POLL: How many mp do you want anyway?

If given the choice, I'd like...

  • Total voters
    295
  • Poll closed .
Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
SDFilmFan said:
The biggest printer I use (at my local Costco) is 12" by 18" at 300 ppi, for a native 19.4 MP. So, theoretically my 5D3 is already overkill, and my SL1 is almost there. But that assumes no cropping. If I want to cut just 20% off of width and height, I'd need 30.4 MP to avoid interpolating. More than that if I want to run and gun and shoot wide and recompose in post to move the central focus point to a rule-of-thirds node.

That said, I've printed pics from my old 10-MP XTi on that same printer and think they look pretty good despite the enlargement.

What I'm more interested in than more resolution is better low-light quality. A 50 MP camera only good to ISO 6400 doesn't really interest me. A 30-ish MP camera at least as good as my 5D3 in low light, with some of the focus improvements (and the anti-flicker) of the 7D2 might tempt me. Likewise, a FF camera the size and weight of my SL1 would be appealing.
Click to expand...

No you wouldn't, with today's printers and their dithering and rasterizing algorithms 300dpi is complete overkill, besides, I don't believe there is a printer with a native 300dpi so all your data is dithered anyway.

Do a test, take a test image and then get it printed at 320dpi, down sample to 300dpi, do the same at 240dpi then see for yourself. Most people can't see a difference until around 200dpi.
 
Upvote 0
#63
cervantes said:
Doesn't actually matter - but it must be more than that nikon guy has.
Click to expand...

Oh no - the evil Sonikon empire is rumored to go for *54*mp :-p

Hillsilly said:
I'm still toting a 12mp X100 and a 16mp 1Ds MkII. Never thought there was anything wrong with them...until now. Is this what they call pixel envy?
Click to expand...

You'd better get envious, or how else will Canon continue to sell bodies f their Rebel wouldn't fall apart anymore and people long-lasting 1d cameras would either being kept in use or sold to the next one not buying a new camera :-)

SDFilmFan said:
That said, I've printed pics from my old 10-MP XTi on that same printer and think they look pretty good despite the enlargement.
Click to expand...

Stuff the facts, it's really about "more is better", esp. for online stock photography.*If* you think about actual benefits beyond the few that actually *require* more resolution for print/sale, what I'd like to have 50mp+ for is...
... changing aspect ratio from one source raw
... raw "crop mode" essentially obsoleting a 2nd "crop" camera for "reach" or "macro magnification"
... (anything I've missed?)
 
Upvote 0
#67
RVB said:
Eldar said:
I am looking forward to see what the Zeiss primes can deliver on a 50MP sensor ...
Click to expand...

The Otus lenses will deliver all 50mp,and I suspect the Sigma Art series will do pretty well.
Click to expand...
Regarding the Otus lenses, I don't think so. The 135mm (which is not an Otus) probably will, but the 55 and 85 are slightly softer in the corners. Of course they will be better than most lenses but will probably not deliver full 50MP worth of detail. IMO the two lenses capable of extracting all the detail of a 50MP sensor are the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM II and the Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/2. We'll have to wait and see.
 
Upvote 0
#68
Meh, I'm used to being in a minority. I see more megapixels as being akin to greater focal length for what I do. Both offer diminishing returns, but those returns can still be worth the trade up. I shoot at 1000mm a lot of the time and still have to crop pretty agressively when the bird is small and I can't get any closer. While I continue to work on my fieldcraft to address the latter point where possible (often it's not), I'll take any technological help, and more pixels is one such. When I don't have to crop, I'll just go for the smaller image size.

As for 'I don't want more pixels, I want better pixels' or 'I want cleaner high ISO rather than more pixels' etc - are these actually based on fact? I've read so many differing opinions on the subject I don't know what to believe. Some say more pixels offers no disadvantage (in image quality, rather than processing speed/fps) because you can always shrink the image and lose the noise/gain sharpness. Others say bigger pixels provide better quality. I'd love a definitive answer on that one (both extremes seem implausible - a one pixel sensor or an infinitely-divided sensor offering the best theoretical 'quality').
 
