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 05 Dec 2009 (Saturday) 17:15
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

More Megapixels - Bear with me here.

 
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,118 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 437
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 06, 2009 02:52 |  #46

tigerotor77w wrote in post #9143508 (external link)
True, but in a new body that is also not that large. It'd be nice to have a FF 7D, in my opinion. In the meantime, I'll continue to enjoy photography for what it is -- and to have the newest toy doesn't fall into that category. That being said, there are merits for my needs to having that type of body.

really? have you ventured beyond the xsi to know this?

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kauffman ­ v36
Senior Member
778 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 06, 2009 03:27 |  #47

more megapixels not only means more cropability and bigger printing. you have more "dots" for lack of a better word, to describe each part of the image, and the more numerous these are, the more detailed your image becomes. 8mp is fine in usual everyday life but it is limiting in a number of situations like mentioned.

everyone should use a MF camera at least once in their life so they can see why when mamiya announced a digital back capable of 22 MP it is NOTHING like 22MP on full frame cameras, dynamic range, skin tones, color/grayscale transition, are all better with MF. this comparison can also be seen with MF film, so im not saying go out and buy an 11k digital back, lol. and large format, dont get me started.

as some car gurus say, theres no replacement for displacement.


Bodies: 1DIII, RZ ProII, Walker Titan 4x5
Lenses: 28/1.8,
85/1.8, Sekor Z 110/2.8, Sekor ULD 50 4.5, Schneider SA 75/5.6
Other: CanoScan 8800F
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/www.Robe​rtKauffman.netwww.RobertKauffman.net

  
  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
     
Dec 06, 2009 07:59 |  #48

kauffman v36 wrote in post #9143871 (external link)
more megapixels not only means more cropability and bigger printing. you have more "dots" for lack of a better word, to describe each part of the image, and the more numerous these are, the more detailed your image becomes

Assuming that the image falling onto the sensor is perfect this is true. However, that is not the case - all images will have some blurring due to camera movement, subject movement, lens imperfections, diffraction, etc. As sensor densities increase you reach the stage where those extra 'dots' aren't recording more detail but more of the blur.

Many of the 7D reviews I've read have given the caveat that you really do need some good glass in front of the sensor to get the best from it.


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
JeffreyG
THREAD ­ STARTER
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,520 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 592
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 06, 2009 08:08 |  #49

The idea that all we need is more pixels to get more detail might not be true all that often. Go back and look at my sample shot. The plane of focus is just in front of the rear three subjects. The closest subject leaned forward slightly at the time of the exposure, and she is nearly out of the DOF at a 20x30 print size.

More pixels would not make the closest subject any sharper, and at the f/11 I used to take this shot there is a real likelyhood that more pixels would not make the rear three subjects any sharper either. Like so many shots, the resolution limit of this shot is in a tradeoff of diffraction and depth of field.

f/16 maybe? This would sharpen up the front subject a bit more but for sure having higher and higher pixel densities will not help shots at those kinds of apertures. And both of my flashes were firing at 1:1 for f/11 anyway.

I'm sure there are some situations where more pixels might be useful, but I think these are more rare than people really think. How often are you shooting at an aperture, shutter speed and intended output print size where there is actually detail being resolved by the lens that a 12 MP sensor cannot record?


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kauffman ­ v36
Senior Member
778 posts
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 06, 2009 08:31 |  #50

hollis_f wrote in post #9144434 (external link)
Assuming that the image falling onto the sensor is perfect this is true. However, that is not the case - all images will have some blurring due to camera movement, subject movement, lens imperfections, diffraction, etc. As sensor densities increase you reach the stage where those extra 'dots' aren't recording more detail but more of the blur.

