Why a high MP camera?

[pdirestajr]

Product photography. I shoot a lot of small items and it's hard to get really large product photos- you move in too close and the DOF is too shallow, too far away and you have to crop down and end up with a much smaller image.

I'll take more mega pixos

 

[Policar]

Product photography. I shoot a lot of small items and it's hard to get really large product photos- you move in too close and the DOF is too shallow, too far away and you have to crop down and end up with a much smaller image.

I'll take more mega pixos

Have you tried focus stitching or are you still using T/S lenses? T/S will only get you so far.

 

[Loswr]

Yes, drooling should always be avoided or is that too big a generalization?

Depends - my camera is weather sealed, so if I'm using it with a weather sealed lens, a little DRool isn't a problem.

 

[Skulker]

I can't see I will need loads of mega whatsits.

I think some people will want it because it's a bigger number, they think more is better. I was talking to a professional the other day who was ranting on about her d800 because of the mega things. She could not come up with a reason why. I have nothing against the d800 it produces fabulous images. I found out later that the other person in the conversation thought the same as me, but like me didn't bother to try to explain as she was so set on more must be better.

I've yet to see a comparison that convinced me that any crop is a better substitute for getting closer or a longer lens.

 

[Apop]

'Only' 9-10 years ago the 1d had 4.2 mp and the 1dmkII 8mp.
For that time it was great, but now we have 5+megapixel screens, you are looking at almost 100% crops or 100%+ crops.

The reason i liked the 36mp of the d800, is that you got some future in your files, It's really hard to predict where the pixel race for screens will end, at the moment i can lean as close as my eye can focus to the screen and things still appear sharp, so i guess 8-10mp for a 15 inch laptop screen is about as far as is useful.
Is it useful to press your nose to the laptop monitor when the normal viewing distance is 50'ish cm?, I personally like it because I can see detail (hairs and such) which i cannot see from 50 cm, sure I can just zoom in on the image, But i don't know, I like it

It as about 220dpi now, if you translate that to a 42 inch tv screen , that would be 37'ish MP (estimate).
440 dpi would be 75+.

Is it necessary to be able to press your nose to the tv screen and still see a sharp picture when the normal viewing distance is 2-5 meters? ,probably not, but I would personally like it , seeing all that detail up close!

A bit of overkill of pixels on the camera (about 8-10 times screen resolution) never hurts imo, slightly out of focus images will still appear tack sharp!

 

[deleteme]

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.

I have had those same idiotic request from some clients even though I know that the difference will be invisible. I scale up the images (5dmk3) strip the metadata and deliver thumping huge 16 bit tiffs and they are delighted. I also notice that a client recently supplied me with iStock images that were shot with a 7D and the kit lens! They got the job done (24x36 poster) but they were not as crisp as I expected of a stock agency and really got me thinking about the MP debate.
If your client wants to see you using high MP gear and is willing to pay a premium, just rent it, bill them and call it a day.

 

[Don Haines]

My first digital camera was 320x 200 pixels in 16 colors..... It was AMAZING!

I remember people stating that there was no need for cameras of more than 8 megapixels.....

Let me recount some other visionary statements....

From several of us at work, 1980, concerning Telidon ( a project at work )... "This will eventually be in every library in Canada". Teledon became the Internet and HTML grew out of it's control language...

From Bill Gates, "no computer will ever need more than 64K of memory"

From Texas Instruments, when they unveiled a 16K x 1 bit memory chip, and said "throw away your design tools, this is as dense as a memory chip can be made"

And my favorite of all, Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, who had a dream that one day there would be a phone in every city in North America


And 20 or 30 megapixels is enough? Right.... Or you can't make a good digital viewfinder.... Right.....

 

[Freddie]

My first digital camera was 320x 200 pixels in 16 colors..... It was AMAZING!

I remember people stating that there was no need for cameras of more than 8 megapixels.....