Upvote 0
#69
scyrene said:
Some say more pixels offers no disadvantage (in image quality, rather than processing speed/fps) because you can always shrink the image and lose the noise/gain sharpness. Others say bigger pixels provide better quality. I'd love a definitive answer on that one (both extremes seem implausible - a one pixel sensor or an infinitely-divided sensor offering the best theoretical 'quality').
Click to expand...

I don't know if there are any scientific comparisons on this, but from my personal 60d & 6d experience I can tell you that the "noise" is only part of the equation. You can indeed downscale to "reduce" noise, so more mp don't necessarily hurt except for the larger raw file size...

... BUT color fidelity and postprocessing elasticity are much, much better with "bigger" pixels; dynamic range seems to be somewhat tied, too. This are all "hidden" sensor specs you cannot improve upon by downscaling, and I admit I didn't imagine how big this effect is until I got my 6d.

As I usually do a lot of postprocessing (esp. color channel operations, look at the gradients afterwards), I've definitely become a follower of the "big pixel" religion - no matter if it's actually the size of the pixels or whatnot causes these effects.
 
Upvote 0
#71
Marsu42 said:
scyrene said:
Some say more pixels offers no disadvantage (in image quality, rather than processing speed/fps) because you can always shrink the image and lose the noise/gain sharpness. Others say bigger pixels provide better quality. I'd love a definitive answer on that one (both extremes seem implausible - a one pixel sensor or an infinitely-divided sensor offering the best theoretical 'quality').
Click to expand...

I don't know if there are any scientific comparisons on this, but from my personal 60d & 6d experience I can tell you that the "noise" is only part of the equation. You can indeed downscale to "reduce" noise, so more mp don't necessarily hurt except for the larger raw file size...

... BUT color fidelity and postprocessing elasticity are much, much better with "bigger" pixels; dynamic range seems to be somewhat tied, too. This are all "hidden" sensor specs you cannot improve upon by downscaling, and I admit I didn't imagine how big this effect is until I got my 6d.

As I usually do a lot of postprocessing (esp. color channel operations, look at the gradients afterwards), I've definitely become a follower of the "big pixel" religion - no matter if it's actually the size of the pixels or whatnot causes these effects.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's worth bearing in mind. I suppose it's a matter of where each of us draws the line - A 12MP sensor might give me better pp latitude than a 50MP one, but if the bird is just a few pixels wide in the smaller one, I don't think I'd personally make that compromise :)
 
Upvote 0
#72
I voted for 50 MP (on a FF) as I love to "dive" into the picture when looking at it at 100% and see details that were not visible for my eyes. It gives me a lot of room for cropping and it gives me a lot of reach in the form of "digital zoom", so with a prime lens I can have the same effect as with a zoom lens.
 
Upvote 0
#73
Being a hobby photographer, I don't need the extra MP because I will almost never print large enough to get the benefits the extra MP provide. That said, I wouldn't mind getting one anyway.
 
Upvote 0
#76
To Marsu42, re: m/s-RAW modes

Marsu42 said:
I guess most people want super-hi-res, even if knowing that they'll seldom require it - even if it would mean using "cooked" m/s-raw modes more often.
Click to expand...

I usually shoot my 5DIII in mRAW mode, and I've looked far and wide for any technical information on how Canon downsamples the full RAW data from the sensor to m- or sRAW sizes in camera, but can't find anything.

I've read other references you've made to m- and/or sRAW modes in previous threads, and I'm curious to know if you are using the term "cooked" as a pejorative.
 
Upvote 0
#77
privatebydesign said:
... with today's printers and their dithering and rasterizing algorithms 300dpi is complete overkill, besides, I don't believe there is a printer with a native 300dpi so all your data is dithered anyway.

