Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 28 Nov 2016 (Monday) 13:39
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

More Megapixels are better

 
dhornick
Senior Member
dhornick's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Omaha, NE
Nov 28, 2016 13:39 |  #1

So I've often read that most photographers say more megapixels does not necessarily mean a better image. I don't know much about professional photography, only what my eye likes. With the newer Canon 5DS and SR 50 megapixel cameras along with the Sony A7 42 megapixel camera, my eye sees a tremendous difference in sharpness and clarity along with colors and exposure.


Darrell
6D | 16-35mm f/4 L | 8-15mm Fisheye L | 24-105mm f/4L | 24-70mm f/2.8L | 100-400mm f/4.5 5.6L | Speedlights 430EX III, 600EX II RT & ST-E3-RT transmitter.
Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
DesolateMirror
Senior Member
DesolateMirror's Avatar
Joined Oct 2015
Post has been edited 11 months ago by DesolateMirror.
Nov 28, 2016 14:01 |  #2

I do agree that the images from the S and SR do look a bit better (different?) than the 5d2/3/4. I think it might be something other than the megapixels though. With more megapixels you're always going to get sharper images when you reduce the image size. Maybe they changed the colour handling slightly, the response seems to be closer to the 5DC.

Also people that can afford a 5DS/SR are probably serious about photography and have decent skill levels and are probably using some of the best lenses, which is definitely a factor :P




LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
chauncey's Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Jun 2007
MI/CO
Nov 29, 2016 07:45 |  #3

a better image

Perhaps you could define "better image"...print with nose length viewing distance, 100% crop with 3 pixel edges, what?
Doing all that with an eight year old 1Ds3, proper lenses, and PS is not that difficult.


The things you do for yourself die with you, the things you do for others live forever.
A man's worth should be judged, not when he basks in the sun, but how he faces the storm.

My stuff...http://1x.com/member/c​hauncey43external link

LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Nov 29, 2016 08:31 |  #4

Better glass, better sensor with higher dynamic range, better DIGIC processor(s) and firmware to render the raw sensor data into the visible jpeg. The number of pixels is incidental.

When you say "tremendous difference in sharpness and clarity along with colors and exposure" I'm a little confused. How can a newer camera get a better "exposure" than an older camera? Perhaps you're referring to dynamic range, which is unrelated to number of pixels?


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

LOG IN TO REPLY
BJ_Nguyen
Senior Member
BJ_Nguyen's Avatar
Joined Jan 2012
Atlanta GA
Nov 29, 2016 08:49 |  #5

I've been using 2 5DsR after moved from 6D. And never look back at any chance. The pictures quality gives so much details , especially studio portrait ! The only problem that I'm dealing with is it makes huge files and fill up the external HD quickly.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,569 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Nov 29, 2016 08:58 |  #6

I have a 24MP 80D. It seems to produce excellent JPG files. I've only had it a few days, but am looking to shoot JPG instead of raw. Still checking this one out.
I have a 20MP 6D. IQ is better in every imagineable way over the 80D, but if I want the most, I have to shoot raw.
I have a 16MP 1DIV. Raw IQ is better than the 80D (yes, it is 7 years older than the 80D). AF is everything I've ever wanted AF to be.

Which one is better? That depends on what I am trying to accomplish. A 5-ton Mack dump-truck makes an excellent firewood hauler. You ain't gonna win the Daytona 500 with it.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
kf095's Avatar
Joined Dec 2009
Canada, Ontario, Milton
Nov 29, 2016 08:59 |  #7

My eyes are set on big screen TV and 20-something monitor where about 9K of pictures are slide show projected.
I'm also seeing same of those pictures on 8x10 prints periodically.
Size is 2800 pixels at long side of the image. 6 megapixels.

I don't want to see 50 megapixel files anywhere near my computer. Waste of HDD space and CPU for processing.

I sold 5DmKii because it had higher MPs, but flat rendering comparing to 5Dc with large sensor pixels at 12MP.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

LOG IN TO REPLY
nqjudo
Goldmember
nqjudo's Avatar
2,687 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Canada
Nov 29, 2016 08:59 |  #8

Good images make more megapixels better. Bad images make more megapixels worse.


No photographer is as good as the simplest camera. - Edward Steichen.

LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
tonylong's Avatar
54,592 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Vancouver, WA USA
Nov 29, 2016 09:03 |  #9

I don't think that "More megapixels are better" is a good generalization -- there are numerous other things that come into play when it comes to IQ. Of course, you can talk about making large prints, as in gallery-size prints, sure, there is an advantage to "more megapixels" as long as the camera technology can properly process all those megapixels and the photographer knows how to make good use of them (both in the camera and in post-processing). But still, there are other considerations! This had been an old, long-going discussion, and that's understandable, and then if you really want to go to town there are Medium Format digital bodies, and wow, sure!

