A tongue-in-cheek missive to those who want a high MP 5D3 :)

[TexPhoto]

The more pixels vs. better pixels debate will be resolved in the same way as the epic "tastes great/less filling" debate of the 1980s was resolved: Violence.

[AprilForever]

Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be? What ought a person to expect out of one's camera? Honestly, a tripod, a broader aperture, and a little patience can make up for a whole lot of ISO...

And as far as DR is concerned, what do one really actually need 37 stops of DR for? What about ND grads? What about HDR? Why about exposure stacking and masking? Or fill flash and reflectors? Honestly, my 7D RAW files have piles of DR, when I expose to the right.

Print film ISO 50 has wild DR and low noise... could this work as a temporary stop-gap?

[Edwin Herdman]

Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be?

A lot more than I'm currently getting with the T1i!  At ISO 400, things often are bad enough for critical purposes.

If you want to be able to submit those pictures for stock or a portfolio, those 18 megapixels go a lot farther (for many uses) if they are cleaner.

[AprilForever]

Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be?

A lot more than I'm currently getting with the T1i!  At ISO 400, things often are bad enough for critical purposes.

If you want to be able to submit those pictures for stock or a portfolio, those 18 megapixels go a lot farther (for many uses) if they are cleaner.

So upgrade to a 7D... Or a 5DII... But what are you shooting? I've ne'er owned a T1i, but used to have an XSI... it was pretty bad at 1600, ok at 800, not too horrible at 400... Better lenses may also be a part of your solution...

[motorhead]

RayS2121,

I've just read your opening post. We have completely opposite views. I tend to think of the high ISO, massive fps and video users as the "bling brigade", "no clue but never let that stop us".

So its all in the eyes of the beholder. I want better cameras, better lenses, no anti-alliasing filters, far better DR etc, etc, etc. But I have absolutely no need for more than 1600 ISO or video. So I see more MP as simply a progression down the road to a better product.

I shall be very happy when the sensors hit 10x the current levels. By that time the arguments/discussions will have been firmly put to bed and we will be debating some other issue entirely.

[smirkypants]

There is such a thing as too many megapixels... there's no such thing as ISO performance that's too good.

[Bob Howland]

Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be? What ought a person to expect out of one's camera? Honestly, a tripod, a broader aperture, and a little patience can make up for a whole lot of ISO...

And as far as DR is concerned, what do one really actually need 37 stops of DR for? What about ND grads? What about HDR? Why about exposure stacking and masking? Or fill flash and reflectors? Honestly, my 7D RAW files have piles of DR, when I expose to the right.

Print film ISO 50 has wild DR and low noise... could this work as a temporary stop-gap?

I've been in situations where publication quality ISO 51200 would have permitted an exposure of 1/60 sec and f/2.8, allowing me to use a zoom lens instead of an f/1.4 prime lens. Using a tripod or flash was absolutely out of the question, due to the location.

Regarding DR, I'd settle for 18 stops, since that is apparently all the eye can see. And I use HDR routinely and productively when the situation permits, which is not as often as I'd like.

[Lawliet]

Not to hate, but from all I read, it seems people want ISO capabilities far beyond their wildest dream. How much high ISO ability does a person really need? How perfect do one's pixels really need to be? What ought a person to expect out of one's camera? Honestly, a tripod, a broader aperture, and a little patience can make up for a whole lot of ISO...

Remember those who want video (or just the movie lighting tools for stylistic reasons)?
To get decent shutter times&apertures - both are degrees of freedom that have artistic purpose, so they can't be changed for technical reasons, as a wider aperture won't give you sufficient DOF and a tripod won't stop motion - ISO 3200-6400 is really nice to have if you have to work within the confines of household electricity.
Now, to get that sensitivity without a nasty hit on image quality a few stops margin are prudent.

[motorhead]

Smirkypants,

Of course you are completely entitled to you opinion. I think its crazy, but then my photography is only a small niche of the enormous range of subjects.

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.   

[AprilForever]

Smirkypants,

Of course you are completely entitled to you opinion. I think its crazy, but then my photography is only a small niche of the enormous range of subjects.

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

Exactly.

[dtaylor]

We are at the threshold if not well beyond lens resolution with some of the current sensors and lens combinations.

Nope. There are plenty of lenses which can resolve more then the 7D's sensor can deliver. At FF size the 7D's pixel pitch would result in 45 MP images. And I would gladly pay for a FF body with a 45 MP sensor that had the noise characteristics of the 7D. IQ at low ISO would be comparable to the 645D, and it would still be usable at ISO 3200 and 6400.

You're the guy bragging about the V8 in his car, talking trash about anyone with a V6 and claiming that they just can't squeeze the same power out of a V6, about to get his rear handed to him by a V6 with twin turbos.

[UncleFester]

I would expect more megapixels is going to challenge the skill of the user.

[bycostello]

for me the more mega pixals the more spare i have...  means i don't need that longer lens as i can crop the image and still have a print quality file...

[neuroanatomist]

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult... 

[dtaylor]

But I completely and totally reject the argument that its possible to ever have a sensor with too many megapixels. Yes, extreme MP counts create problems for the scientists and designers to overcome and I'm confident that they will overcome them.

When those 'problems' involve basic principles of physics, like diffraction, overcoming them may prove difficult...

Yes, diffraction imposes an upper limit on pixel density. No, we are not there yet, and a 35-45 MP FF sensor would yield benefits in fine detail and maximum print size.