Do More Mega Pixels translate in a richer photo?

[sanj]

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...

 

[sunnyVan]

I'd tell you that better post processing skill would give you very noticeable improvements. Much more so than a higher megapixel camera

 

[Halfrack]

Yes, in a few different ways:

-Higher MP allows you to crop in a lot more - turn what would have been a much smaller image, into one with more detail

-Higher MP also allows you to print larger at equal dpi - at 300 pixels per inch, you get ~ 2x the size

-Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If someone show arguments proving that I'm wrong, I'll swallow my words, :-X but ...

Whereas the only variable is the amount of megapixel who jumped from 22 to 50, will not see any improvement on a computer screen without expand the viewing.
The additional resolution would NOT be noticeably in a 4K computer monitor. Only a 8K monitor would show a more sharp image in a 50 megapixel photo, or printing on paper larger than 1 meter.

Obviously, the new Canon 5DS / 5DSr may further improvements in color filter, bit depth, dynamic range, etc.

 

[K]

More megapixels can provide more detail. "Can" is conditional of course, because that depends on the lens, technique and of course the quality of the sensor. More megapixels isn't necessarily better. Usually is, but that is also because the increase in megapixels came along with other advancements in technology.

Detail is all you get.

Sharper? No. Sharp has to do with technique. A 1 megapixel image can be just as sharp as a 50mp. It will have less detail is all.

Richer? No. Rich, bold, dynamic images - the ones you often see pros produce, are a result of excellent technique. This involves mastery of LIGHTING, the single most important factor. After that, post-processing skills and methods. Good glass is important. Camera body is probably 3rd-4th in the hierarchy of IQ importance.

Sensors love light. It isn't the quantity of light, it is the quality of light once an adequate quantity has been reached. Starve a sensor of light... and detail, vividness, contrast, and all other factors which makes the image quality pop with brilliance just goes away.

Fact is, there is a world of world-class photos out there, all done with older generations of DSLR.

 

[Skulker]

Yes, in a few different ways:

-Higher MP allows you to crop in a lot more - turn what would have been a much smaller image, into one with more detail

-Higher MP also allows you to print larger at equal dpi - at 300 pixels per inch, you get ~ 2x the size

-Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing

I'll be interested to see if there is any real improvement.


But your first point is exactly what the OP did not want to consider.


Oh and so is your second point.


Your third point is news to me I hadn't realized that the chip size was larger than FF. Well you live and learn.


There will be a lot of people trying to prove that they know if there will be any real improvement. I won't be listening to them. I will look at the images and make my own mind up.

 

[ajperk]

Yes, in a few different ways:

-Higher MP allows you to crop in a lot more - turn what would have been a much smaller image, into one with more detail

-Higher MP also allows you to print larger at equal dpi - at 300 pixels per inch, you get ~ 2x the size

-Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing

I'll be interested to see if there is any real improvement.


But your first point is exactly what the OP did not want to consider.


Oh and so is your second point.


Your third point is news to me I hadn't realized that the chip size was larger than FF. Well you live and learn.


There will be a lot of people trying to prove that they know if there will be any real improvement. I won't be listening to them. I will look at the images and make my own mind up.

From the specs that were announced, I think the sensor size is the same as all normal Canon full frame CMOS sensors.

The comment may be in regards to digital medium format sensors. I think much of the advantage in image quality in medium format comes from the fact that as you are using a larger imaging surface, for the same framing of photo, the details themselves that are projected on the sensor are larger. This takes some of the pressure off of lens resolving capability. If you make as well resolving a lens for a medium format as for a 35mm format sensor (obviously taking into account the need for a larger image circle) then the medium format image will look more detailed.

Of course, I don't own or shoot medium format, so perhaps I am overlooking something.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

-Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing

I understand that you referred to the 50 megapixel medium format cameras, compared to full frame 50 megapixel Canon in 5DS 5DSr.

