The True Cost of 36mps'

[Picsfor]

In all the discussions about what is being released when and next, a 30+mp sensor seems to be accepted as a must. It is mostly met with glee, but how many people have given real consideration to what this actually means?

I was chatting with a Nikon shooter who was looking forward to upgrading to the D800 (even swapping both bodies) until she saw the 36mp sensor. What was the problem?

The cost came the reply. The cost of having to get an amazingly specced computer to manage files of that size. Enormous EHD's to store the files on. The increased time in processing as she tries to eliminate the extra 'details' that the subject does not want to see in a pic - and lastly - the cost in getting LR or Aperture 4 and CS6 to have software that can work with these files.

It got me thinking, and maybe in all this, we're maybe missing something. When i got my 5D2, i got a new top of the range iMac that handles those 21mp files without too much effort. LR3 slowed things down a bit, and i dare not install Lion as my machine has a 4gb ram limit. But a 36mp sensor would require a totally new machine with 16gb RAM, 2tb H/D and 1gb of dedicated video ram - that's another £2k+ worth of iMac on top of the camera body.

It does make me pause a little before talking about buying the 5D3 etc...

 

[niccyboy]

In all the discussions about what is being released when and next, a 30+mp sensor seems to be accepted as a must. It is mostly met with glee, but how many people have given real consideration to what this actually means?

I was chatting with a Nikon shooter who was looking forward to upgrading to the D800 (even swapping both bodies) until she saw the 36mp sensor. What was the problem?

The cost came the reply. The cost of having to get an amazingly specced computer to manage files of that size. Enormous EHD's to store the files on. The increased time in processing as she tries to eliminate the extra 'details' that the subject does not want to see in a pic - and lastly - the cost in getting LR or Aperture 4 and CS6 to have software that can work with these files.

It got me thinking, and maybe in all this, we're maybe missing something. When i got my 5D2, i got a new top of the range iMac that handles those 21mp files without too much effort. LR3 slowed things down a bit, and i dare not install Lion as my machine has a 4gb ram limit. But a 36mp sensor would require a totally new machine with 16gb RAM, 2tb H/D and 1gb of dedicated video ram - that's another £2k+ worth of iMac on top of the camera body.

It does make me pause a little before talking about buying the 5D3 etc...

I think it's all part of the technical progression. When the mk2 came out at 21mp, people probably thought the same thing.

I know if it means I need to upgrade hardware, then I will. I think the advantages of upgrading cameras will outweigh the disadvantage of files being a bit slower. If you have an issue you can always change your picture size settings can't you?

 

[foobar]

First of all, there are things like sRAW and mRAW if you don't want those huge files.
Second: Even today's entry-level iMac is fast enough to process these files. And if RAM is the problem: You can upgrade a base iMac from 4gb to 12gb for around 50 bucks. Things look similar in the PC world, of course. Storage is also dirt cheap.

I don't know if we'll see a 36mp sensor anytime soon but I don't think computers and processing speed are a limiting factor for that.

 

[recon photography]

i have no idea how yo decided you would need 16gb of ram but then again yo are a mac user........ (better be careful what i say in a photo forum). Current computers will have no problem and storage is dirt cheap these days, sure file size has doubled for photos but storage for the same price including inflation must have increased by about 1000%

 

[Gothmoth]

i have an i7 [email protected] GHz with 24 GB ram (im doing 3D stuff and some video editing for clients, so yes i need as much ram as i can get), a 240GB Vertex3 and i buy new 2x 2TB drives (one for backup) for 50 -60 bucks each when they are full.

the PC system has cost 50% of my last (private) lens purchase.
so it´s relativ. but filesize is not really something i worry about.

that said.... i don´t need 36 MP.
i would be happy if canon goes for less MP and uses larger photosites to inreases ISO and dynamic range instead.

 

[JonJT]

In all the discussions about what is being released when and next, a 30+mp sensor seems to be accepted as a must. It is mostly met with glee, but how many people have given real consideration to what this actually means?

I was chatting with a Nikon shooter who was looking forward to upgrading to the D800 (even swapping both bodies) until she saw the 36mp sensor. What was the problem?

The cost came the reply. The cost of having to get an amazingly specced computer to manage files of that size. Enormous EHD's to store the files on. The increased time in processing as she tries to eliminate the extra 'details' that the subject does not want to see in a pic - and lastly - the cost in getting LR or Aperture 4 and CS6 to have software that can work with these files.

