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 20 Feb 2012 (Monday) 23:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

18 vs 36 mp in print...

 
mafoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 20:19 |  #31

Ricardo222 wrote in post #13939368 (external link)
To those to whom it DOES make a difference I defer...you are the elite. ;)

I agree. There are so many great photographers on this site, but Jay's work is the only one I feel compelled to buy, just because of how great they are.

I have no clue where in my home decor I would put a large print of a jet, but when I figure it out, I am going to purchase one :)


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DuBarry
Senior Member
Avatar
321 posts
Joined Sep 2011
     
Feb 21, 2012 22:09 |  #32

Old Baldy wrote in post #13939182 (external link)
Reach, reach, reach, reach!!!

Everyone seems to forget the HUGE advantage of greater MP for so MANY types of photography not being discussed here.

Dammit!

:)

LOL don't worry Old Baldy they're getting there...sure is taking a while though.LOL




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Feb 21, 2012 22:53 |  #33

Panoz wrote in post #13938815 (external link)
Pixels have a small factor in print quality as long as you exceed a minimum amount, say 8MP. I have 20x24 images from my old Canon 20D that are tack sharp when you look up close. That was an 8MP camera.

What everyone is leaving out is that the printer driver - the one that pushes data from your file to the printer - has more of an impact on the print quality than the quantity of pixels do. How does an 8MP camera produce a sharp 300dpi print? The driver dithers the missing data. A 20x24 300dpi print would require a 43MP source for 1:1 ratio of pixels to dots. My image only had 8MP but produced a razor sharp print. It's the printer driver's algorithm that expands the missing data.

Sorry, but I have to conclude you either do not have very good eyesight or that you have never seen a tack sharp print - unless the subject matter in your 8 MP 20x24 prints has no fine detail. Alternatively, do you think that a highly detailed landscape print from a 45 (real) MP MF sensor would be indistinguishable from the 20x24 from your (8 real and 35 fake MP) 20D? I got some nice prints from my 20D but no way could they be called razor sharp at 20x24!


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Feb 22, 2012 03:02 |  #34

Old Baldy wrote in post #13939182 (external link)
Reach, reach, reach, reach!!!

Everyone seems to forget the HUGE advantage of greater MP for so MANY types of photography not being discussed here.

Dammit!

:)

Its a side effect. Assuming in a perfect world we could all afford any lens we wanted (and could also afford the Sherpa required to carry all this kit)then reach is a non-issue.


Richard

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,411 posts
Likes: 171
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Feb 22, 2012 04:27 |  #35

AJSJones wrote in post #13941093 (external link)
Sorry, but I have to conclude you either do not have very good eyesight or that you have never seen a tack sharp print - unless the subject matter in your 8 MP 20x24 prints has no fine detail. Alternatively, do you think that a highly detailed landscape print from a 45 (real) MP MF sensor would be indistinguishable from the 20x24 from your (8 real and 35 fake MP) 20D? I got some nice prints from my 20D but no way could they be called razor sharp at 20x24!

+++1!
A couple years ago I thought my 20x30 40D prints were excellent. Satisfied buyers and viewers in shows were effusive in their praise. Then I put prints from the 5D2 on the wall next to them.

It's just a matter of human nature. The vast majority of us have lousy visual memories and a sliding standard for judgement. We need to do direct a-b comparisons. The person who posts that he has a magnificent 24x30 made from a 6 MP file sincerely believes his print demonstrates that you can produce a great print at 80 ppi. His mother is even more amazed. And if he goes to a gallery and sees museum quality prints, he will go home three hours later and think, "Yep, just as good." And in the overall view of things that is a good thing.

About a month ago an article was published on the Luminous Landscape site called "Everything Matters: It's All About The 'Small Details'" which created a storm of heated controversy. Its author shoots with a 1080 MFDB (80 MP) and his thesis was the superiority of images from the 4.5x6 cm. sensor. What set everybody off was his claim that even when reduced to the size of a web image he could easily distinguish between an image from the MFDB and one from a smaller sensor. He then went on to use some unfortunate examples from two other areas to which he is dedicated, audio reproduction and fine wines; stating that there are audiophiles who can hear the difference when a special $300 power chord connects the unit to the wall socket as opposed to a chord from Best Buy. I know I have a very poor audio memory and my judgement of a sound system is no more nuanced than whether I can feel the thud of the bass, and I have no doubt there are experts far more qualified to judge. I also don't doubt there are those that can tell the $1,000 bottle of wine from the mere $100 variety. I'm happy if I get a buzz from the $10 stuff. I also don't doubt that some expert judgements are influenced by seeing the label or the price tag on the chord. But there are also people who do truly see/hear/taste the difference, maybe not in a 600x800 web image, but on the wall for sure.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 22, 2012 06:56 |  #36

tzalman wrote in post #13942037 (external link)
stating that there are audiophiles who can hear the difference when a special $300 power chord connects the unit to the wall socket as opposed to a chord from Best Buy.

This, is an impossibility. No more then you can read this better, because I typed it with the finnest keyboard.


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,443 posts
Likes: 349
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Feb 22, 2012 07:25 |  #37

It's all relative. Take the same photo using a 8 mpix, 21 mpix and 45 mpix and print them all out to say 20x30 and then tell me more pixels don't do anything.

