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 29 Mar 2011 (Tuesday) 19:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do megapixels really not matter?

 
HansSteinert
Senior Member
419 posts
Joined Feb 2011
     
Mar 30, 2011 02:50 |  #31

E.o.s wrote in post #12122463 (external link)
at 100% crop pic taken from 16Mp 1Dmark IV will be way sharper than pic taken from 18Mp 7D, also at F11 18mp 7d will get more soft! so lesser the pixels sharper the pic.

see this for ex http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=6 (external link)

considering 7D have 2 million more pixels but still it wont compete with MarkiV at pixel level sharpness.


see what happens at F16

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=7 (external link)

higher Mp of 7D aren't resulting in more detail

That isn't because the 7D has more pixels.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jardiniboy
Senior Member
508 posts
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Waipahu, Hawaii
     
Mar 30, 2011 02:57 |  #32

geeky wrote in post #12122390 (external link)
I havent read the entire thread, but owning a Canon 1Dc and a 50D, or in comparison 4.1mp vs. 15mp.

Ive been reaching for the 1D much more often than the 50D since purchasing it. The photos I have taken with the 1D are superb for "only" being a 4.1mp camera. But the issue that comes in comparing these two cameras for me, is the fact that the 1D is a CMOS not CCD sensor and the different sensor sizes and I love the 1D for its color rendering abilities.

It seems I cant find the video right now, but if memory serves correct, Adorama has a VERY well done video explaining the differences between megapixel ratings.

You actually got it the other way around. The 1DC has the CCD sensor and the 50D has the CMOS sensor.


Gear List Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 553
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 30, 2011 05:39 as a reply to  @ Jardiniboy's post |  #33

The Megapixel doesn't matter as much and sensor size and quality, better cameras usually have larger sensors and larger pixels!

also pixel count is a square function, you don't need to add a whole lot of horizontal or vertical lines to drastically jump the pixel count, as an example:

3 MP cameras have 2,048 pixels horizontally and 14 MP cameras have 4,500 pixels. They have fewer pixels vertically since the images aren't as tall as they are wide.

What's more important is the size of the pixel and the ability to gather information, this usually results in better iso color and less noise . Likewise packing more MP onto the same size image sensor will make them smaller thus degrading image quality.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,123 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5900
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Mar 30, 2011 06:08 |  #34

E.o.s wrote in post #12122463 (external link)
at 100% crop pic taken from 16Mp 1Dmark IV will be way sharper than pic taken from 18Mp 7D, also at F11 18mp 7d will get more soft! so lesser the pixels sharper the pic.

see this for ex http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=6 (external link)

considering 7D have 2 million more pixels but still it wont compete with MarkiV at pixel level sharpness.


see what happens at F16

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=7 (external link)

higher Mp of 7D aren't resulting in more detail

Having used the 7D, 5D2 and the 1D4 in real life, I can tell you with 100% certainty their tests are flubbed on the 7D with that lens.

I have tested ISO and IQ between these pretty extensively, and there is very little difference these days between the most recent cameras when it comes to capturing detail.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Mar 30, 2011 06:36 |  #35

E.o.s wrote in post #12122463 (external link)
at 100% crop pic taken from 16Mp 1Dmark IV will be way sharper than pic taken from 18Mp 7D, also at F11 18mp 7d will get more soft! so lesser the pixels sharper the pic.

see this for ex http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=6 (external link)

considering 7D have 2 million more pixels but still it wont compete with MarkiV at pixel level sharpness.


see what happens at F16

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=7 (external link)

higher Mp of 7D aren't resulting in more detail

"At the pixel level" would be dependent on lens resolving power. It's not a sensor limitation but a lens limitation (depends on the lens). We are also discussing more pixels, all else being equal so I do not see the purpose of introducing sensor size or mentioning diffraction due to sensor size.

With the same sensor size, more pixels is better for reasons posted earlier.


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
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Mar 30, 2011 06:38 |  #36

cameraperson wrote in post #12120065 (external link)
I really don't mean to start the flames up. But I just can't wrap my head around it being true that 6MP is as good as 18MP. Are MP really that unimportant?

For the sake of discussion, please assume that ergonomics, camera functions such as fps, the photographer's skills are not in question. And I beg you, please do not simply reply telling me the camera does not matter and that it is the photographer and that a photographer can take a good picture no matter what - I get that. I promise. That's not what I am asking and I promise I don't mean that as smart-alec as it sounds. Really. I believe it. This is more a gear question as it relates to IQ.

I do think technological differences such as better AF could impact this but I don't want to answer my own question...I'm just too scared to buy a used camera with few megapixels.

What you have neglected to do is post a couple of pictures to give others an idea about where you're up to with your photography and to tell us in what ways you feel your present gear is lagging behind your ability.

If you aren't very accomplished then it's unlikely that an upgrade in MP's will in itself make you a better photographer.

Another thought: Assuming you're using a crop camera, have you considered whether you might be happier with a full-frame?