Many of the 7D reviews I've read have given the caveat that you really do need some good glass in front of the sensor to get the best from it.

im sorry, i forgot to point out what i pointed out in the second page of this thread, that i am all for more MP as long as we dont keep cramming them on smaller sensors. a 6x4.5 sensor would do wonders with >30 MP. more cramming is not a good idea, there should be an ideal density and pixel size and when increasing the number of pixels the size of sensor should increase accordingly.


Bodies: 1DIII, RZ ProII, Walker Titan 4x5
Lenses: 28/1.8,
85/1.8, Sekor Z 110/2.8, Sekor ULD 50 4.5, Schneider SA 75/5.6
Other: CanoScan 8800F
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/www.Robe​rtKauffman.netwww.RobertKauffman.net

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Dec 06, 2009 08:43 |  #51

hollis_f wrote in post #9144434 (external link)
Assuming that the image falling onto the sensor is perfect this is true. However, that is not the case - all images will have some blurring due to camera movement, subject movement, lens imperfections, diffraction, etc. As sensor densities increase you reach the stage where those extra 'dots' aren't recording more detail but more of the blur.

Many of the 7D reviews I've read have given the caveat that you really do need some good glass in front of the sensor to get the best from it.

What do these reviews consider "good glass"? I did most of my initial testing with the EF-S 17-85mm and it produced nice sharp 100% crops. Outside of the well known distortion around 17-20mm that was easily corrected with editing I didn't see any issues regarding the "too many pixels images are blurry" reviews.

As good as the 17-85 was the 20mm f/2.8 was even better and that prime is less than $500.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigerotor77w
Goldmember
1,564 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Allgäu, BY, Germany
     
Dec 06, 2009 11:14 |  #52

ed rader wrote in post #9143782 (external link)
really? have you ventured beyond the xsi to know this?

Frequently? No, definitely not. There's two aspects here -- one is that there are technical reasons for wanting a more advanced camera, but the second is simply that having "more technology" makes up for amateur mistakes. Having more dynamic range can make up for gross over or under exposures (or even spot-on exposures if the contrast is high enough), and having a larger RAW buffer means I wouldn't have to be ready to hit the shutter perfectly every time. A few more MP means if I don't have the 300 mm lens I should be using, I can still crop a bit and isolate the subject I really want to isolate and still print a nice 8x12 out of it. Weather sealing makes me more comfortable when hiking in misty environments; I wouldn't be careless, but there are times when just having the solidness of a professional body is appreciated even for neat freaks and don't damage the device OCD people like myself.

Nothing I just said requires a different body; these are all just measures to overcome deficiencies that I may have. That's why I say I'm more interested in just shooting (a lesson I learned here) rather than trying to go with the newest in everything - that 7D looks mighty appealing. However, there are practical considerations, too -- I've shot a few times now (a marching band, for instance) where I've tried to isolate a group of three or four, and the speed of the band meant that I had to take pictures pretty much as fast as the processor could handle it. (One click, subject enters frame; next click, subject exits frame.) This had nothing to do with pre-focusing, as I was really just pointing the camera and shooting (focus set to *, not shutter), but the 6 RAW frame buffer made it a little tight. The original discussion was regarding MPs specifically, so I probably shouldn't have ventured on this path... there are holes all over my argument, I realize -- having 16 MP on a FF doesn't give more cropability than on my 12 MP XSi one of them -- but ultimately, what I'm saying is, yes, there are reasons that I'd like to upgrade to a "better" camera. In the meantime, I'm satisfied with what I have and will try to overcome my own issues before trying to say that I need a new camera. After all, Jeff posted the question of what a 16-18 MP 5D would be like, and I'm saying, it'd be sweet.


