Mega Pixels, FPS and Sharpness, Oh my!

[gregpphoto]

I'm fed up folks. Too much emphasis on the technicalities in cameras. It's awesome to learn it, and yea it'll help you to pick the right camera, which is a good thing. But these days, it's all about what your camera can do and not enough about what you can do.

Read on if you dare, but the following paragraphs are riddled with personal opinions made from the observations of a young American photographer. You might be offended and want my head on a stake.

--

Take, for example, the sharpness of a lens. Normally, this is the first thing people wanna know about, and too often, it's the only thing. When I buy a lens, I look for, in no real order: build quality, ease of use, weight, feel, balance, and yes, sharpness. But as long as the lens is as sharp as any normal prime, say 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4, I'm happy. I don't need the world's sharpest lens. Sharpness is something that is impossible to distinguish in a print, and is only noticed on a computer screen, at 50% or 100% zoom. Viewing a print in your hand is something like 25% on photoshop. At that level, could any of us detect the difference in sharpness between a 18-55 kit lens or a 17-40 or 16-35 L?

And what is with mega-pixels? If you intend to print large, then disregard what I'm about to say cuz you neeed a big MP count. 8 mega-pixels will print 8x10 inches, without dropping the resolution one iota. How many people print bigger than say, 16x20? Even then, the quality drop is not terrible, nothing standing a few feet further back won't cure.

My last gripe is frames per second. Here, I feel that 3-6 is good enough. Sports and wildlife may require more, no doubt, but when we cross into double digit fps rates, are we not just moving towards video? I once spoke to a photographer on this subject, a photojournalist no less. We're bs'ing about photog. all night, and he says that not a single one of his best images came from a time where he was shooting a sequence. He also said, and I don't know if this is true or not, that most of the best sports photos you see aren't from sequences. He shoots the US open and the NFL occasionally, so maybe there is validity to that, but either way, if it gets to 15 fps and you say "THATS what I need!!" just quit photography do video already.

[irishman]

I'm fed up folks. Too much emphasis on the technicalities in cameras. It's awesome to learn it, and yea it'll help you to pick the right camera, which is a good thing. But these days, it's all about what your camera can do and not enough about what you can do.

Read on if you dare, but the following paragraphs are riddled with personal opinions made from the observations of a young American photographer. You might be offended and want my head on a stake.

--

Take, for example, the sharpness of a lens. Normally, this is the first thing people wanna know about, and too often, it's the only thing. When I buy a lens, I look for, in no real order: build quality, ease of use, weight, feel, balance, and yes, sharpness. But as long as the lens is as sharp as any normal prime, say 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4, I'm happy. I don't need the world's sharpest lens. Sharpness is something that is impossible to distinguish in a print, and is only noticed on a computer screen, at 50% or 100% zoom. Viewing a print in your hand is something like 25% on photoshop. At that level, could any of us detect the difference in sharpness between a 18-55 kit lens or a 17-40 or 16-35 L?

And what is with mega-pixels? If you intend to print large, then disregard what I'm about to say cuz you neeed a big MP count. 8 mega-pixels will print 8x10 inches, without dropping the resolution one iota. How many people print bigger than say, 16x20? Even then, the quality drop is not terrible, nothing standing a few feet further back won't cure.

My last gripe is frames per second. Here, I feel that 3-6 is good enough. Sports and wildlife may require more, no doubt, but when we cross into double digit fps rates, are we not just moving towards video? I once spoke to a photographer on this subject, a photojournalist no less. We're bs'ing about photog. all night, and he says that not a single one of his best images came from a time where he was shooting a sequence. He also said, and I don't know if this is true or not, that most of the best sports photos you see aren't from sequences. He shoots the US open and the NFL occasionally, so maybe there is validity to that, but either way, if it gets to 15 fps and you say "THATS what I need!!" just quit photography do video already.

I agree to a point, but I tend to make major crops and need the MP's.

