Why upgrade for more MP

[Maximilian]

All I'm suggesting is that, in most circumstances, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.

You have found your way, and I respect that this is working well for you.

... see that there are much more perspectives and ways to see and to do things than their own way ...

And respect that there is not the one and only true way.

And stacking does NOT work for me. Because of two reasons:
- the subject
- time. To me time not spend in PP is much more worth than the time spend learning how to improve PP and the money for equipment doing the job instead during the shot.

And reading through this thread is seems that there are others that think that it's not working for them either.

 

[Hector1970]

I guess it depends on how you value your time.
Do you spend $3000 on a camera or $3000 of your time?
I'd prefer to spend it on a camera and use my time for shooting rather that photostacking.

So it brings me to another question.
How does it work that 10mp camera can create an image with the same detail as a 50mp camera by shooting multiple shots.
I can see with macro and focus stacking you are combining sharp areas in a series of photos to get a very sharp picture with a big depth of field. You are not (of course I'm possibly wrong) getting more detail you are just getting the best bits of more photographs.

I do enjoy those gigapixel pictures where you can keep zooming. There is incredible resolution. Is it again just resolving focus in all areas back to front to give an impression of more detail or do you get a more detailed picture.

After writing that I'm confused as to what I mean or trying to understand.

Is it like having a sword that can cut through a watermelon in one stroke and a sword that takes there stokes to cut through the watermelon. The end result is the same but one sword takes more effort while the other is made of Toledo steel and is more expensive.

 

[wsmith96]

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

Individual preference. Some people like to have the newest technology, some don't.

 

[bjd]

After attending a 5Ds Product presentation, I thought that the 5Ds could be used as a rather expensive alternative to a 1,4x Extender :-[

My limited maths says the Pixels are increased by around 1,4x height and width to give the 50MP compared to a 5D MK3. So if I take the same shot with a 5Ds and crop in PP to use around 25MP of the frame, then I should have about the same shot as with the 1,4x extender, but a lot sharper. Plus, I dont lose one F stop of light like I would with an extender.

Or is my logic flawed?

Problem is, a 1,4X extender costs around 400€, the 5Ds is a magnitude more expensive.

Cheers Brian

 

[KeithBreazeal]

After attending a 5Ds Product presentation, I thought that the 5Ds could be used as a rather expensive alternative to a 1,4x Extender :-[

My limited maths says the Pixels are increased by around 1,4x height and width to give the 50MP compared to a 5D MK3. So if I take the same shot with a 5Ds and crop in PP to use around 25MP of the frame, then I should have about the same shot as with the 1,4x extender, but a lot sharper. Plus, I dont lose one F stop of light like I would with an extender.

Or is my logic flawed?

Problem is, a 1,4X extender costs around 400€, the 5Ds is a magnitude more expensive.

Cheers Brian

I have cropped the hell out of 5DS photos with good results- kind of like a 1.4X & 2X extender stacked. Even using the old 100-400L, the results are really surprising.

Thom Richard Hot Stuff screen shot 5172 web © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

When doing a panorama, my 5D III on vertical with 4 overlap frames is about equal to a single 5DS frame on the horizontal. I find that quite handy for some situations.
This is a handheld shot(Bodie) with my old but trusty 24-105L. I'm sure that using a better lens, tripod , Live View, and a remote would have produced even better results.
Even though this is a screen shot, you get the idea.

Canon 5DS / Bodie 1 shot pano screen shot © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[rfdesigner]

After attending a 5Ds Product presentation, I thought that the 5Ds could be used as a rather expensive alternative to a 1,4x Extender :-[

My limited maths says the Pixels are increased by around 1,4x height and width to give the 50MP compared to a 5D MK3. So if I take the same shot with a 5Ds and crop in PP to use around 25MP of the frame, then I should have about the same shot as with the 1,4x extender, but a lot sharper. Plus, I dont lose one F stop of light like I would with an extender.

Or is my logic flawed?

Problem is, a 1,4X extender costs around 400€, the 5Ds is a magnitude more expensive.

Cheers Brian

Yes you are correct.

I've done the exact same calculations the other way for a "focal reducer" on telescopes to make my pixels look bigger.

The optimium solution is always to use the ideal pixel size and minimum quantity of glass.

 

[Sporgon]

So it brings me to another question.
How does it work that 10mp camera can create an image with the same detail as a 50mp camera by shooting multiple shots.

If you are referring to stitching, then by stitching but maintaining the same fov as the same single frame shot you are effectively building a larger format and so require more magnification to achieve the same overall fov. That greater magnification puts more pixels on target = more detail

 

[takesome1]

It was eight years ago that I upgraded to a Canon 1Ds Mark III...I wanted a camera that convinced me that any errors were my fault.
At the same time I got addicted to Photoshop. That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

By this logic would anyone need a camera that shoots more than a few FPS?

Your scenario is very narrow and limited. Perhaps for your work you need no more, but is a poor assumption that there are no others that can take a high mp camera and utilize its full potential.

 

[scyrene]

Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.