Photo blog (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,118 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 437
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 06, 2009 12:20 |  #53

tigerotor77w wrote in post #9145129 (external link)
Frequently? No, definitely not. There's two aspects here -- one is that there are technical reasons for wanting a more advanced camera, but the second is simply that having "more technology" makes up for amateur mistakes. Having more dynamic range can make up for gross over or under exposures (or even spot-on exposures if the contrast is high enough), and having a larger RAW buffer means I wouldn't have to be ready to hit the shutter perfectly every time. A few more MP means if I don't have the 300 mm lens I should be using, I can still crop a bit and isolate the subject I really want to isolate and still print a nice 8x12 out of it. Weather sealing makes me more comfortable when hiking in misty environments; I wouldn't be careless, but there are times when just having the solidness of a professional body is appreciated even for neat freaks and don't damage the device OCD people like myself.

Nothing I just said requires a different body; these are all just measures to overcome deficiencies that I may have. That's why I say I'm more interested in just shooting (a lesson I learned here) rather than trying to go with the newest in everything - that 7D looks mighty appealing. However, there are practical considerations, too -- I've shot a few times now (a marching band, for instance) where I've tried to isolate a group of three or four, and the speed of the band meant that I had to take pictures pretty much as fast as the processor could handle it. (One click, subject enters frame; next click, subject exits frame.) This had nothing to do with pre-focusing, as I was really just pointing the camera and shooting (focus set to *, not shutter), but the 6 RAW frame buffer made it a little tight. The original discussion was regarding MPs specifically, so I probably shouldn't have ventured on this path... there are holes all over my argument, I realize -- having 16 MP on a FF doesn't give more cropability than on my 12 MP XSi one of them -- but ultimately, what I'm saying is, yes, there are reasons that I'd like to upgrade to a "better" camera. In the meantime, I'm satisfied with what I have and will try to overcome my own issues before trying to say that I need a new camera. After all, Jeff posted the question of what a 16-18 MP 5D would be like, and I'm saying, it'd be sweet.

it also ain't going to happen. i've owned a 13mp FF camera and now 21mp. i prefer the 21mp. the camera you think you want is a nikon. now the nikon guys can complain too that if they want 21mp or more FF DSLR they have to make the switch to canon or shell out 8 grand.

discontentment abounds on canon and nikon forums. ho-hum :D.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nikocanion
Member
Avatar
62 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Dec 06, 2009 12:32 |  #54

Well i am probably hated for this but i do neither have the money to buy new gear nor the space that it equips in my room. i have 3 dslr's and each of them 3 has their own plus and min. i am one of the guys here who not only shoot canon but nikon and sony and konica minolta en olypus as well. the largest MP camera that i have has 8MP i feel sometimes that i must be a sucker that i do not own a 12mp or 24 mp body .. well i do not feel sorry at all , why you might ask ?

Well simply because i have yet not used all that is possible with my current gear , nor have i reached a point that whatever technical problem the camera has that i sell it to a dumbo that doesn't know..

when the point comes that i have to sell gear i will always be honest , and simply be honest i'll still make a progress..


it is ME who takes a picture the rest is elementary dear watson
bw!
Nikon D50+Nikon D80+Canon Eos 300d Sony Alpha 100 + glasses
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 06, 2009 13:08 |  #55

ed rader wrote in post #9143431 (external link)
as well as everyone on this thread who have no experience with full resolution DSLRS :D.

ed rader

"Full resolution"? What's that?


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chauncey
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,696 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 462
Joined Jun 2007
Location: MI/CO
     
Dec 06, 2009 13:10 as a reply to  @ ed rader's post |  #56

How then is 21 MP on the 5D2 or even more on the 1DsIV going to be of a huge value to most photographers? I can understand that a few people in real niche work might be able to use it,
but I'm questioning if more pixels do anything for most of us beyond slowing down out computers and filling up our CF cards and hard drives.

Jeffery, your question is one that cannot be properly answered as you're trying to carve out just one aspect of sensor development
and omitting things like bit-depth, improved ISO, range, and a myriad of other improvements that have come along with the MP boosting.

There can be no argument that for a lot of shooters a 10-15MP camera is quite sufficient, but what about the rest of us? Are we to be limited by what is sufficient for most of us?
I know that isn't what you are suggesting but it does beg the question.