[gregpphoto]

That's a good point. I have a photo that I had to crop to 5x7, and it's one of my favorites.

[OdiN1701]

Crop in the camera, not in photoshop.

[Right Cranium Imaging]

Just move closer...... do your work behind the lens not the desk.

[irishman]

Andrew--could you explain how that works? Do you mean to get the composition right, or is there some way to crop in camera that I don't know about and how would that make a difference? Pardon my ignorance.

[Dermit]

Crop in the camera, not in photoshop.

Just move closer...... do your work behind the lens not the desk.

OK, for me that would mean wandering onto the football field... where the real action is! Hope the refs don't mind!

Seriously though. gregpphoto, I get your point, and a good discussion to open up. The key to most of your points you made is that there is almost always an 'exception'. The problem lies in that a LOT of people do not fall into those 'exception' areas and still put a lot of emphasis on the points you made. And i think that is where you are driving and could not agree more.

But another little point I like to make is let's say you DO know what you are doing and are very good at doing it all very well. Let's face it, there are quite a few pros out there that fall into this catagory. When you get to the point where you are doing all you can to drive the gear to it's limits then it does come down to the gear itself. And if you are shooting to eat it can make the difference between getting the job or not. And yes, it is usually a lot of little things and one thing might not matter or be detectable at all. But 5 or ten little things going in the right direction can make a big difference.

....and then sometimes you CAN see the difference even on one thing. I can shoot my 70-200 f/2.8 at 5.6 and then shoot my friends 135 f/2 at 5.6 and 9 times out of ten I can absolutely see the diff.

[krb]

Andrew--could you explain how that works? Do you mean to get the composition right, or is there some way to crop in camera that I don't know about and how would that make a difference? Pardon my ignorance.
He means get the composition right in the first place so you don't have to crop it down later.

He's right for 99% of photos but for every rule there is an exception. I've had too many instances where the lens on the camera only went to 100mm, I needed 150-200mm to compose it the way I wanted and there wasn't enough time to switch lenses. Those are the times when having enough megapixels to crop without losing quality is important.

Also, even when you are "composing in the viewfinder" it is often good to leave a little space around the edges for "cleanup" tasks like straighening the horizon or not cutting off people's fingers.

[Dermit]

Along the megapixel line of discussion there's been something i would LOVE to see Canon do on a camera soon... so far we've seen the MP climb higher with each new body. Along with this we also see the ISO numbers either climb, or get cleaner, or both. I would LOVE to see Canon come out with a full frame 6 to 8 MP camera with the latest high ISO technology in it. With that few MPs and the latest ISO technology they could create something that could practically see in the dark and produce extremely clean images. Imagine a super clean image shot at ISO 128,000. I could live with a 6 to 8 MP image if I could get a super clean image at that ISO. It wouldn't be for everyone, but imagine shooting theater, high school football under the lights, indoor high school basketball in a dim gym, etc. With shutter speeds up around 1/1000!

[krb]

Along the megapixel line of discussion there's been something i would LOVE to see Canon do on a camera soon... so far we've seen the MP climb higher with each new body. Along with this we also see the ISO numbers either climb, or get cleaner, or both. I would LOVE to see Canon come out with a full frame 6 to 8 MP camera with the latest high ISO technology in it. Have you read about the "pixel-binning" on the upcoming sensors?

[irishman]

Wow. I wish I was a good enough photographer to get my composition right !100% of the time!

]He means get the composition right in the first place so you don't have to crop it down later. [/B]

He's right for 99% of photos but for every rule there is an exception. I've had too many instances where the lens on the camera only went to 100mm, I needed 150-200mm to compose it the way I wanted and there wasn't enough time to switch lenses. Those are the times when having enough megapixels to crop without losing quality is important.

Also, even when you are "composing in the viewfinder" it is often good to leave a little space around the edges for "cleanup" tasks like straighening the horizon or not cutting off people's fingers.