I myself use a variety of "older technology" bodies, and sure, if I wanted to "buy up" to newer maxi-megapixel bodies, but I've been quite happy with how prints turn out (ones that are "framing" sizes), although with some of the older prints of, say, 4 Meg bodies don't stand up so well when it comes up to the finer details in larger prints. But viewing at digital display sizes, I don't complain!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,569 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Nov 29, 2016 09:03 |  #10

nqjudo wrote in post #18197943 (external link)
Good images make more megapixels better. Bad images make more megapixels worse.

Are you suggesting that the PHOTOGRAPHER has any input at all into IQ? BLASPHEMER!!! How dare you? Gear is everything! The more you spend, the better your photos. It really is that simple. :)


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
nqjudo
Goldmember
nqjudo's Avatar
2,687 posts
Joined Apr 2007
Canada
Nov 29, 2016 09:08 |  #11

Bassat wrote in post #18197949 (external link)
Are you suggesting that the PHOTOGRAPHER has any input at all into IQ? BLASPHEMER!!! How dare you? Gear is everything! The more you spend, the better your photos. It really is that simple. :)

Now that caused more than a chuckle! ;-)a


No photographer is as good as the simplest camera. - Edward Steichen.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,151 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 11 months ago by Wilt. 9 edits done in total.
Nov 29, 2016 09:36 |  #12

We definitely see improved detail resolution...

But, it might be said that the megapixel count specification itself can EXAGGERATE the impression of improved resolution. After all...

  • 12 Mpixel 5Dc camera is 4368 x 2912
  • 50 Mpixel 5DS camera is 8688 x 5792


...but the pixel count in a SINGLE AXIS is only 2x ! Only 2x the possible detail resolution in a single axis (Nyquist Limit says 4343 vs. 2183 line-pairs) while requiring 4x the data storage requirement.

And then you have the fact that very few photos are enlarged over 13x19", and this would result in 458 pixels/inch from the 5DS sensor -- which the human eye cannot even detect!
Unless you print at 19" x 29", you are not using the 300ppi potential from 8688 pixels, so you might as well continue to shoot with a Canon 5DII which imposes far less data storage demands yet fully satisfies the need for about 300ppi on a 13x19" print.

We marvel at the improved noise characteristics of the new 5DIV...imagine if we continued to shoot at a 5Dc resolution sensor, yet applied the same silicon manufacturing techology and the same noise processing as used today in the 5DIV...just how marvelously free of noise the images would be when the sensor has 2.3x the area (signal generating area) per pixel.

And then we view them on monitors that only have 2M-4M pixel count, or with projectors that have 2M pixel count (that's what most of us can afford to buy reasonably), so even the 5Dc resolution 12Mpixel is wasted for the most part...just think how few images even MAKE IT onto paper!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
tonylong's Avatar
54,592 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Vancouver, WA USA
Nov 29, 2016 11:52 |  #13

It's interesting, my "standard" print/framing size has over time been prints of 12x18/12x16 (using a 13x19 printer/paper setup). I will say that the prints from both my 5DC body and my trusty ol' 30D body come out fine in terms of resolution! In fact, I once decided to go through prints that were hanging from my walls -- sure, some from my old "compact" cameras, 4-6 megapixels, broke down in the fine details. But I was checking out a 30D shot, it looked great. In fact I grabbed a magnifying glass and got up close, and guess what? Nice fine detail!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
MalVeauX's Avatar
Joined Feb 2013
Florida
Nov 29, 2016 12:23 |  #14

dhornick wrote in post #18197083 (external link)
So I've often read that most photographers say more megapixels does not necessarily mean a better image. I don't know much about professional photography, only what my eye likes. With the newer Canon 5DS and SR 50 megapixel cameras along with the Sony A7 42 megapixel camera, my eye sees a tremendous difference in sharpness and clarity along with colors and exposure.

More is only better if the result you're trying to get from the system benefits from having more pixels.

Personally I'd rather have a 12 MP large sensor, than a 50 MP sensor of the same size. I want the bigger pixels.

An A7SII vs an A7RII for example. You either need resolution, or you need bigger pixels. They're two very different systems and good at different things, but neither replace each other, just overlap a bit.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,565 views & 15 likes for this thread
More Megapixels are better
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00252 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.05s
Latest registered member is aftahir
800 guests, 310 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016