Don: The first digital I worked with was this one <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_RD-175>
It made a decent 3x5" low-resolution digital image for catalog usage in 1996-98 and cost around US$6000 at the time. After that, I gave up on digital cameras until the Canon D60 came along in the spring of 2002 and showed me the future of photography for about a third of the price of that Minolta.
Since 2002, I've owned that D60, three versions of the 1D series Canon bodies, and two of the three 5D series. Despite the never-ending avaricious need for yet more pixels sometimes displayed on this forum, quite a few of the best images ever taken were shot with sub-8 MP digital camera bodies. The photographer's best tools are not and will never be camera equipment and that will remain true despite a desperate and irrational hunger for high MP dslr cameras.
And, yes, I do feel that dynamic range is far more important than resolution at this point in time.
I would love it if a decent 35-40 MP camera body were to be produced to fit my Canon lenses but, until that time, I'll happily work with the equipment available. Also, if Canon were able to simply duplicate the wonderful shadow detail shown by the Sony sensors without increasing resolution, I'd be happy to have that as well.
Fred

 

[Dylan777]

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...

+1

 

[Apop]

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...

+1

Me neither, Until there is a 27 inch screen(Or imac) with 16mp, I see this happening within 3 years ( which isn't unrealistic), with my poor focus skills this would mean the need for a 64mp+ camera

 

[mb66energy]

Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?
What kind of pictures are you going to be printing or publishing that requires like 30MP and above?

(1) Extreme aspect ratios (cinemascope, ca. 2.35:1 or square)
1-Shot-panoramas with moving objects/subjects
(2) Large prints for the wall
(3) Strange light sources (fireworks, Neon/LED light, sunsets) which will profit from a 2x2 binning
to sum up R-G-G-B in one image pixel


I am shure that 12 MPix are sufficient for 90 % of the MY images, I really have to learn to master the 10MPix of my 40D.

But I dream about a 48 MPix FF camera with a RAW mode (or DPP "special buttons)) to calculate clean 24MPix and ultraclean 12MPix images.

But if it is possible to acquire more data I would prefer to use it. Consolidation of the 48MPix information into a 12MPix .cr2 data file with DPP or another post processing tool would be great: If 12MPix are sufficient, why store/operate with 48MPix files? On the other hand, if I have a good image where 48MPix are helpful ... it would be great to store the full information.

 

[Marsu42]

Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?

18mp is (more than) enough for me as a final export size, *but* as a source this is what I'd like more mp for:

• tele: if a ff would have the same pixel density as current crop plus a "crop thecenter" raw mode, you wouldn't need a crop camera plus the ff would have 100% af sensor coverage
• macro (the lenses are sharp enough): more magnification w/o aperture drop, or crop for more working distance, less lens shade
• aspect ratio change (like 16:9 or custom ar for dtp) from the same source
• focus stacking or pano stitching: always results in a drop in resolution/sharpness, so higer mp source is better
• general postprocessing: for me some actions like tilting, sharpening or nr work better if some downsizing is applied, i.e. the software has some more data to work with even if it's noisy or less sharp

 

[chauncey]

•tele: if a ff would have the same pixel density as current crop plus a "crop the center" raw mode, you wouldn't need a crop camera plus the ff would have 100% af sensor coverage
•macro (the lenses are sharp enough): more magnification w/o aperture drop, or crop for more working distance, less lens shade
•aspect ratio change (like 16:9 or custom ar for dtp) from the same source
•focus stacking or pano stitching: always results in a drop in resolution/sharpness, so higher mp source is better
•general post processing: for me some actions like tilting, sharpening or nr work better if some downsizing is applied, i.e. the software has some more data to work with even if it's noisy or less sharp

The very fact that this question is being asked is showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the entire photographic process, ranging from the increased DOF (back-up and crop) to the superior IQ of a downsized high MP image.

 

[kbmelb]

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.