[krb]

Wow. I wish I was a good enough photographer to get my composition right !100% of the time!
Heh, I'd settle for getting it right 50% of the time. I do -try- to get it right 100% time, though.

[Grimes]

I really try to get the view correctly the first time in the camera, but sometimes you HAVE to crop. Sometimes the perfect shot is not possible - example: using a prime and you can't "foot zoom" to the correct location. That's why I welcome added MP, if it doesn't come with added noise.

It definitely would be interesting to see a lower MP camera with the new micro-lens tech though.

[tonylong]

I'm fed up folks. Too much emphasis on the technicalities in cameras. It's awesome to learn it, and yea it'll help you to pick the right camera, which is a good thing. But these days, it's all about what your camera can do and not enough about what you can do.

:)Well, most of the talk about gear is in the gear forum. Fortunately, all the chitchat about the newest this and the latest that is confined to those groups. I divide my time between reading and discussing cameras and lenses and reading and discussing photography and reading and discussing the digital darkroom (postprocessing). It keeps me balanced!

Technological advances are important, though -- anything that can further equip me as I pursue my photographic goals and aspirations is important to me. So, as I see it it's not a black/white either/or thing!

Take, for example, the sharpness of a lens. Normally, this is the first thing people wanna know about, and too often, it's the only thing. When I buy a lens, I look for, in no real order: build quality, ease of use, weight, feel, balance, and yes, sharpness. But as long as the lens is as sharp as any normal prime, say 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4, I'm happy. I don't need the world's sharpest lens. Sharpness is something that is impossible to distinguish in a print, and is only noticed on a computer screen, at 50% or 100% zoom. Viewing a print in your hand is something like 25% on photoshop. At that level, could any of us detect the difference in sharpness between a 18-55 kit lens or a 17-40 or 16-35 L?

Hmmm...you're using different points of reference here. If your standard for sharpness is a "normal prime", well, I have no argument there. But when you throw in the old kit lens, you have to realize that you can get sharp shots if you shoot within the "sweet spot" of that lens, but otherwise it will be nowhere as sharp as a decent prime.

Sharpness is critical to many of us, either because of our print requirements or because of what we are shooting that may require some or a lot of cropping. And, many of us shoot in a variety of conditions that require veering out of the ideal "sweet spot" to get the shot, and so we need lenses that can perform with decent IQ over a wider range than your low cost lenses.

And what is with mega-pixels? If you intend to print large, then disregard what I'm about to say cuz you neeed a big MP count. 8 mega-pixels will print 8x10 inches, without dropping the resolution one iota. How many people print bigger than say, 16x20? Even then, the quality drop is not terrible, nothing standing a few feet further back won't cure.

One of the above posters guestimated that 99% of our shots could be done without cropping, but that only applies to some photogs. When I shoot with my 5D, shooting landscapes and scenics and street photography and some event photography, I am able to compose shots using the lenses I have that need little if any cropping. However, when I'm shooting wildlife, sport/action photography, some event photography and other situations where I just can't get the right framing, often with my 1D, sometimes with my 5D, well, cropping is your friend, and megapixels are your friend if they are clean, good quality pixels. We are seeing real advancements in sensor technology, and that matters both for cropping needs and for large prints.

I will say, though, that I view "more megapixels" guardedly...because there is always the danger of "more megapixels" leading to more noise, which I don't support. But that has always been the case, and yet today we are seeing more megapixels but seem to at the same time be seeing no more noise, and even improved noise...

Oh, and I should say that if you are not thinking of the possibility of large prints you might be missing out on the real potential of your photography!

My last gripe is frames per second. Here, I feel that 3-6 is good enough. Sports and wildlife may require more, no doubt, but when we cross into double digit fps rates, are we not just moving towards video? I once spoke to a photographer on this subject, a photojournalist no less. We're bs'ing about photog. all night, and he says that not a single one of his best images came from a time where he was shooting a sequence. He also said, and I don't know if this is true or not, that most of the best sports photos you see aren't from sequences. He shoots the US open and the NFL occasionally, so maybe there is validity to that, but either way, if it gets to 15 fps and you say "THATS what I need!!" just quit photography do video already.

