Why a high MP camera?
- Thread starter mkabi
- Start date
- Status
I would imagine for advertising/commercial use, where the final image is going to be printed quite large or even moderately sized. When you print at 300dpi you need a decent amount of pixels to begin with. Also means you can crop a fair bit and still end up with decent looking shots.
Personally 21MP is more than enough for me as I rarely print.
Personally 21MP is more than enough for me as I rarely print.
Upvote
0
As long as there is a 5DMark whatever camera with no more that the current number of Megapixels I am fine!
I do not need more Mpixels, I prefer lower noise and higher DR. I respect however other people's wishes/needs.
I hope when they make a high Mpixel camera that it will be a totally new model and not a 5D one...
I do not need more Mpixels, I prefer lower noise and higher DR. I respect however other people's wishes/needs.
I hope when they make a high Mpixel camera that it will be a totally new model and not a 5D one...
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 42026
Guest
I would hope for starters that those who think they want a high mp dslr are planning on printing big.
Lets define big for a second. 16x20 no ... 60x40 upwards yes. The level of clarity at large format print size will do it justice. Just for clarification I mean inches. Upwards of 60x40 usually mean the use of larger format cameras. Bigger megapixel dslr cameras in 135 format (that's 35mm in lay terms) might mean some users may not need to spend quite large to huge sums of money on medium format digital.
However, the larger sensor in those cameras give you more than just ability to print large. Hence why they won't wipe out the likes of phase one or hasselblad. They also give more colour clarity, contrast and things hard to describe unless I write an essay here.
I'm sure some will get my point.
Lets define big for a second. 16x20 no ... 60x40 upwards yes. The level of clarity at large format print size will do it justice. Just for clarification I mean inches. Upwards of 60x40 usually mean the use of larger format cameras. Bigger megapixel dslr cameras in 135 format (that's 35mm in lay terms) might mean some users may not need to spend quite large to huge sums of money on medium format digital.
However, the larger sensor in those cameras give you more than just ability to print large. Hence why they won't wipe out the likes of phase one or hasselblad. They also give more colour clarity, contrast and things hard to describe unless I write an essay here.
I'm sure some will get my point.
Upvote
0
Cropping! My first dslr was 7Mpixels...having gone to 18 megapixels is like having an extra 1 1/2 times zoom and gives me far more detail on those instant objects.
There is no going back so enjoy the ride.
There is no going back so enjoy the ride.
Upvote
0
Danielle said:
You'll start to see the benefit of higher resolution well before 60x40 inches, I can start to see a noticble resolution difference between my old 550D and a D800 as small as 18 x 12 inches, by A2 its become clearer and by 30 x 20 its pretty obvious.
Upvote
0
Here are the reasons I can think of:
- Larger prints
- For smaller prints, more detail when downsizing higher MP image vs native lower MP image
- More resolving ability for non-green monochromatic subjects (red/blue) like red flowers, due to the resolution limitations of a bayer layout
- Cropping
- Flexibility to use different aspect ratios while still retaining good resolution
- More resistance to moiré and aliasing, with the ability use a weaker/non-existent AA filter as a result
Upvote
0
Computer screen resolutions will also keep getting higher,
With 16mp on my retina macbook when I have a 16mp original image, applying 1.8 crop factor on that image already gives me a 100% crop on my screen (leaves around a 5mp image).
So when the image is not 100% focused, even a 16mp image can look so so on my screen, when I used the d800, even some poor focused images still looked sharp (ok).
Applying the 1.8 crop on a 36 mp image still leaves you with a 11.1 mp image.
For printing and photo books it doesn't really matter. , but I did quite like that the more MP masks my poor skills at times
, also for action shots it can have some benefits. I rather shoot with 300mm f2.8 and 44mp than 500mm f4 and 16mp, It's a lot easier to track with a small portion of the viewfinder filled than almost the entire viewfinder!, also nice to have both the close up and overview shot in 1 go. However at this point the fps are still a bit of a problem, 4fps is not quite enough, if they can manage to get that to 6-7 fps it would be great.
I also wonder how it will affect auto focus, since it's harder to keep auto focus point on the target.
It is a bit like having 16mp file and a 7mp image on a full hd screen (around 2mp screen), or a 36mp and 16mp image on a 5mp screen.
If you have a 7mp image to start with on a 2mp screen there is also not a lot of room for focus error or cropping afterwards.