 

[9VIII]

I actually think that my 4MP computer screen is about halfway from giving the full detail in a 14MP image (produced by the T3/1100D).
My guess is that you only need half the screen resolution to effectively see everything in an image due to the Bayer filter and AA filter (for now I'm just going to pretend that all sensors have one).
So viewing those pictures on a 4K monitor (8MP) should be as good as looking at a high quality full resolution print.
Once we have 5K monitors your 5D3 isn't even going to fully saturate the image a PC is capable of out -putting.
Right now I can't tell the difference between a T3 image and 5D2 image when both are fit to screen, but the sad reality is still that we need to massively oversample images to get the same quality per pixel seen in other formats.
Once 8K hits the market even the 5Ds is only going to be barely good enough.

On a full resolution print it should absolutely make a difference, I just need to print something before I can say for sure.

 

[chauncey]

My response is completely based on an apples to apples comparison...same photographer, same glass,
same generation camera body, same post processing, same everything excepting...difference in MP.

If you take that 50 MP image and, for whatever reason, downsize it to a 22 MP size...you will have a
better IQ image than you would have had taking that same image with a 22 MP body.

Note that I did not use the term crop, but said...downsize.

 

[canonistic]

I had one of the original canon 1d cameras. The 1d mark 2 was just released. I HAD to have one. Think of the improvement from 4 megapixels to 8. I ordered one and did this little test:
(I shoot baseball).
I stood behind home plate with a 400mm f2.8 lens and shot the pitcher warming up with the original 1d
Then I switched bodies to the mark 2.
Shot the same pitcher from the same spot.

I could not wait to see the images. Imagine the increased detail! Everything would be twice as good!

When I got home, I opened both images in two different windows and zoomed in on the pitchers belt buckle.
And looked and looked. Side by side.
While you would pick the mark 2 as better, you had to REALLY study them to see any difference at all.
It was extremely close. BARELY different.
I wound up returning the camera.
If I couldn't see any difference with a casual glance, it wasn't much of an improvement.

 

[TexPhoto]

On a 24x36" print? Why not try it? You don't have to make 2 24x36 prints. You can take your 5DIII image, make it 24x36 in photoshop, then crop a 4x6" piece out, and print that. Not do the same for a 5Ds pic. TO have the same pic, maybe go to a camera story and ask if you can take a pic with your lens/memory card... Or get a sample pic off the wen, maybe one of those still life type photos, and make your own similar still life...

I think the difference will be insignificant. I think your money is better spend on lenses, flash or maybe a 7DII if you are well stocked in the lens dept.

I am not going to tell you lenses have megapixels. (those people are crazy), but as we go from 4 to 6 to 22 to 50MP, we are getting diminishing returns because the lenses are only so sharp. Same thing for teleconverters. They made a ton of sense when we had low MP cameras, but now, how much more detail is there to get?

 

[Halfrack]

-Higher MP in the 33x44mm chip size is actually more helpful, due to the pixel sites being larger than they are in a 35mm FF 24x36mm - bigger pixel sites can equal better light capturing

I understand that you referred to the 50 megapixel medium format cameras, compared to full frame 50 megapixel Canon in 5DS 5DSr.

Yes, but 33x44 is the crop version of medium format (like the 40mp microlensed Kodak chip, etc) most the Dalsa/Kodak stuff is 36x48.

As for the 24"x36" prints, the 50MP will have a much better output, as you're translating ~272 pixels to 1 inch of paper, so close to the 300dpi that your eye can see. I've had folks pull out a loop and flashlight to peak, the files really hold up well.

I'm in line to rent the 5DsR once it's out, and will compare it to the Pentax 645Z ad the Hasselblad H4D-50. It's one of those where depending on the situation, each has their strengths. E-TTL should be huge, with the B1's and such

 

[sanj]

Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large?

Thank you ALL for your insights.

 

[JClark]

Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large?

Thank you ALL for your insights.