I'm not big on the fps thing personally -- I can get 10 on my 1D but I set it to 6 normally. But I do take fast sequences for a lot of my shooting (wildlife, sports/action) and am glad to have the ability to up my fps speed, even if I rarely use it!

So, in summary, I wouldn't complain about technological advances as long as they don't take away from the quality of the photography. And, if the new technology helps me in some way, I'll be quite happy!

[dave kadolph]

Thanks Tony

That was better than anything I was trying to put into words.

Take a walk down to your local park and try to shoot a touch football or soccer game using your technique--It just doesn't work even at that level--IMHO

Over on sportsshooter there are often minimum requirements to even be considered for a freelance job--usually a MkII/300 f2.8/ability to transmit on site. If you don't have the gear you don't even get a chance--even if you have lots of talent.

And you are only as good as your last job--which drives a lot of upgrades ;)

[JeffreyG]

I'm fed up folks. Too much emphasis on the technicalities in cameras. It's awesome to learn it, and yea it'll help you to pick the right camera, which is a good thing. But these days, it's all about what your camera can do and not enough about what you can do.

Read on if you dare, but the following paragraphs are riddled with personal opinions made from the observations of a young American photographer. You might be offended and want my head on a stake.


You are simply dealing with a toxic overload. Here at POTN you are exposed in the gear forums to a lethal concentration of people talking technical issues with nuance to the point of obsession. Just step away and take a breath.


Take, for example, the sharpness of a lens. Normally, this is the first thing people wanna know about, and too often, it's the only thing. When I buy a lens, I look for, in no real order: build quality, ease of use, weight, feel, balance, and yes, sharpness. But as long as the lens is as sharp as any normal prime, say 35mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4, I'm happy. I don't need the world's sharpest lens. Sharpness is something that is impossible to distinguish in a print, and is only noticed on a computer screen, at 50% or 100% zoom. Viewing a print in your hand is something like 25% on photoshop. At that level, could any of us detect the difference in sharpness between a 18-55 kit lens or a 17-40 or 16-35 L?


For sure there is more to life than sharpness. I loved the EF-S 17-55 for a while (I think it is still decent) but it has a lot of flare issues that reared up with some types of shooting I was doing.

I think most people want lenses that deliver the shot they have in their mind when they press the button. A lot of lenses can work, but some are disappointing. Some people spend too much time looking at 100% crops.

And what is with mega-pixels? If you intend to print large, then disregard what I'm about to say cuz you neeed a big MP count. 8 mega-pixels will print 8x10 inches, without dropping the resolution one iota. How many people print bigger than say, 16x20? Even then, the quality drop is not terrible, nothing standing a few feet further back won't cure.


Depends on individual needs. The 5D has all the IQ I need.

My last gripe is frames per second. Here, I feel that 3-6 is good enough. Sports and wildlife may require more, no doubt, but when we cross into double digit fps rates, are we not just moving towards video? I once spoke to a photographer on this subject, a photojournalist no less. We're bs'ing about photog. all night, and he says that not a single one of his best images came from a time where he was shooting a sequence. He also said, and I don't know if this is true or not, that most of the best sports photos you see aren't from sequences. He shoots the US open and the NFL occasionally, so maybe there is validity to that, but either way, if it gets to 15 fps and you say "THATS what I need!!" just quit photography do video already.

I dunno. The fastest I have owned was 6.5 fps and I didn't have much use for it. I guess if it comes with the camera that's fine but I would not upgrade for more fps. I would upgrade for better (more accurate, lower light) AF.

[Glenn NK]

Crop in the camera, not in photoshop.