My eclectic, jack of all trades, master of none, type of photography dictates that I ask not what my camera does well but, what it could do well.
I do know that my Ds3 coupled with a 300mm F/2.8 lens will cough out great images ranging from series BIFs, to landscapes at 13,000 feet, to darkened stage shows, and, I can crop, almost to my hearts content.


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​hauncey43 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeassk
Goldmember
Avatar
2,329 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2006
Location: San Diego/ San Fran/ Berkeley
     
Dec 06, 2009 15:00 |  #57

JeffreyG wrote in post #9144473 (external link)
The idea that all we need is more pixels to get more detail might not be true all that often. Go back and look at my sample shot. The plane of focus is just in front of the rear three subjects. The closest subject leaned forward slightly at the time of the exposure, and she is nearly out of the DOF at a 20x30 print size.

More pixels would not make the closest subject any sharper, and at the f/11 I used to take this shot there is a real likelyhood that more pixels would not make the rear three subjects any sharper either. Like so many shots, the resolution limit of this shot is in a tradeoff of diffraction and depth of field.

f/16 maybe? This would sharpen up the front subject a bit more but for sure having higher and higher pixel densities will not help shots at those kinds of apertures. And both of my flashes were firing at 1:1 for f/11 anyway.

I'm sure there are some situations where more pixels might be useful, but I think these are more rare than people really think. How often are you shooting at an aperture, shutter speed and intended output print size where there is actually detail being resolved by the lens that a 12 MP sensor cannot record?

If i remember you used a 135mm lens on that shot?

Wonderful image for sure, but if your desire was to have a larger DOF then I think the easiest answer would have been a wider lens?
Maybe not though because then you would be forced to move in...?
I don't know for sure, just glanced at the thread.


Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
K6AZ
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,250 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Richmond VA USA
     
Dec 06, 2009 15:12 |  #58

ed rader wrote in post #9145424 (external link)
it also ain't going to happen. i've owned a 13mp FF camera and now 21mp. i prefer the 21mp. the camera you think you want is a nikon. now the nikon guys can complain too that if they want 21mp or more FF DSLR they have to make the switch to canon or shell out 8 grand.

discontentment abounds on canon and nikon forums. ho-hum :D.

ed rader

Only because some insist that more MP is better. Some of us don't do poster and billboard sized prints.

BTW Nikon will be releasing the replacement for the D700 soon so the statement that one needs to shell out $8k for that kind of resolution won't be true much longer.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Dec 2005
     
Dec 06, 2009 15:19 |  #59

The largest portrait I've sold so far was a 16x20. It was printed from a 30D file cropped down to about 5MP. I'm in no rush to pay premiums for megapixels I don't need.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tigerotor77w
Goldmember
1,564 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Allgäu, BY, Germany
     
Dec 06, 2009 15:47 |  #60

ed rader wrote in post #9145424 (external link)
it also ain't going to happen. i've owned a 13mp FF camera and now 21mp. i prefer the 21mp. the camera you think you want is a nikon. now the nikon guys can complain too that if they want 21mp or more FF DSLR they have to make the switch to canon or shell out 8 grand.

discontentment abounds on canon and nikon forums. ho-hum :D.

If Canon will introduce a FF body that has a form factor similar to that of the 7D with the 7D's featureset (which is somewhat more advanced than that of the 5DII), that'd work for me. I don't really know if I need too much more cropability than what the 5DII offers currently, so honestly, I'm set.

I won't switch to Nikon. I chose Canon after a very thorough search, and I'm content with sticking with my XSi until it fails if I absolutely need to. If professionals can't tell the difference between a picture taken with a D700 and a picture taking with a 5DII, there's no way I would be able to, either.


Photo blog (external link) | Gear

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

5,069 views & 0 likes for this thread
More Megapixels - Bear with me here.
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 wkwfung
1815 guests, 308 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.