Go with the 5Ds or simply rely on Upscaling Software?

Guy clearly has no idea how most commercial photography works.

Well, I'd be surprised if he doesn't. But don't you think the general context of his remarks goes without saying?

3six2four wrote in post #17538230
Well, I'd be surprised if he doesn't. But don't you think the general context of his remarks goes without saying?

https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=747​749&page=1

Very interesting post, Dave. Thanks for sharing.

Wedding critical tolerances with satisfying results in the real world needn't be stressful, though! As a fussy enthusiast, in the past I've been a bit of an ass stressing over an exactness that won't impact my photographic output. Getting the balance right is bliss.

All things considered, and in a general context, a camera's MP capacity doesn't need to be huge. Visual results at sensible viewing distances support the view that the majority of shooters will get excellent images/prints without the need for very high MP output cameras.

Generally, yes. But that article doesn't seem to be written for just one type of photographer in mind. In fact, he seems to go out of his way to cover a lot of different types of photography without delving into their realities. Sure there are a ton of billboard size ads that are viewed from fifty feet away, but what about bus wraps that are often viewed from 5 feet away?

I posted a link to another specific example earlier in this thread and also have a regular job that requires every bit of the resolution my 6D provides. Without 20MP I would have missed out on thousands of dollars of revenue over the past two years.

3six2four wrote in post #17538139
Print size in relation to sensible viewing distances tends to undermine arguments for huge megapixel images.

There is a myth that many have spread about that says that as print size increases, viewing distance increases, as well. This is simply not so for many, many, many applications. When designers continually call for 48" by 32" (or larger) prints in rooms that are only 8 by 10 feet, or 9 by 12 feet, then there is indeed a very real and legitimate basis for having a lot of pixels....especially when shooting live subjects that are moving, which makes multi-frame stitching impossible. And yes, designers do frequently call for these print sizes in small rooms as well as in larger rooms.

Yes, but you're arguing commercially driven specifics and requirements (mainly) against the quantifiable issues of viewing distances and the way many (x3!) photographers choose to work. This applies to both pros and enthusiasts. In your context it's unhelpful and misleading to use the word myth. It's wrong too.

Those who use high quality telephoto lenses for wildlife, for example, may like the idea of cropping larger images, especially for online viewing. Cropping can often be useful, but how many want to work with massive 36+ MP file sizes in most contexts?

Huge prints in tiny rooms are one thing, practical, common sense needs are another.

3six2four wrote in post #17539294
Huge prints in tiny rooms are one thing, practical, common sense needs are another.

So where exactly does one draw the line, according to "practical common sense", as to what size print of an image is 'too large' for a given space? I helped a friend put up their new print in their house last night. a 6 foot high, 8 foot long print of a sunset to cover the wall in a small hallway that is just a little under 4 feet wide.

It looks amazing there, and the colour has a major impact on the small space.

The photo was one they took themselves, and they are not a professional photographer. The image is not being used for anything related to commercial purposes.

You can always process and downsample a large photo. You can't take a small photo and accurately upscale it.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. I'm thinking there about buying into what we need gear-wise and the ins and outs of very large MP images. These mural-type prints aren't always in the context of commercial imagery.

Anyway, here's to getting the images we need from the gear we need.

48" by 32" is not huge. In fact, it can often look too small, even in a small room. When a wall is 8' high by 10' long that gives you 80 square feet of wall space. A 4' by 32" print is only 11 square feet. 11 sf can look small (to me and many others) when put on an 80 sf wall.

Many photographers print images at 11 by 14 inches, or at 16 by 20 inches. Even when matted with a 3" matt and framed with a 3" frame, these sizes look microscopic when put on a blank wall. Frankly I never understood the use of such small prints, because they look so incredibly out of place when hung.

I argue that instead of being content with moderate resolution, we should instead print at larger sizes that are more in balance with the areas where they are being displayed. And I am not speaking of just commercial use - I am talking about anyone who hangs a photo on their wall and wants it to look right.

It would be a long post that did this subject justice for zillions of enthusiasts, many professionals and those who have to manage commercial projects. We've been reading "How Many Megapixels Do You Need?" essays online for years. And I've been scratching my head over forum posts for years, too.

The user's specific needs are the crux of the issue, whether they are pros or enthusiasts. In forum fog understanding why many of us don't need more than 24 MP cameras may be a challenge.

For what it's worth here's another look at the subject that, in my opinion, offers a balanced view:

http://mdavid.com.au/p​hotography/megapixels.​shtml

I'm off to take some pictures with my 16 MP Fujifilm camera.

It is definitely a subject that must be viewed from each person's needs and preferences. I am sure many of these arguments could have been made in a 35mm vs MF vs LF discussion.

Some have made the point that increasing MP means large files to work with and store. From my point of view, I don't think the difference between an 18mp file and a 50mp file would be a noticeable change in my computer's performance. Similarly, storage is so cheap now, I certainly wouldn't worry about file size.

I would love to have more file to work with. If Fuji would make and XT-2 with 24+ MP, I would dump my canon kit in a second. An A7II is very tempting.

3six2four wrote in post #17540463
The user's specific needs are the crux of the issue, whether they are pros or enthusiasts. In forum fog understanding why many of us don't need more than 24 MP cameras may be a challenge.

MattPharmD wrote in post #17540477
It is definitely a subject that must be viewed from each person's needs and preferences.

But the need for resolution goes beyond the photographer's specific needs. The need for resolution involves anyone who will ever want to use the photograph for any purpose - now, or years into the future.

What if a photographer - we'll call him Bart - what if he only prints at 16" by 24" and only uses a 24" computer monitor to view his images. And he never crops his images, as he likes them the way he frames them when they are shot. And let's say he has only average, or slightly below average, eyesight - so that 150 dots per inch are all his eyes can distinguish. Some would say, then, that all he will ever need are 8.64 megapixels.

Now, lets say that 15 years from now Bart's Aunt and Uncle fall in love with one of his photos. They want to have a print made and display it above the couch in their den. They hang cardboard "blanks" on the wall to see what size fits the wall most tastefully. They determine that a 60" by 40" print would fit the space best. What they love most about the photo is all of the fine detail, and they can't wait to see all of that minute detail at such a large size. So, they ask Bark to have the print made, and he:

1) says that he cannot make it so large, as it will look like muddled crap because it only has 3600 pixels to spread out over 60" of length - a mere 60 dots per inch (ouch!)

2) prints it at their size despite the low pixel count, and it looks like muddled crap

The same can be said for any number of situations when other people have needs and desires for our photos - not necessarily commercial uses, but also friends & family types of usage. How can we know for sure exactly what other people are going to want our photos to be used for?

So, you see (I hope), that resolution needs are not just up to the photographer's personal needs - they are also determined by all those who will ever want to use the images for anything.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17540769
So, you see (I hope), that resolution needs are not just up to the photographer's personal needs - they are also determined by all those who will ever want to use the images for anything.

I don't disagree with you. What is important is that currently, higher MP often comes with another sacrifice. If I was seriously considering a 5Ds, I would have to choose between 50mp images or being able to use >6400 ISO. Again the argument can be said to be similar to choosing a film size. I might love to have the printing capabilities that large format film provides, but if I shoot street photography, then it wouldn't be a practical decision.

Additionally, I could care less what another theoretical person might possibly want to do with my photos, so your example doesn't translate well.

That being said, if I can upgrade my camera, get everything I actually want/need and get more MP then that is great. So as for the original argument of the existence of a 50mp camera, I absolutely think this is an important product and will be essential for some photographers. However a 5Ds would not work for me right now.