Just move closer...... do your work behind the lens not the desk.

Right on. Two ways to crop in the camera; move closer and/or use the correct lens. Unfortunately they both require thinking ahead.;)

If I have to remove 1/3 of an image, I've screwed up in the field; if I have to remove 1/2 of an image, I've really screwed up.:lol:

In regard to fps; the best shot I've ever seen of hockey action was of Bobby Orr "lying" horizontally about four or five feet in the air - the photographer didn't likely have even 3 fps - he knew his subject (hockey), and watched carefully (thinking ahead and always ready). Having the best tool in the world can become a crutch.

[chauncey]

That best tool in town can indeed be a crutch, but for those of us that are handicapped, that crutch is a necessary tool.

[Right Cranium Imaging]

That best tool in town can indeed be a crutch, but for those of us that are handicapped, that crutch is a necessary tool.

Touche ! Even though I dont 100% agree, 10 points for clever reply :)

[gregpphoto]

Wow this got a lot of feedback, nice.

I don't hate the technology, nor is this rant excessively spurred on by anything I read here. It comes from all walks of photography life, from working in camera stores, assisting, shooting, etc. It just seems as though that's what the consumers all care about, cuz that's what is highly featured on todays cameras.

And I'm not always an exception to my complaints. I shoot sequences, at 5 fps, I use L glass almost exclusively, and I'd love to have more than 8 mega pixels, mainly because I want to print huge though.

[tonylong]

Wow this got a lot of feedback, nice.

I don't hate the technology, nor is this rant excessively spurred on by anything I read here. It comes from all walks of photography life, from working in camera stores, assisting, shooting, etc. It just seems as though that's what the consumers all care about, cuz that's what is highly featured on todays cameras.

And I'm not always an exception to my complaints. I shoot sequences, at 5 fps, I use L glass almost exclusively, and I'd love to have more than 8 mega pixels, mainly because I want to print huge though.

Heh! You are now arguing with yourself! Time to up the meds:)!

[sjones]

...Over on sportsshooter there are often minimum requirements to even be considered for a freelance job--usually a MkII/300 f2.8/ability to transmit on site. If you don't have the gear you don't even get a chance--even if you have lots of talent...

Yeah, but a lot of people who jack up Kleenex shares proportionate to the increase in frames per second are not even involved with sports or wildlife, they just want the latest for its own sake irrespective if they actually ever use it. However, this is nothing new, and certainly not unique to photography. Yes, it can be annoying, outright painful in fact, but it is arguably a congenital consequence of being human, so change is unlikely.

...In regard to fps; the best shot I've ever seen of hockey action was of Bobby Orr "lying" horizontally about four or five feet in the air - the photographer didn't likely have even 3 fps - he knew his subject (hockey), and watched carefully (thinking ahead and always ready). Having the best tool in the world can become a crutch.

Exactly, having lived in Boston for ten years, that photo, which is superb, is particularly engrained in my head. In fact, many of my favorite sports photographs, including those of Jackie Robinson or Muhammad Ali (or technically Cassius Clay), were taken with what would be considered archaic, ineffective gear.

[krb]

In fact, many of my favorite sports photographs, including those of Jackie Robinson or Muhammad Ali (or technically Cassius Clay), were taken with what would be considered archaic, ineffective gear.
Was the gear considered archaic at the time the pictures were taken, or was it expensive pro-level gear?

If those photographers were still in the business, do you think they'd be using that same gear or do you think they'd be using something like a 1Ds MkIII and L glass?

Most people consider the Mona Lisa better than any of the photos you've mentioned. Does that mean we should all get out of the camera business and buy a bunch of oil paint and brushes?

[gregpphoto]

Most people consider the Mona Lisa better than any of the photos you've mentioned. Does that mean we should all get out of the camera business and buy a bunch of oil paint and brushes?

Yes.

