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 07 Feb 2012 (Tuesday) 07:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

The truth is, people still want more mega pixels

 
mcluckie
I play with fire, run with scissors and skate on thin ice all at once!
Avatar
2,059 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Likes: 307
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, Hong Kong
     
Feb 11, 2012 08:20 |  #121

Preeb wrote in post #13856207 (external link)
As it has been for many, many years. We are so far ahead now of where we were when the choice was 35mm or MF/TLR or view camera. To argue that they still MUST do more in the same format seems to me to be simple greed. It has reached the point, not of asking, but demanding more and more, and then whining incessantly when your demands aren't fulfilled.

Do what photographers did in 1970... if they wanted higher resolution than was possible in 35mm, they paid the price for it by shooting a larger format, and they learned to lug the gear around to do so. Look at photos of Ansel Adams with his tripod mounted view camera over his shoulder. He drove around in a station wagon to carry all of his gear.

I sometimes wonder if the loudest complaints don't come from those who didn't have to learn to live with the limitations we had back in the old days - not talking 1920's, but even the 1970's and 80's. My 60D is so many light years ahead of my Minolta SRT-102 that I would be ashamed to complain about it only having 18 megapixels.

I shot a PGA tournament (for the PGA) with a Hasselblad ELM in 1982, 100 ft. rolls of 120, and the longest telephotos I could rent. Granted, it wasn't ice hockey, but the reality is I had to move a lot more than sideline photoguys. t worked much harder than carrying Nikons, but it was worth it. I never whine.


multidisciplinary visual guy | traveler on the 8-fold path | seeker of the spark | walker of the dog
all dingus | dslr canon 5D4, 85L, 70-200LII zeiss distagon 15, 21, 25, 28, 50ƒ1.4 milvus; vario-sonnar N 24-85; makro planar 50, 100 mirrorless leica Q2 fujifilm XT-2, XT-20, 16, 18, 56, 16-55, 50-140; zeiss distagon 12, planar 32 film canon 1n hasselblad 501cm, 50, 80

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
wimg
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,592 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Netherlands, EU
     
Feb 11, 2012 08:57 |  #122

DuBarry wrote in post #13865289 (external link)
I realize that this was said tongue-in-cheek

But just so you know I read WIMG and SHADOWBLADE'S explanation twice already (it's easy enough to get the general gist of their incredibly detailed

explanations but I like to re-read for a more thorough understanding)

I firmly believe that WIMG is a Robot (or Android if you prefer) if he even has a physical presence.

Thank you.

I don't think I ever got called a robot or android, nerd and geek, yes, or simply the Mad Dutchman, for the ability I displayed once to roll on the floor with laughter for more than an hour in an open plan office with about 200 people, but hey...

BTW, regarding the above: I honestly thought I kept it simple. :D

Kind regards, Wim


5D Mk II & EOS 5 (analog) with a gaggle of primes & a solitary zoom, OM-D E-M1 Mk II, Pen-F & Panasonic GM5 with 11 primes, 8 zooms, 3 Metabones adapters/speedboosters​, and an accessory plague

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DuBarry
Senior Member
Avatar
321 posts
Joined Sep 2011
     
Feb 11, 2012 10:56 |  #123

wimg wrote in post #13867759 (external link)
I don't think I ever got called a robot or android, nerd and geek, yes, or simply the Mad Dutchman, for the ability I displayed once to roll on the floor with laughter for more than an hour in an open plan office with about 200 people, but hey...

BTW, regarding the above: I honestly thought I kept it simple. :D

Kind regards, Wim

LOL. 'The Mad Dutchman' it is!

Thanks again for your contributions.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
2,620 posts
Likes: 337
Joined Jan 2010
     
Feb 11, 2012 12:08 |  #124

mafoo wrote in post #13867419 (external link)
The quality of the glass would have to be good enough. But if it is, I am not sure what would be different. DOF maybe?

Edit: Also, as I read in another post, the about of time a moving subject is in optimum framing would be different as well, as a 400mm lens would allow you to be farther away from the action.

So it's not 100% the same, but it's damn close (like you said) :)

DOF would be the same as 400mm /5.6, so would diffraction blur size, relative to subject size, and so would noise (although the noise has camera-specific factors). Other lens blurs will be a little larger, relative to subject size, as well. For a very sharp lens, the returns are pretty good, though. For me, I'd much rather use an EOS body with pixels much smaller than my 7D's and drop the TC off my telephoto.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LudwigVB
Senior Member
Avatar
408 posts
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Sydney, Oz
     
Feb 11, 2012 21:28 |  #125

The truth is, no-one could possibly want more than 18/21 mega pixels, more megapixels means more noise and no-one wants larger files.