It's a hard question to answer because it's hard to isolate the megapixels. I shoot a 1dx as well as an a7r and a couple of Phase one backs, and while I feel that the higher mp solutions are superior in terms of iq, I can't tell you how much of the cause is the sensor vs the lens vs the pixel size etc. I can say, with certainty, that the ultimate quality in the MF system is superior, but I certainly look forward to the canon 50 mp sensor so i can eliminate another variable

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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...

It is possible, but it depends on a lot of things. Testers such as DPR find it difficult to get all the increased resolution offered by the sensor without VERY careful technique. A very heavy and stable tripod with a good head on a stable surface after a lot of learning.

The image will not be worse, but it may not be better if you are not getting the most out of your existing sensor, and many do not. I think we will see some extremely good images from careful photographers, and will hear a lot of complaints from those who go out and buy one, but have the wrong expectations.

I bought a D800 and found the same thing. I could get pixel sharp resolution only under limited circumstances, bright lighting, fast shutter speed, and a static subject. As long as I was careful to stick to the right usage, images were great, but not noticeably better than my 1D MK IV if a image was printed at 16 X 20. The ability to crop depends on getting very sharp images, and did not work for me in low light where the per pixel noise was high.

 

[leGreve]

The increased MP will increase perceived sharpness.... The image will appear sharper, but in the end the limiting factor on sharpness is quality of glass. A 28-70 will look horrible compared to a 24-70 II regardless of sensor.
As posted by CR ealier Canon had stated that all lensed after 70-200 2.8L II are optimized for those sensors. So with those you should get good results.

As for richness.... It doesnt only come with lighting. Ive always found Canon dslrs to be a bit on the weak side. Personally I would settle for less pixel and then 2 more stops of dynamic range.

We have old PhaseOne backs in our studio mounted on Hasselblad bodies that has better DR than our 5D III and 6D. Of course they have other drawbacks such as low iso range and a need to be tethered. But for studio use they are quite optimal...

So, Canon have yet to build a dslr that suits all needs and will probably never do so because of the need to make money rather than making the perfect camera.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large?

Those people who used 1DS Mark iii, and also 5D Mark ii, both supposedly identical sensor, say the color and sharpness are better at 1DS Mark iii. However, at high ISO 5D Mark ii had advantage.

It is possible that the new 5DS / 5DSr are optimized for color depth, dynamic range, and sharpness. This would give better images, even if you print in small sizes. If no such optimization, the advantages would be perceived only when printing very large sizes or when crop images.

 

[sanj]

Yes of course technique, lighting etc are most important. But I am taking about everything else being equal, will doubling the MP create better IQ pictures? If it does not then Canon made these new cameras to basically print large?

Those people who used 1DS Mark iii, and also 5D Mark ii, both supposedly identical sensor, say the color and sharpness are better at 1DS Mark iii. However, at high ISO 5D Mark iii had advantage.

It is possible that the new 5DS / 5DSr are optimized for color depth, dynamic range, and sharpness. This would give better images, even if you print in small sizes. If no such optimization, the advantages would be perceived only when printing very large sizes or when crop images.

There seems to be no indication of that. But I hope!

 

[sanj]

I had one of the original canon 1d cameras. The 1d mark 2 was just released. I HAD to have one. Think of the improvement from 4 megapixels to 8. I ordered one and did this little test:
(I shoot baseball).
I stood behind home plate with a 400mm f2.8 lens and shot the pitcher warming up with the original 1d
Then I switched bodies to the mark 2.
Shot the same pitcher from the same spot.

I could not wait to see the images. Imagine the increased detail! Everything would be twice as good!

When I got home, I opened both images in two different windows and zoomed in on the pitchers belt buckle.
And looked and looked. Side by side.
While you would pick the mark 2 as better, you had to REALLY study them to see any difference at all.
It was extremely close. BARELY different.
I wound up returning the camera.
If I couldn't see any difference with a casual glance, it wasn't much of an improvement.

You write with passion…
Am hoping the comparison between 21 mp and 50 mp will be clear on a casual glance. But lets see...