It got me thinking, and maybe in all this, we're maybe missing something. When i got my 5D2, i got a new top of the range iMac that handles those 21mp files without too much effort. LR3 slowed things down a bit, and i dare not install Lion as my machine has a 4gb ram limit. But a 36mp sensor would require a totally new machine with 16gb RAM, 2tb H/D and 1gb of dedicated video ram - that's another £2k+ worth of iMac on top of the camera body.

It does make me pause a little before talking about buying the 5D3 etc...

Relax. Any budget machine made in the last 3-4 years will have enough processing power to handle a 36 megapixel RAW file. I edit my 18 megapixel RAW files on a 5 year old overclocked Opteron 165 with just 2 gigs of ram without significant issues. Hell, I can even watch a 720P H.264 movie on VLC (a program that uses software decoding), run torrents, have the memory hog that is firefox 4 open and work on a CAD file while editing photos in Lightroom. It's not FAST but, it works fine. Storage is not an issue either. Assuming that a 36MP RAW file is 60 megs maximum, a 3TB drive can, after formatting, store about 47,000 RAW images. Get two of those drives for some redundancy and you will have only spent 300-400 dollars. A paltry sum in comparison to the cost of a D800 and some good glass.

Sheesh........

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I handle gigabyte sized files with my 2 year old computer with no problem, contrary to the comment about exp3nsive storage, hard drive space in the USA, at least is cheap with 2TB drives being cheap. A 2TB drive will hold 66,666 images.

There is also a lot of free online storage, so the argument sounds like someone out of touch with recent computers made in the last 6 or 7 years..

 

[Flake]

Handling a single file isn't the problem, it's hadling 500+ of the things from a days shoot with a client demanding a number of images same day for a press release. 36MP for a Nikon user would mean 3 times the file size, that means transferring the data from the CF cards takes more than 3x as long (because it'll need two cards instead of one) before processing even starts, and then 3x the time for workflow, and that's when they get around to releasing the RAW converter.

No sign of CS6 as adobe released CS5.5 in the interim

 

[niccyboy]

Not enough mp - complains and whinging

Too much mp - complains and whinging

Haha if your current file size is fine. Stick with what you have.

 

[epsiloneri]

It got me thinking, and maybe in all this, we're maybe missing something. When i got my 5D2, i got a new top of the range iMac that handles those 21mp files without too much effort. LR3 slowed things down a bit, and i dare not install Lion as my machine has a 4gb ram limit. But a 36mp sensor would require a totally new machine with 16gb RAM, 2tb H/D and 1gb of dedicated video ram - that's another £2k+ worth of iMac on top of the camera body.

Fortunately, computers advance much more quickly than cameras, so this is a non-issue as long as you don't expect to pair a brand new camera with a >5-years older computer. In ten years the number of Mpix have increased only by a factor of ten, while computers have improved by a factor of at least 100 (CPU) to 1000 (storage space).

 

[KurtStevens]

The true cost of 36mp, really remembering the fact you can change from raw to sRaw. Whats wrong with not shooting at full 36mp if you have all these new options that make any camera badass?

 

[wockawocka]

A 36mp RAW file is going to be roughly 36mb, that's not a big file.

It's only when you convert to tiff and use multiple layers in CS5 it gets intensive. But that's CS5 not using more than 1 or 2 cores not the speed of your machine.

 

[Orangutan]

This question has been so well-flogged on this site (and probably others too) that we ought to add it to a ForumFAQ (along with the question of why Canon won't release the new hardware I want right now.)

Let me summarize:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Camera manufacturers are for-profit companies. Their product choices are based on maximizing profit, not maximizing happiness of the consumers.
[*]Tech development proceeds irregularly for each of the various components of bodies, so new tech is not all available at once.
[*]So far, no manufacturer has been able to design a set of cost-effective, interchangeable, cafeteria-style components.
[*]Manufacturers need to balance the components in new bodies to achieve maximum profit.
[*]Since there is a demand for increased pixel counts, that feature will be factored into their business equations.
[*]The high-speed, sports/PJ-oriented 1D-series is a special case, since the users of these bodies can't sacrifice speed for pixel count. Pixel count is already adequate for their special needs.
[/list]

As a side note: it's possible that some image processing is non-linear, e.g. requiring calculations with an area of surrounding pixels. Perhaps someone who knows about image manipulation math can enlighten (ahem...) us. Aside from that, storage and speed keep getting cheaper at a faster rate than does pixel count. It's the cost of the activity -- we just have to deal with it, or use older equipment.

