Do More Mega Pixels translate in a richer photo?

[privatebydesign]

I am very confused and would appreciate any thoughts:
Will the extra pixels of the new cameras make images look better - sharper/richer/subconsciously more impact full than 5d3 on my computer screen or a 2ft by 3ft print?
I think it should. The extra mp is not just for zooming in.
Your thoughts pls...

The short answer is yes.

No, the short answer is no as my two examples illustrate.

Now I hate when people talk all authoritative and won't show simple comparisons to back up their theories.

Lots of people will for example pretend that there is a "normal" viewing distance for a picture. There is not. Several factors decide if people will want to move in to pixel-peep a large print or stand at a distance. Including of course where its hanging just for starters.

Anybody that pretends there isn't a "'normal' viewing distance" doesn't understand DOF and CoC criteria. There is a commonly accepted viewing distance that is what all dof calculations are based on, now you can choose to work to your own more stringent numbers, that is up to you, but there is a 'normal'.

One thing people generally can agree to, is that the ability to downsize can help improve the image. Depending on the subject - for instance night shots - this could make some pictures visibly better - even at screen sized viewing. In the same way you could also see a visible difference on a 2x3 ft picture - again depending on the subject.

Now if you'd like to provide evidence that downsizing will improve an image over the same image shot with a lower pixel density sensor then please do. My testing seems to indicate that is not the case.

What can dramatically increase image quality, particularly night images, is averaging stacked exposures. That is a technique that can be used to all but eliminate random noise.

apart from this significant gains are for cropping and even larger prints.

Again, my examples seem to indicate otherwise. Would you like to show us examples?

 

[jeffa4444]

More MPs are principally about more resolution & finer detail the color imagery is not down to MP in isolation more to do with bit depth. A point many people miss when they talk about "only benefitting with a 4K or 8K monitor" is oversampling. A processed image that has been compressed will always benefit from higher resolution in the original.

 

[privatebydesign]

More MPs are principally about more resolution & finer detail the color imagery is not down to MP in isolation more to do with bit depth. A point many people miss when they talk about "only benefitting with a 4K or 8K monitor" is oversampling. A processed image that has been compressed will always benefit from higher resolution in the original.

And would you care to show any two same generation different pixel density images using the same lens that actually illustrate any meaningful difference?

Certainly my downsampled image comparison shows that the theory doesn't translate to any meaningful, or even visible, improvement.

 

[Aichbus]

I am pretty sure that the more megapixels will help a lot if you have to apply distortion / perspective correction or rotation to an image. If you can do that on a 50 Mpix image and downsize it to 22 Mpix, I am pretty sure you have a better image than if you have to do those corrections on the 22 Mpix image.

 

[Zeidora]

Haven't read all 5 pages, so forgive me if it has already been mentioned.

IQ is limited by the weakest link. That is the lens, assuming you shoot on tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release etc. If you compare a small crop sensor body with a large sensor body, but use a bad lens, you will not see any improvements, because the lens if limiting the potential of the large sensor with small pixels.

The important thing is also not MP count, but pixel size. So that limitation already applies on 20 MP crop sensor bodies that today have the same pixel dimensions as the 5dsr. There are very few lenses than can resolve those pixels. Look a bit more at the microscopy literature, particularly on "empty magnification", which is analogous to small pixels. Higher magnification/more pixels are not giving you more information, but only enlarged/detailed blur circles. Also check out Airy disks under optics. MF bodies with 50 MP backs have much lager pixels sizes, so have a distinct advantage in this respect. Both for resolution/sharpness, as well as tonality and shadow noise.
Bottom line: you want to take advantage of a 50 MP dSLR body, forget about zoom lenses. Some of the best prime glass money can buy may just about be sufficient.

The downsampling of a 50 MP to a 20 MP file and comparing it to a 20 MP capture most likely does give you a better image, as mentioned by another person. You can do rough image adjustments on the 50 MP file, and tonality gets much smoother on the 20 MP resize, even if you edit in 16 bit/channel.

my 389'900 cents

 

[privatebydesign]

Haven't read all 5 pages, so forgive me if it has already been mentioned.

IQ is limited by the weakest link. That is the lens, assuming you shoot on tripod, mirror lock-up, cable release etc. If you compare a small crop sensor body with a large sensor body, but use a bad lens, you will not see any improvements, because the lens if limiting the potential of the large sensor with small pixels.

The important thing is also not MP count, but pixel size. So that limitation already applies on 20 MP crop sensor bodies that today have the same pixel dimensions as the 5dsr. There are very few lenses than can resolve those pixels. Look a bit more at the microscopy literature, particularly on "empty magnification", which is analogous to small pixels. Higher magnification/more pixels are not giving you more information, but only enlarged/detailed blur circles. Also check out Airy disks under optics. MF bodies with 50 MP backs have much lager pixels sizes, so have a distinct advantage in this respect. Both for resolution/sharpness, as well as tonality and shadow noise.
Bottom line: you want to take advantage of a 50 MP dSLR body, forget about zoom lenses. Some of the best prime glass money can buy may just about be sufficient.

The downsampling of a 50 MP to a 20 MP file and comparing it to a 20 MP capture most likely does give you a better image, as mentioned by another person. You can do rough image adjustments on the 50 MP file, and tonality gets much smoother on the 20 MP resize, even if you edit in 16 bit/channel.

my 389'900 cents

I think you mistook cents for Tiyin.

Your opinions are demonstrably incorrect and had you taken the time to read the preceding 5 pages you would have read that.