David


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 30, 2011 06:41 |  #37

It's all quite simple -

If you like looking at pixels then you want as few pixels as possible.

If you like looking at images then you want as many pixels as possible.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Mar 30, 2011 06:42 |  #38

mike_311 wrote in post #12122870 (external link)
The Megapixel doesn't matter as much and sensor size and quality, better cameras usually have larger sensors and larger pixels!

also pixel count is a square function, you don't need to add a whole lot of horizontal or vertical lines to drastically jump the pixel count, as an example:

3 MP cameras have 2,048 pixels horizontally and 14 MP cameras have 4,500 pixels. They have fewer pixels vertically since the images aren't as tall as they are wide.

What's more important is the size of the pixel and the ability to gather information, this usually results in better iso color and less noise . Likewise packing more MP onto the same size image sensor will make them smaller thus degrading image quality.

This is becoming less true with modern cameras. A 5DII has considerably more pixels than the 5D. The 5DII has better noise handling, more resolving power and slightly more DR. The look of the images out of the 5D are glorious but the weak AA filter adds a significant contribution to the 5D's deserved reputation. Nothing to do with the quantity of pixels.


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
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Mar 30, 2011 06:43 |  #39

hollis_f wrote in post #12123019 (external link)
It's all quite simple -

If you like looking at pixels then you want as few pixels as possible.

If you like looking at images then you want as many pixels as possible.

Concise and very true.


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
butugly
Senior Member
621 posts
Joined Mar 2006
Location: chelmsford,essex.UK
     
Mar 30, 2011 06:50 |  #40

Cameraperson take a photo print it at 8x10 and look at it carefully ;),"now stop pixel peeping" :rolleyes: and look at it as it was designed from a distance maybe 4 feet away,now look carefully at it,yes it looks much better standing back and looking at it.Unless you took the photo you would not know how many MPs it was taken with,and being photograpers we tend to over scrutinise photos for the detail.The human eye cannot tell how many MPs a photo has been printed with and it does not matter as long as the photo looks good.Very good quality prints at 8x10 can be made with 2 megapixels,so in all we have been brainwashed into wanting more MPs and its easier for the manufacturers to give us more MPs than better ISO noise control.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Mar 30, 2011 07:10 |  #41

Viewing distance.....

This is often used to defend low pixel counts. Unless you rope of the area or make proximity inaccesible, people have a tendency to view different types of images at varying distances. A portrait, yes, people will stand further back. The important thing is to resolve the hair and eyelashes. The rest is less important. A landscape, people will move in closer and closer expecting to see the details in the image.

8 X 10's. Most of mine are in binders. Normal viewing distance would be less than arms length.


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
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,123 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5900
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Mar 30, 2011 07:33 |  #42

bohdank wrote in post #12123114 (external link)
Viewing distance.....

This is often used to defend low pixel counts. Unless you rope of the area or make proximity inaccesible, people have a tendency to view different types of images at varying distances. A portrait, yes, people will stand further back. The important thing is to resolve the hair and eyelashes. The rest is less important. A landscape, people will move in closer and closer expecting to see the details in the image.

8 X 10's. Most of mine are in binders. Normal viewing distance would be less than arms length.

That is indeed a very good point, and one I don't hear made very often. In fact I think quite a bit of modeling photography involves removing defects of the model so that if people get close, they don't see those, and people don't have a tendency to scrutinize those types of shots anyways.

However landscapes, and building shots, and paparazzi shots all seem to draw people in much closer to see details like people in the landscape, whether that is a gun or a syringe that Charlie Sheen is holding, etc.

:)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Mar 30, 2011 07:54 |  #43

Look at any fashion magazine or cosmetic ad, in print. Those are razor sharp with a lot of detail. They may end up being used as life size billboards or larger. Look at a great, very large, scenic print. It's not too surprising that all those are usually taken using MF with lots of pixels, albeit digital cameras, these days.


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
f.2.8
Member
Avatar
147 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: loviisa
     
Mar 30, 2011 08:12 |  #44

Remember that pixel size is what matters.. smaller pixel size=better resolution.
It is not all about how many... it is how tight they are. some examples:
Canon EOS 5D sensor:1.0x, 35.8 x 23.9mm, pixel size 8.2µm
Canon EOS 5D Mark , sensor:1.0x, 36.0 x 24.0mm, pixel size:6.4µm
Canon EOS 1D Mark IV, sensor:1.3x, 27.9 x 18.6mm, pixel size 5.7µm

then the quality of the sensor matters...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,123 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5900
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Mar 30, 2011 08:16 |  #45

But smaller pixel size = "more loss of light", thus why they keep working on the sensor technology, like gapless, etc. Once light that hits the area of a sensor can be fully recorded (or as near 100% as possible), then this would no longer be true.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

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

7,853 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do megapixels really not matter?
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 Ezra Praveen
1231 guests, 246 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.