Why should you want 8mp?

[PeterS45]

Last week I had one of my better pictures printed at 50 x 75 cm (about 20 x 30 inches). After seeing the quality of that print, shot in RAW with a little sharpening afterwards, I wonder what reason anybody would have to trade in his/her 4mp camera for 8mp (Don't forget the result isn't twice the size).

The only real reason I can think of is that it will keep high quality after cropping, but that's it.

Can anyone give me a reason my wife will believe to buy the S1? :lol:

[mvrekum]

When you want your images published in a book they normaly print your images in a resolution of 300DPI. So with 8MP you can get a maximum size of 10 by 8" (about A3 size) but at 4MP the size would be about 5 by 4".

So for larger high quallity prints you simply need more pixels.

Martin

[mookiemeister]

Digital zoom works better with higher resolution.

[civis]

Can anyone give me a reason my wife will believe to buy the S1?
You could tell her that you might otherwise spend the money on the "other woman".

[PeterS45]

Digital zoom works better with higher resolution.

Ok, but digital zoom sucks anyway. It's exactly what you do with cropping.

[PeterS45]

When you want your images published in a book they normaly print your images in a resolution of 300DPI. So with 8MP you can get a maximum size of 10 by 8" (about A3 size) but at 4MP the size would be about 5 by 4".

So for larger high quallity prints you simply need more pixels.

Martin

So for an amateur like me, not planning to publish a book, there's no reason?

[civis]

So for an amateur like me, not planning to publish a book, there's no reason?
If you can't think of a reason why you need something, then you probably don't need it. If you did need it, you'd have no problem coming up with a reason, would you? I buy a lot of things I don't need, because I want them and can afford them.

[tommy_t]

It's one of those things that 'would be nice' but you can 'live without'.

I just started playing around with resampling in Adobe® Photoshop® and I've managed to print some great 11x17's at 300dpi. I'm waiting to do some 13x19 once the paper comes in. I only have a G3.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Pros have been publishing with the 1D and D1X for years... 4 and 5 MP each.

I would seriously caution making the move to 8MP via an integrated lens EVF camera like the Pro1... although Canon may do a better job of it undoubtably,. the track record is pretty poor where noise is concerned on these high pixel density sensors.. I'm not at all sure if 8MP may in fact have taken the density too far beyond the point of "diminishing returns" :?

[AeroSquid]

I'm not going to buy the new one for the MP, i'm buying it for the lens. :)

[pradeep1]

It is inevitable. Even if you hold out for whatever reason you choose, this megapixel race is not going to stop. Expect 16MP by 2007. So then what, you'll still stick to your guns and avoid 8MP cameras? Issues with pixel density and noise problems will eventually be solved. I can see Canon coming out with full frame sensors for even the prosumer cameras within a few years.

I say long live technology and continuous improvement.

My kids will be using 100MP full frame sensor cameras that generate 50MB .JPG files (75MB RAW) that they bought at the discount counter at WalMart for $200.

That's life. 8)

[FlyingPete]

Eventually the megapixel race will slow and come to an end, there is a limit to how small a pixel can be before the signal to noise ratio becomes too much of an issue, or the pixel is just far too small to pick up wave lengths of light (look at optical microscopes, they have a limit to how much magnification they can have before they don't register the wave length of light anymore).

Once they reach that 'limit', the only option is too make physically bigger sensors to increase resolution. When that happens I believe the market will be similar tohow the film market is now, where you buy a camera based on its features and functionality, not the speed of the film (or CCD/CMOS in digicam speak) it uses, then digital cameras will last more than 3 years!

[nomel]

They can get nearly three times (at least horizontal) the sharpness/res with a SIGMA type sensor that uses each pixel to get all three colors rather than three pixels to get one color. I think that *should* be the first step...but then again, that wouldn't produce big MP numbers, so, consumers wouldn't buy it...so...it might not become a reality, unless they go the FUGI route and mark the cameras with the effective megapixel ;)

[PeterS45]

They can get nearly three times (at least horizontal) the sharpness/res with a SIGMA type sensor that uses each pixel to get all three colors rather than three pixels to get one color. I think that *should* be the first step...but then again, that wouldn't produce big MP numbers, so, consumers wouldn't buy it...so...it might not become a reality, unless they go the FUGI route and mark the cameras with the effective megapixel ;)

Aha, the Foveon way.........

But I still wonder why Sigma is still the only one to use the Foveon and obviously Sony, Nikon and Canon all use the same sensor???

[nomel]

it's most likely because of money.

They probably have tons of patents and whatnot. Probably trying to make a buck before selling it or something. Who knows. The longer they hold onto it, the more patents they can get for fabrication techniques and stuff too (since it's such a new tech). I'm guessing it's patents though. Hopefully they didn't patent the depth detection like the Foveon uses...if so, they have themselves quite a monopoly (too bad for us).

[s00pcan]

I just started playing around with resampling in Adobe® Photoshop®....
Ok, no need to use the symbols.