I have had those same idiotic request from some clients even though I know that the difference will be invisible. I scale up the images (5dmk3) strip the metadata and deliver thumping huge 16 bit tiffs and they are delighted. I also notice that a client recently supplied me with iStock images that were shot with a 7D and the kit lens! They got the job done (24x36 poster) but they were not as crisp as I expected of a stock agency and really got me thinking about the MP debate.
If your client wants to see you using high MP gear and is willing to pay a premium, just rent it, bill them and call it a day.

I actually work for a large health care provider. I am "their" photographer. Even have a contract. They want to use me for everything but they work with outside ad agencies and one of them resist using me with all their might. And one of the excuses they give my company is the resolution of my gear. This is obviously just an excuse to use THEIR guy.

I'd even go out on limb and say that agency has tried to sabotage shoots before just to get out of using me.

It really irks me because 95-100% of Victoria Secret catalogs, posters, billboards are shot with Canon gear and I doubt anyone is complaining about Russell James' resolution.

 

[Loswr]

A few years ago a number of people said that 6MP is enough, now 18Mp
Can it be because Canon don't have any high megapixel camera??
24 Mp is the double resolution of 6Mp

A couple years ago, 12 MP was enough. Can it have been because Nikon didn't have an 'affordable' FX body with 21 MP?

:

 

[Marsu42]

The very fact that this question is being asked is showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the entire photographic process, ranging from the increased DOF (back-up and crop) to the superior IQ of a downsized high MP image.

Ugh? That's a pretty self-confident statement, you're talking to me (since you quoted me, but I didn't ask a question) or the op?

A couple years ago, 12 MP was enough. Can it have been because Nikon didn't have an 'affordable' FX body with 21 MP? :

I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...

... of course the higher data rate (fps, storage) is a downside of more resolution, but my 2ct is that in secret most users would take more mp over less even if the downsized shots are no better than originals from the lower-mp body.

 

[infared]

I find that the 5D3 is plenty of camera for me. Former pro...shoot for my own needs...art prints and gallery work...I waited to get into DSLR's until the 5D II came along, (And I owned all Nikon film cameras and lenses...so it took something fantastic to sway me). I felt that digital was finally "there there" with that offering..and "almost" affordable. LOL!
I got a 5D III because of the increased functionality of the camera...I have not regreted that expediture and it is all I really need for the work that I do. I am heavily into my photography..just picked up a 17mm TSE for my well-rounded quiver...amazing combo with the 5D III! Amazing. ...but I cannot see what a big MP camera can do for me at my level of shooting (which is advanced). I feel I have spent obscene amounts of $ to have the tools that I currently have...and the prints I am making do actually WOW people sometimes. So for this photographer...the expense of a newly relaseased Canon high-MP camera ($10,000+?) is just something I would not touch...plus having to completely overhaul my current (very adequate) computer setup to process and store these new mega files puts the cost factor out the window for me..for a small increase in quality for the type of work that "I" am doing.
I can see where certain pros and certain fine-arts shooters would be all over a camera like that...but I can also see that many of them have no "real" need for a camera of that nature for the work that they are doing. It's a big commitment for most...but I think that Canon has to produce this camera. No doubt.

 

[Pi]

I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...

Similar but not the same or even close. 12 -> 21 is a much bigger jump in system resolution than 22 -> 36, taking into account all other factors for resolution.

 

[tron]

I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...

Similar but not the same or even close. 12 -> 21 is a much bigger jump in system resolution than 22 -> 36, taking into account all other factors for resolution.

+1 Plus, it's the combinations of Cameras and Lenses that count so the difference of 22Mpixel Canon with top Canon lenses and 36Mpixel Nikon with top Nikon lenses is not so much according to DxO if I recall correctly. Sure D800 wins but not by much.

 

[wellfedCanuck]

Yes, drooling should always be avoided or is that too big a generalization?

Depends - my camera is weather sealed, so if I'm using it with a weather sealed lens, a little DRool isn't a problem.

I suspect that the pictures you've published of your photogear have generated all sorts of DRool...