos it produces, and it is hundreds or thousands of equivalent megapixels.

21MP has been enough for my photos, but it isn't to say that a few of them could have been better with twice the resolution (if all the pixels were good and not noisy).  I ran into that problem with my small point&shoot camera.  They jammed so many low quality pixels on the sensor, that it started to get blurry when you zoomed in and pixel-peep.

[Ellen Schmidtee]

I think I probably heard a thousand times in our forum ... "22Mpx is more than enough ... how much more do you need?" ... Whenever this question pop-up at me, I always wonder ... if there is ever a living Ansel Adam or Richard Avedon hearing this .... what will be their responds?

The average photographer isn't exactly Ansel Adams or Richard Avedon, neither in technical needs nor talent. Some are, but the rest don't need as much, e.g. in terms of mpx.

[pdirestajr]

I think it is silly comparing 35mm cameras to medium format and large format.

They are different tools for different types of photography. I always thought 35mm was for photojournalism, events, etc. It was never intended to be used for billboard sized prints or massive works of fine art. Isn't the "smaller format" the whole point? Portability, hand-holdable, faster focus, faster shutter-speeds, etc. is the trade-off to a smaller image.

If it isn't enough, get a different tool.