The truth is, I don't suppose that hurt anyone's feelings




  
  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
     
Feb 12, 2012 02:26 |  #126

LudwigVB wrote in post #13871245 (external link)
The truth is, no-one could possibly want more than 18/21 mega pixels

You've obviously not read the rest of this thread, otherwise you'd have read loads of comments from people who do want more. You would also have read my post pointing out that the same thing has been said many times in the past, I.e.; 'nobody could possibly want more than 8 megapixels' back in 2006.

LudwigVB wrote in post #13871245 (external link)
more megapixels means more noise and no-one wants larger files.

People keep repeating this, despite it being obviously wrong. Less than one second's thought is required to disprove it. Which produces more noise, a 300D at ISO800 or a 7D at ISO800?


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
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 11
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Feb 12, 2012 04:59 |  #127

LudvigVB,

You are so wrong with everything you have said. As Frank has said, read through the whole thread and it should be clear why some of us DO want just what you don't. I'm sure you want things I'd find a complete waste of space, but we are all different.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mcluckie
I play with fire, run with scissors and skate on thin ice all at once!
Avatar
2,059 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Likes: 307
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago, Hong Kong
     
Feb 12, 2012 07:23 |  #128

LudwigVB wrote in post #13871245 (external link)
The truth is, no-one could possibly want more than 18/21 mega pixels, more megapixels means more noise and no-one wants larger files.

The truth is, I don't suppose that hurt anyone's feelings

yeah, its pixel pitch, not number, that impacts noise. (from what I understand in this damaged brain.) and I welcome large files.


multidisciplinary visual guy | traveler on the 8-fold path | seeker of the spark | walker of the dog
all dingus | dslr canon 5D4, 85L, 70-200LII zeiss distagon 15, 21, 25, 28, 50ƒ1.4 milvus; vario-sonnar N 24-85; makro planar 50, 100 mirrorless leica Q2 fujifilm XT-2, XT-20, 16, 18, 56, 16-55, 50-140; zeiss distagon 12, planar 32 film canon 1n hasselblad 501cm, 50, 80

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RTPVid
Goldmember
3,365 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2010
Location: MN
     
Feb 12, 2012 09:43 |  #129

mcluckie wrote in post #13872712 (external link)
yeah, its pixel pitch, not number, that impacts noise. (from what I understand in this damaged brain.) and I welcome large files.

As well as technology advances.

(No comment on the damaged brain... ;))


Tom

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,641 posts
Likes: 131
Joined Dec 2010
     
Feb 12, 2012 10:33 |  #130

No doubt about it, those megapixels sell. The guy at Best Buy told me so. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DutchVince
Senior Member
297 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Netherlands
     
Feb 12, 2012 10:44 |  #131

No, I don't need more MP.

I'll show you why:

My brother has a Canon 30D with 8.2 Mp sensor.

Last month he had had some prints made at 1,5 meters wide and 1 meter high.
they were not printed on canvas which reduces detail, but were printed on aluminum/plastic laminate which preserves detail very well.

Guess what:
I can't see a single pixel at a viewing distance where I can see the whole picture.

I have a 7D with 18MP, that is more than enough for large format prints. I will never need more MP.

More dynamic range would be nice, something like 15 stops perhaps.


7D|400D|10-22|60 Macro|18-55|100-400L|600
Or: just about anything from real close to infinity
Mac Pro|calibrated Eizo monitor
Some of my photo's: http://www.allalin.nl/​photogallery/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Darkwand
Goldmember
Avatar
1,850 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Åkersberga, Sweden
     
Feb 12, 2012 10:52 |  #132

I want more megapixels too but i don't want compromised ISO quality to get there.


Adrian My Flickr (external link)
Canon 6D, Canon 7D, Canon 500D, Canon 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 IS, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, 50mm f/1.4 USM, 85mm f/1,8 USM, Sigma 70-200mm HSM Macro, 10-20mm f/4-5,6

Manfrotto 055 CXPRO4 + 498RC2, Manfrotto 410 Junior, Elinchrom: RX1200, 2x BRX250 , Dlite-it 4 and 2, Canon 580EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,307 posts
Gallery: 503 photos
Likes: 2373
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Feb 12, 2012 11:01 |  #133

gjl711 wrote in post #13841156 (external link)
Even at 36mpix, it still has a lower pixel density than both the 7D and the 50D so I don't think out resolving a lens is going to be a problem. It's not really with the 50D and 7D.