So as (computer) screens keep getting more pixels, I would personally not mind having 40+mp cameras
With 16mp on my retina macbook when I have a 16mp original image, applying 1.8 crop factor on that image already gives me a 100% crop on my screen (leaves around a 5mp image).
So when the image is not 100% focused, even a 16mp image can look so so on my screen, when I used the d800, even some poor focused images still looked sharp (ok).
Applying the 1.8 crop on a 36 mp image still leaves you with a 11.1 mp image.
For printing and photo books it doesn't really matter. , but I did quite like that the more MP masks my poor skills at times
, also for action shots it can have some benefits. I rather shoot with 300mm f2.8 and 44mp than 500mm f4 and 16mp, It's a lot easier to track with a small portion of the viewfinder filled than almost the entire viewfinder!, also nice to have both the close up and overview shot in 1 go. However at this point the fps are still a bit of a problem, 4fps is not quite enough, if they can manage to get that to 6-7 fps it would be great.I also wonder how it will affect auto focus, since it's harder to keep auto focus point on the target.
It is a bit like having 16mp file and a 7mp image on a full hd screen (around 2mp screen), or a 36mp and 16mp image on a 5mp screen.
If you have a 7mp image to start with on a 2mp screen there is also not a lot of room for focus error or cropping afterwards.
So as (computer) screens keep getting more pixels, I would personally not mind having 40+mp cameras
Upvote
0
One of my best selling images was shot with a 1D MK II of 8 megapixel resolution in 2005. Those prints are 32" x 48" on stretched canvas. It was also shot with the first model 16-35L f/2.8 lens which is not all that sharp. Admittedly, canvas hides lower resolution images to a degree.
One of my other all-time sellers was shot with a Canon D60 and that image isn't particularly sharp either.
The most significant gain with the later cameras is less noise and greater ISO range.
That said, if you're comparing only current model dslr cameras, there is really no pressing need of resolution-for-resolution's sake. They will almost all do a very good job if used properly.
Some of the current bodies with the latest high-MP Sony sensors are quite a bit better at shadow detail retention. That capability, rather than the high resolution, is a why I might consider them more desirable.
So, high MP is good but not really necessary while greater dynamic range is paramount. The fact that those features might come in one package is just fine though.
Fred
One of my other all-time sellers was shot with a Canon D60 and that image isn't particularly sharp either.
The most significant gain with the later cameras is less noise and greater ISO range.
That said, if you're comparing only current model dslr cameras, there is really no pressing need of resolution-for-resolution's sake. They will almost all do a very good job if used properly.
Some of the current bodies with the latest high-MP Sony sensors are quite a bit better at shadow detail retention. That capability, rather than the high resolution, is a why I might consider them more desirable.
So, high MP is good but not really necessary while greater dynamic range is paramount. The fact that those features might come in one package is just fine though.
Fred
Upvote
0
High MP is for large prints ... and it allows you to do more cropping easily ... However ... it needs better optics than the kit lens to achieve and resolve more of the big mp sensor ...
Upvote
0
Freddie said:
That's a big generalization. I'm waiting for a high MP/Mark II 45mm and 90mm TSE combination to replace a view camera and Velvia. 4x5 is about as sharp as 60-80MP bayer (or sharper) but has fine detail and tonality way, way beyond that. But it has 4-5 stops of dynamic range. We already have a sports and wildlife camera (1DX) and a general purpose hobby camera (5D III)... There's no mid-range studio/landscape camera and it sounds like you don't need one, but others do (or at least want one!).
I prefer shooting evenly lit shots... paper and ink can have 4-5 stops of contrast at most (backlit art plenty more) and so I don't want that much more dynamic range in my scene unless I'm doing a lot of dodging and burning with black and white or something.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
I actually prefer the images of my old 1DsII and now 1DsIII to my 5DIII. Straight out of the camera. Why? They have less DR or more contrast. I can make the 5DIII look like them in post by increasing the contrast, blacks and definition (clarity for LR users).
As far as high MP camera, I shoot for agencies and I actually catch flack from them for only shooting 22MP and I have probably lost jobs because I don't shoot medium format. I much prefer to shoot 35mm body. So if I can have a 30+MP camera I'll be quite happy. The agencies will probably still have something to complain about because they are MF snobs.
Upvote
0
- Status