Handling a single file isn't the problem, it's hadling 500+ of the things

 

[epsiloneri]

As a side note: it's possible that some image processing is non-linear, e.g. requiring calculations with an area of surrounding pixels.

All simple image manipulations normally made (e.g. with photoshop) are linear or almost linear (n*log[n]) in number of pixels. There are more advanced image processing techniques (e.g. deconvolution) where the execution time is a non-linear function of the number of pixels, but those are beyond normal photography so not really relevant.

 

[dstppy]

I don't buy it. That's like shooting weddings then post-processing in Elements.

Getting yourself a $2000-$3000 computer upgrade when you're shelling out $5k just for a body isn't a great leap. This is assuming that 5 years ago the person bought a $2-3k computer which should still have some value. If they didn't have one then, then they really don't have one now.

Honestly, either you NEED it and it's a tool, or it's a want and we've got a technophobe that doesn't see spending money on just another tool to make you money.

Do you have any idea how often 2TB External HDDs go on sale for under $100?

 

[TexPhoto]

My father was a railroad engineer for 40 years and lost 2 fingers. But at least he never had to deal wit a problem like 36MP images. Lucky guy.

But we are men and will get through this.

 

[Picsfor]

Interesting points.

As Flake has pointed out, processing a single file is one thing. Processing a days shoot is another matter.

As for upgrading RAM, computers often have a finite limit that you can't go beyond. That means a new machine.

Software upgrades that are needed for some cameras tend to push the bounds of a computer as well.

Much is made of if you want it,then you'll suffer the cost, but my point was for those who have been waiting to upgrade their body just to discover it will come with this huge increase in processing and storage needs. Shooting in lower file size modes sRAW etc is all very nice, but again would negate the purpose of upgrading, esecially given that the person was looking to upgrade from a 13mp D700 to something around 20mp+ to get that extra bit of detail and low light capability (think 5D to 5D2).

Not every one is minted or a professional, many are amateurs who really have to work out how to maximise their disposable income - moreso in these less enlightened times.

 

[Ivar]

It somewhat reminds me "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (never mind whether that sentence was so or not in 1981). The issue today as I see it is that the same MP topic was heavily discussed when cameras crossed 10MP. Are we now any closer to the "truth" at let's say 20MP? Is all this valid only for now or also good enough tomorrow?

Also selectively picking what was said, the computers most definitely progress faster than cameras.

Interesting points.

As Flake has pointed out, processing a single file is one thing. Processing a days shoot is another matter.

As for upgrading RAM, computers often have a finite limit that you can't go beyond. That means a new machine.

Software upgrades that are needed for some cameras tend to push the bounds of a computer as well.

Much is made of if you want it,then you'll suffer the cost, but my point was for those who have been waiting to upgrade their body just to discover it will come with this huge increase in processing and storage needs. Shooting in lower file size modes sRAW etc is all very nice, but again would negate the purpose of upgrading, esecially given that the person was looking to upgrade from a 13mp D700 to something around 20mp+ to get that extra bit of detail and low light capability (think 5D to 5D2).

Not every one is minted or a professional, many are amateurs who really have to work out how to maximise their disposable income - moreso in these less enlightened times.

 

[Loswr]

It somewhat reminds me "640K ought to be enough for anybody" (never mind whether that sentence was so or not in 1981). The issue today as I see it is that the same MP topic was heavily discussed when cameras crossed 10MP. Are we now any closer to the "truth" at let's say 20MP? Is all this valid only for now or also good enough tomorrow?

Technology advances, Get used to it. When I bought my first computer, a Mac SE in 1987, I paid a substantial premium for the huge, massive, never-to-be-filled 20 MB hard drive option (instead of the stock dual floppies). 20 years later, and that formerly massive HDD wouldn't even hold a single RAW image from my 5DII. (As a side note and testament to the longevity of some products, last time I checked that very computer was still running an old spectrophotometer in a lab I used to work in...).

 

[Ivar]

Technology advances, Get used to it.

I'm all for it and more, it looks too slow to me especially what concerns Canon. I was opposing the preference towards low megapixels, if carefully read.