36mp is equal to a 15-16mp APS-C or so from what I was reading, at least thats what the Nikon APS-C mode on the D800 provides...

I was concerned about the fact they tripled the MP count on the D800 until I saw the samples, They kept the noise at the D3/D700 level which is REALLY impressive, the IQ is VERY impressive, even at pixel peeping levels, Also according to people who shot it, its got more DR than most other cameras on the market at lower ISOs...and yes, the "Holy crap its medium format quality" does appear to be true to an extent, the files i've seen from the D800 do look close to a Pentax 645D at a third of the cost...the D800 handles ISO6400 quite well mind you, So its really not "hopeless" at high ISO, but its not a D3S, D4 or 1DX in that department

When you output the files to print or the web, the noise is going to be virtually impossible to see because the noise is going to get covered up by the downsizing/compression​...

Different horses for courses of course, the D800 is geared towards portraits/landscapes/w​ildlife, if you shoot at high ISO constantly or have a demand to go beyond ISO6400 frequently...then the D4 is what you should be after...

On Canon side, the 1DX isnt really a replacement for the 1DsIII, its more an amalgamation of the 1Ds and 1D series into a single line geared towards high end action photography, its designed for low noise, high FPS applications like the D4...

I dont know what the 5D III will be, There are rumors floating around there could be TWO of them, one 22mp model and a 45mp model...

I highly doubt Canon is going to fork over the resolution crown to Nikon so easily, and i doubt they're going to let the D800 challenge go unanswered... I've already seen quite a few folks on here saying they're picking up a D800...

Processing power and storage are NOT an excuse to me, if you can afford a $3000 camera you should be able to afford to get yourself a hard drive or two or spend a grand to upgrade your processing computer...


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
Yno
Senior Member
Avatar
862 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Jan 2008
Location: San Jose, California
     
Feb 12, 2012 11:20 as a reply to  @ Darkwand's post |  #134

I found an interesting article by a PhD with a very impressive biography. While I didn't digest the entire article (http://www.clarkvision​.com …s/does.pixel.si​ze.matter/ (external link)), he did come to an interesting point about pixel size, which of course is at the bottom of this discussion. His Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) model predicts a maximum output at a five micron pitch, which translates to about a 33 megapixel count on a full frame sensor. There really is a ton of information in the article, and I am going to go back and study it, but I believe I have stated this part correctly. If, like me, you get a bit confused with the science, he also has a fabulous gallery, including many shot with large format cameras.


I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
www.imawino.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DetlevCM
Goldmember
Avatar
3,431 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Europe
     
Feb 12, 2012 11:58 |  #135

howiewu wrote in post #13840913 (external link)
The truth is, at least at this stage, people still want more mega pixels.

Don't start "who possibly want more than 18/21 mega pixels"? Please just don't. I've heard it before when we were at 11mp, 8mp or even 6mp.

And don't start "more megapixels means more noise". To a certain extend this is true. But then you work out how to reduce the noise. My 21mp 5DII has lower noise than my 6mp D60.

And don't start "who wants larger files?". Storage is cheap and getting cheaper all the time.

Truth is, for the size of the 35mm sensor, and the current high-end lens resolutions, FF digicams won't reach its full potential until 50mp, or even more.

Truth is, mpixel is still excellent marketing catch-phrase (I know, this is rather lame, and has nothing to do with photography, but hey, companies exist to sell their products to make money.).

So why Canon took a step backwards is inconceivable to me. 18mp is "just not good enough".

Sorry if that hurt anyone's feelings.

-> Just to point out one thing:
Storage is NOT cheap.
HDD prices have increased rather dramatically in the last 4 months. And yes, 10GB more in a year isn't a lot... neither is 20GB... but when it goes into the hundreds with backup, it quickly becomes expensive.

That doesn't mean more resolution is bad - but the phrase "storage is cheap" isn't quite accurate.


5D MK II AF Satisfaction Poll | Reduced Kit List
A Basic Guide to Photographyexternal link | Websiteexternal link
Flickrexternal link | Artflakesexternal link | Blurbexternal link

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

22,700 views & 0 likes for this thread
The truth is, people still want more mega pixels
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 Jakesbird
767 guests, 309 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.