[tonylong]

Most people consider the Mona Lisa better than any of the photos you've mentioned. Does that mean we should all get out of the camera business and buy a bunch of oil paint and brushes?

Yes.

Heh! For me, it would break down to finger painting and stick figures! My version of the Mona Lisa would probably be a smiley (or half-smiley) face with scraggly hair.

[chauncey]

These posts (is it the gear or the photographer) show up periodically and are generally started and answered by those that
have the better gear or those that are trying to justify not being able to afford the better gear.

I'm always amazed that someone would truly believe that the quality of the gear has no effect on the quality of the "photograph".
Note that I said photograph and not artwork, there's a difference in my mind.

Sure, you can say that I don't need it for this or for that and you're right, providing you stick to that genre,
but when you get out of that comfort zone, what then. What if you want to try sports or BIF or the moon, what do you do then?

I wrote this back in June, It explains my rationale for having a Ds3:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5731215

It gives me the ability to play at those different genre that I referred to and I'm having a blast
with things that were impossible with my xti and kit lens, in my hands.

[Glenn NK]

This guy is using a Canon 10D:

http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-photographic-technique/283-creating-intimate-portraits-in-nature

http://www.gdphotography.com/

I'm not suggesting we should sell our present gear, and get used 10Ds with kit lenses, but frankly most of us can't even come close to using the full extent of our XTis, 30Ds, etc. that we have, let alone the top of the line Canons. And that includes me.

And I suspect that too many of us really think we'll get significantly better results with the latest body and all L glass.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having better gear than one is capable of fully utilizing.

But let's not pretend that we need it.

[sjones]

Was the gear considered archaic at the time the pictures were taken, or was it expensive pro-level gear?

Doesn't make a difference, does it? In fact, I don't even care if the photographer was skilled or artistically inclined. All I know is that I am looking at a photograph taken with camera gear that is four to five decades old, and I still love the photograph---I am certainly not demanding that it be sharper or more contrasty. Now, whether the camera was top of the line at the time, who knows. What I do know is that it was not a Canon 1D series. But beyond that, I don't care, I still like the photo.

Most people consider the Mona Lisa better than any of the photos you've mentioned. Does that mean we should all get out of the camera business and buy a bunch of oil paint and brushes?

Your Mona Lisa analogy is wacky; we are discussing photographs, not paintings. Even I, theoretically, can like the Mona Lisa better than the photographs I mentioned, but how does that detract one bit from my appreciation for the photographs. I like some other photographs as much if not better than the photos I mentioned; should I give up photography to then take up photography?

Anyway, if you want to dip into the arbitrary, I think that having five hot naked women sitting in my apartment is better than any photograph, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give up photography; it's good to diversify one's interest. (Some people, from what I've seen in the G&N section, even combine the two).

These posts (is it the gear or the photographer) show up periodically and are generally started and answered by those that...are trying to justify not being able to afford the better gear.

That is a very elitist assumption. I can conversely say that SOME people who have spent exorbitant amounts of money on camera gear attempt to vindicate such expense by trying to convince themselves that the quality offered is essential towards making a great photograph irrespective, and I repeat, irrespective of their actual needs (never mind skill).

I'm always amazed that someone would truly believe that the quality of the gear has no effect on the quality of the "photograph".
Note that I said photograph and not artwork, there's a difference in my mind.

This is because you define better photographs solely in terms of sharpness, resolution, contrast, and such. That's fine, and might I advise you to purchase a resolution chart; seems like that would be the only subject matter you would ever need.

In general, if I argue against a liberal, it does not mean I am conservative, or vice versa. Despite my predilection for monochrome photographs, I don't live in a black & white world. Consequently, if I point out that excellent photos were produced using what would now be considered anachronistic gear, I am not remotely suggesting that sports photographers chuck their gear and get a Kodak Instamatic instead. I am simply pointing out that some of my favorite photos (in fact, most of them in any genre) were made with cameras of old, and that is simply worth some reflection in this great gear debate.