Or you could just get a 7d2. Pixel size is the same, noise levels at higher is are about the same and the 1.6 crop is close to the 7d2 size. I don't find cropping to be a reason to get the 5ds. In fact the 7d2 is a lot cheaper.

The 5ds strength is in using as many of those pixels as you can.

 

[takesome1]

Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.

Or you could just get a 7d2. Pixel size is the same, noise levels at higher is are about the same and the 1.6 crop is close to the 7d2 size. I don't find cropping to be a reason to get the 5ds. In fact the 7d2 is a lot cheaper.

The 5ds strength is in using as many of those pixels as you can.

How about cropping with the added benefit of having FF when you can fill the frame. IMO that's a huge benefit. You could go with the 7D II if you concede that 100% of your shots are cropped. Wildlife and birds are my main interest. The only portion that I would say are cropped 100% of the time would be small birds. Everything else I work hard to get close enough to try and fill a FF and have that benefit when close.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

The ability to capture those really fine lines and textures that make a photo appear true to life is why I bought the 5DS. The quality is insanely good. It really depends on the photographers business model. After several customers wanting 5-8 foot prints and spending hours messing with images to extract the best quality for the size, I decided to go for the megapixels.

Bodie Day / the cowboy boot © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[scyrene]

Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.

Or you could just get a 7d2. Pixel size is the same, noise levels at higher is are about the same and the 1.6 crop is close to the 7d2 size. I don't find cropping to be a reason to get the 5ds. In fact the 7d2 is a lot cheaper.

The 5ds strength is in using as many of those pixels as you can.

Oh I did consider that. But the 5Ds is obviously more flexible. I don't *just* want to crop for birds. For wide shots, full frame is better. And tbh I'm so used to full frame now, I don't think I could go back to crop as my main camera.

 

[East Wind Photography]

Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.

Or you could just get a 7d2. Pixel size is the same, noise levels at higher is are about the same and the 1.6 crop is close to the 7d2 size. I don't find cropping to be a reason to get the 5ds. In fact the 7d2 is a lot cheaper.

The 5ds strength is in using as many of those pixels as you can.

Oh I did consider that. But the 5Ds is obviously more flexible. I don't *just* want to crop for birds. For wide shots, full frame is better. And tbh I'm so used to full frame now, I don't think I could go back to crop as my main camera.

The big benefit for the 7d2 is its fps and feature set....and dual pixel AF if you shoot occasional video. I own both (actually the 5dsR) and other than the number of pixels, the sensor is about the same. There is no reason to discount the 7d2 when considering the 5ds. The 5ds does not give me what I need for action sports and wildlife. It's fine for stills and occasional action use but no where near the capability of the 7d2.

Now the 5d3 is another story. It's has better noise levels at higher ISO due to its increased light sensitivity using larger pixels.

Whether or not you need more MP is purely a decision to be made based on what you shoot the most. I unfortunately need both a high MP camera and a high speed crop for what I shoot.

 

[dak723]

All I'm suggesting is that, in most circumstances, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.

Some folks like photography and have no interest spending hours (or even more than a minute or two) post processing. If time is money, than maybe it is more expensive to spend hours on Photoshop post processing.

 

[East Wind Photography]

All I'm suggesting is that, in most circumstances, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.

Some folks like photography and have no interest spending hours (or even more than a minute or two) post processing. If time is money, than maybe it is more expensive to spend hours on Photoshop post processing.

And the digic 6 does an incredible job in camera. I'm really excited to see what the new digic 7 can do.

I always shoot raw but often apply in camera processing and cropping to create a jpg.

 

[bwud]

If time is money, than maybe it is more expensive to spend hours on Photoshop post processing.

I resemble that.

 

[scyrene]

Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.

Or you could just get a 7d2. Pixel size is the same, noise levels at higher is are about the same and the 1.6 crop is close to the 7d2 size. I don't find cropping to be a reason to get the 5ds. In fact the 7d2 is a lot cheaper.

The 5ds strength is in using as many of those pixels as you can.

Oh I did consider that. But the 5Ds is obviously more flexible. I don't *just* want to crop for birds. For wide shots, full frame is better. And tbh I'm so used to full frame now, I don't think I could go back to crop as my main camera.

The big benefit for the 7d2 is its fps and feature set....and dual pixel AF if you shoot occasional video. I own both (actually the 5dsR) and other than the number of pixels, the sensor is about the same. There is no reason to discount the 7d2 when considering the 5ds. The 5ds does not give me what I need for action sports and wildlife. It's fine for stills and occasional action use but no where near the capability of the 7d2.

Now the 5d3 is another story. It's has better noise levels at higher ISO due to its increased light sensitivity using larger pixels.

Whether or not you need more MP is purely a decision to be made based on what you shoot the most. I unfortunately need both a high MP camera and a high speed crop for what I shoot.

I've rarely gone for birds in flight, so fps isn't a problem. High ISO - comparisons I've seen shows the 5Ds about equal to the 5DIII imho. Essentially, the 5Ds has all the same features as the 5DIII, and the same image quality, the only drawbacks being 1fps less, and no ISO 25600+. Neither of those bothers me.