Do a test, take a test image and then get it printed at 320dpi, down sample to 300dpi, do the same at 240dpi then see for yourself. Most people can't see a difference until around 200dpi.
Click to expand...

That's been my observation, as well, on my series of wide-carriage desktop Canon inkjets (S9000, Pro-9000, Pro-100), although I believe you meant "ppi" where you wrote "dpi" in all instances above, except for "printer with a native 300dpi."

For that reason, I typically shoot my 5DIII in mRAW mode (3960 x 2640), which yields 220 ppi at 12x18 print size. I read an web article a few years back that recommended, when -- at print size -- an image is less than 300 ppi (for Canon printers) to upsample the image to achieve 300ppi, in order to achieve maximum print quality. I tried that, and didn't see an appreciable difference.
 
Upvote 0
#78
At this point in time, the pixal size is not the problem. The problem is the ADC which is a current hog, which is why they limit it to 14 bits. What is needed is a 16Bit ADC, BUT seeing as how everyone seems to want 300+ shots per battery charge, high resolution is screwed. If people would settle for 50 shots per charge the current would be available for a 16Bit ADC which alone would really improve the quality of even a 12 MP sensor.
Think about the analogy of climbing a 100 foot ladder and the spacing of the rungs. Why do you think Medium Format images look so good? They use 16Bit ADCs. The manufactures rely on the fact that relatively few photographers are engineers and even fewer are familiar with the workings of ADCs. Until we all start demanding 16bit ADCs even at the expense of other criteria we will stay limited to the sensor hype.
Regards
Paul
 
Upvote 0
#79
Marsu42 said:
9VIII said:
I honestly want a Gigapixel camera, but that's probably never going to happen (photo-cells that small might have trouble reading colour).
Click to expand...

I guess most people want super-hi-res, even if knowing that they'll seldom require it - even if it would mean using "cooked" m/s-raw modes more often. The poll says otherwise, but might simply indicate people want what they are used to.

Problem is: for my wildlife photography, other sensor specs have to scale with it, esp. noise. If something moves even slightly, you need *significantly* higher shutter speed for a higher res sensor (to gain 100% crop capability), meaning the camera would need *better* sensitivity than lower res models. But of course, as it stands, the reverse is true.
Click to expand...

I'm largely thinking of macro use, and with the 400f5.6 outside my shutter is usually sitting at 1/1000 and up, there isn't much possibility of low-light shooting.
I don't see any problem with applying the same technique to shorter focal lengths if you want a really sharp image.
I can agree that you would never want really high Megapixels for low-light, but there seems to be enough of us spending enough time on a tripod to make it worthwhile.
I did start my photography kit with a heavy gimbal as well, I haven't used it a lot, but it's there if I need it.
 
Upvote 0
#80
sjprg said:
At this point in time, the pixal size is not the problem. The problem is the ADC which is a current hog, which is why they limit it to 14 bits. What is needed is a 16Bit ADC, BUT seeing as how everyone seems to want 300+ shots per battery charge, high resolution is screwed. If people would settle for 50 shots per charge the current would be available for a 16Bit ADC which alone would really improve the quality of even a 12 MP sensor.
Think about the analogy of climbing a 100 foot ladder and the spacing of the rungs. Why do you think Medium Format images look so good? They use 16Bit ADCs. The manufactures rely on the fact that relatively few photographers are engineers and even fewer are familiar with the workings of ADCs. Until we all start demanding 16bit ADCs even at the expense of other criteria we will stay limited to the sensor hype.
Regards
Paul
Click to expand...

How many people would be happy with 50 shots per charge?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marsu42
  • Locked
How tightly do you frame your shots & and do you crop?
Replies
113
Views
53K
Botts
B
kubelik
  • Locked
Your lenses wishlist for 2011 - RESULTS
Replies
21
Views
22K
match14
M
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu