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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 04 Jul 2010 (Sunday) 11:42
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is 8 megapixels enough for you?

 
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,775 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 978
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Jul 05, 2010 19:09 as a reply to  @ post 10482151 |  #121

Eight megapixels is sufficient for an uncropped 8x10 of virtually any subject. 'Nuff said on that.

But enlarging more requires more resolution for most subjects. Basically, the original image must resolve all the detail a viewer will expect to see of a particular subject at a particular enlargement.

For portraits, as an example, any time a face is enlarged to two inches or more, the facial hair must be resolved. If viewers can't begin to count eyelashes on the eyes of a two-inch head, they will not consider the image sharp. Hair is easy to interpolate--it's just a line--so if the facial hair is resolved on the original image, you can interpolate it successfully to nearly any size.

That's why headshots are successful even at 4mp...at that scale, the facial hair is resolved even at such a low resolution. But if you expect to shoot full-length group portraits and successfully enlarge them to 2-inch head sizes--"successfully" meaning resolving the eyelashes--you need at least 20mp.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jsboutin
Member
181 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Jul 05, 2010 20:04 as a reply to  @ RDKirk's post |  #122

My rebel xt is doing what I want of it resolution-wise. I'd like more usable high-ISO, but that's not relevant to this topic.


EOS Digital Rebel XT, EF 17-40 F/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jul 05, 2010 20:48 |  #123

I had a 30D, Great camera and it worked awesomely...

I now have a 7D...

Honestly, yes theres a difference, I can crop a lot and not hurt anything (I can do a pretty huge crop and still have an 8 megapixel file that usually looks better than my 30D's output..) and the fact that theres a lot less noise really helps

But 8 megapixels is sufficient for a lot of people for a lot of needs...I say i could probubly live without my 18 again if i had to, but it sure is nice to have some extra megapixels when you just couldnt get close enough...

And 13x19s DO look better out of my 7D than my 30D files...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Jul 06, 2010 06:41 |  #124

KenjiS wrote in post #10482951 (external link)
I had a 30D, Great camera and it worked awesomely...

I now have a 7D...

Honestly, yes theres a difference, I can crop a lot and not hurt anything (I can do a pretty huge crop and still have an 8 megapixel file that usually looks better than my 30D's output..) and the fact that theres a lot less noise really helps

But 8 megapixels is sufficient for a lot of people for a lot of needs...I say i could probubly live without my 18 again if i had to, but it sure is nice to have some extra megapixels when you just couldnt get close enough...

And 13x19s DO look better out of my 7D than my 30D files...

The more you crop the higher the resolving ability of the lens required, but that is a different topic.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ingraman
Member
169 posts
Joined Mar 2009
     
Jul 06, 2010 09:21 as a reply to  @ bohdank's post |  #125

My limit is 12+ mp. Can't do 8 anymore, especially after using a 50D for a while. Heck, they even have 9.2mp monitors now (3,840 x 2,400, QUXGA). Who knows what kind of monitors we'll be using in a few years. Having a more MP is a bit more future proof.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jul 06, 2010 09:40 |  #126

I personally LOVE the 18MP of the 7D... I crop quite a bit for longer reach and the detail after cropping is excellent. The IQ I get looks up there along with the 5DII and others, so why not...

I love the extra MP, myself... But would I want more? It depends... If they can keep the IQ the same, or improve, sure. When and if it starts to hurt the IQ, then no.

Personally with the 7D, the IQ is incredible. I love it.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
10megapixel
"I'm a little slow"
Avatar
3,872 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Â…Â…Surrounded by Corn and Rednecks in Indiana
     
Jul 06, 2010 09:53 |  #127

Invertalon wrote in post #10485654 (external link)
I personally LOVE the 18MP of the 7D... I crop quite a bit for longer reach and the detail after cropping is excellent. The IQ I get looks up there along with the 5DII and others, so why not...

I love the extra MP, myself... But would I want more? It depends... If they can keep the IQ the same, or improve, sure. When and if it starts to hurt the IQ, then no.

Personally with the 7D, the IQ is incredible. I love it.

You have come to this conclusion by comparing your 7D shots to shots taken with your 5D2 I assume?



Gear List & Feedback



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jul 06, 2010 10:02 |  #128
bannedPermanent ban

10megapixel wrote in post #10485717 (external link)
You have come to this conclusion by comparing your 7D shots to shots taken with your 5D2 I assume?

I have both and compared images and for me the 5D2 for landscapes and low light where image quality is most important and the 7D for sports and wildlife where focus and the 1.6 reach factor is the most important.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jul 06, 2010 17:19 |  #129

bohdank wrote in post #10484909 (external link)
The more you crop the higher the resolving ability of the lens required, but that is a different topic.

Agreed entirely, No camera has shown more weaknesses in lenses than my 7D has...

But I'm also blessed to have the 7D and the 15-85 which is stupidly sharp, as well as my 100 Macro...and my 100-400 isnt half bad either!


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sethultimate
Member
212 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jul 06, 2010 19:33 |  #130

picturecrazy wrote in post #10475867 (external link)
8MP is an awesome number. It does quite well in printing, even in larger sizes. I wish the modern cameras had less megapixels. In fact I downres files to 8mp when I send them to clients... non-photographers don't want to deal with gigantic image files. :)

I have a 1D2N and the difference in terms of details compared to a 1Ds classic or 5D classic is substantial.

But that's not what the camera was for. Many still don't understand that.

the camera is good for medium/low resolution material (to file on the spot like news or sports)

suggesting that the resolution is great is funny. It is not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sethultimate
Member
212 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jul 06, 2010 19:43 |  #131

RDKirk wrote in post #10482474 (external link)
Eight megapixels is sufficient for an uncropped 8x10 of virtually any subject. 'Nuff said on that.

But enlarging more requires more resolution for most subjects. Basically, the original image must resolve all the detail a viewer will expect to see of a particular subject at a particular enlargement.

For portraits, as an example, any time a face is enlarged to two inches or more, the facial hair must be resolved. If viewers can't begin to count eyelashes on the eyes of a two-inch head, they will not consider the image sharp. Hair is easy to interpolate--it's just a line--so if the facial hair is resolved on the original image, you can interpolate it successfully to nearly any size.

That's why headshots are successful even at 4mp...at that scale, the facial hair is resolved even at such a low resolution. But if you expect to shoot full-length group portraits and successfully enlarge them to 2-inch head sizes--"successfully" meaning resolving the eyelashes--you need at least 20mp.


Excellent post:
I agree , completely

I shoot heads/heads&shoulder for actors (and misses) and never the chosen images were left at the native resolution: it never happened. There is always a process to smooth the face. always. But any "smoothing" process will work better if the base is well detailed.

8MP are more than enough if you file to a news agency. Even a double spread will look good. Again in news/sports.

and that's what the 1D class cameras are for.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.E.V.
/Include subdirectories, empty directories, and verify.
Avatar
3,866 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Agoura Hills, CA
     
Jul 06, 2010 20:26 |  #132

Had a 30D and it was plenty, now with 2mp more on the 1d3 I still don't need move.


ShotsInTime (external link) / Gear List /Flickr (external link) / Canon Family Portrait (external link)
- Don't Argue With A Stupid Person, They Will Bring You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
versedmb
Goldmember
4,448 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Apr 2006
     
Jul 06, 2010 20:35 |  #133

Erik_L wrote in post #10479628 (external link)
When I know I don't need all 18MP on the 7D, I shoot at mRAW - it is true that there is a lot less noise, which is nice, and I don't have to store enormous files for everyday activities. I'm pretty much done with JPG altogether :)

Agreed, sRAW high ISO performance is amazing on the 5d2 - and most times when I'm shooting at ISO's greater than 800 its for a candid portrait, which I'm unlikely to print at greater then 8X10. For landscapes or when I expect to crop alot then I use full size RAW.


Gear List

Michael

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
15,353 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1678
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Jul 06, 2010 20:43 |  #134

Great thread, lots of opinions. Mileage may very, obviously.


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
siginu
Member
Avatar
131 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Kansas City area
     
Jul 06, 2010 22:36 |  #135

Way to many for me;)


[EOS7D] [EOS5DMKIII] [EF 50mm 1.8 I] [EF 24-70L f4 is] [EF 70-200L f4 is] [EF 50mm 1.4] [1.4 TC]

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

15,570 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is 8 megapixels enough for you?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Canid
847 guests, 269 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.