Lots of people who have never used anything more than 8 mpix are somehow experts on what photos look like using 36 mpix. Hmmm.....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 22, 2012 08:03 |  #38

Hogloff wrote in post #13942417 (external link)
It's all relative. Take the same photo using a 8 mpix, 21 mpix and 45 mpix and print them all out to say 20x30 and then tell me more pixels don't do anything.

Lots of people who have never used anything more than 8 mpix are somehow experts on what photos look like using 36 mpix. Hmmm.....

The struggle, is we all agree more MP is better, if the quality is as good.

So for example, there is no technical reason why Nikon can not make a 144 mpix camera (4x of the D800). Right now, the pixel density on some P&S cameras equate to over 400 mp on a full frame.

But given the state of technology today, if Nikon made that camera, would it make a better 20x30 print?

Would there be so much noise introduced, that it would show, or would the noise not matter?

I guess what I am asking... is did Nikon stop at 36 mp because everything else around it would start to struggle to keep up (cpu, memory write speeds, price, etc), or did they stop because as you pack more pixels in, the image actually gets worse?


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Feb 22, 2012 08:29 as a reply to  @ mafoo's post |  #39

My belief is that as mp numbers gradually increase, so will noise control. Given this, whether the current design of sensors will survive is a question that interests me. It seems that there are restrictions on the number of mp we can squeeze from sensors that use, in effect, a "micro lens" and a micro camera for each photosite. This seems overly complex and expensive (and problematic!) to me so I would not be at all surprised to see in 20 years time digital cameras using a totally different sensor.


Richard

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AJSJones
Goldmember
Avatar
2,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 90
Joined Dec 2001
Location: California
     
Feb 22, 2012 10:34 |  #40

Lowner wrote in post #13942634 (external link)
My belief is that as mp numbers gradually increase, so will noise control. Given this, whether the current design of sensors will survive is a question that interests me. It seems that there are restrictions on the number of mp we can squeeze from sensors that use, in effect, a "micro lens" and a micro camera for each photosite. This seems overly complex and expensive (and problematic!) to me so I would not be at all surprised to see in 20 years time digital cameras using a totally different sensor.

I think you might be surpised how close we are to the limits imposed by the known laws of physics and statistics. Sensels in pont and shoots are not much bigger than the size(wavelength) of the photons they capture and some of the noise issues we face come from simple statistics of counting small numbers. There will still be steady, if slowing, progress but, unless the Higgs boson rewrites physics, it will be a surprise if there is a big breakthrough - althoughI share your hope :D. Perhaps someone can build a sensor where each sensel has a photomultiplier under it:rolleyes:


My picture galleries (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,642 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 522
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 22, 2012 10:49 |  #41

It's funny that the topic posted by the OP was not about crop densities/resolution vs full frame, but it was comparing the upcoming Nikon 36MP full frame sensor to the upcoming Canon 18MP full frame sensor.

I say interesting, because the Nikon sensor is not "pushing" things as far as pixel density goes. Right now, the Canon 7D sensor has the equivalent density to what would be a 46MP full frame sensor. If Canon manages to "get it right" with the 18MP crop sensor, then it makes sense that in time a 46MP full frame sensor would follow.

So, people just need to bear in mind that both companies are putting IQ before resolution for their full frame cameras, and that neither of these full frame sensors are "pushing" any reolution limits. So instead of imagining a 36MP full frame sensor, look at the 7D and then imagine a 46MP full frame sensor!

As far as to how "real" more megapixels can be, well, pay a visit to a local mall/shopping center, where they put large promotional posters up at the windows where people will stand close and check them out. It's a fun exercise to look at one of those posters and realize that the ones that have a sharpness/crispness that just stands out were in all likelihood shot with an MF or LF camera, whether digital or film. Can our digital DSLRs match that output quality?

Well, I'd say we are progressing toward that point...but, I'd still love an MF digital:)!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mafoo
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,503 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2011
     
Feb 22, 2012 11:08 |  #42

tonylong wrote in post #13943558 (external link)
So, people just need to bear in mind that both companies are putting IQ before resolution for their full frame cameras, and that neither of these full frame sensors are "pushing" any reolution limits. So instead of imagining a 36MP full frame sensor, look at the 7D and then imagine a 46MP full frame sensor!

But that's the point of this question. Does less MP ever mean better IQ?

For example, people think the 5D2 has better IQ then the 7D. But let me ask you this...

So setup any senario you like, and take a picture with the 7D. With the exact same settings, take a the photo with the 5D2, such that you have the exact same framing if you cropped the 5D2 down to 1.6, and then crop it. Would there ever be a time when that 5D2 cropped image printed, would look better then the 7D print?

So effectively, if you used the 5D2 as a crop body, do you lose every IQ advantage it has over the 7D?

If the answer is yes, then that answers my question. If the answer is no, well, that answers my question as well.. it just makes me wrong :)


-Jeremy
5D Mk II | SL1 | 24-105 f4.0L IS | 70-200 f2.8L IS | S35 1.4 | 40 2.8 Pancake | Samyang 14 2.8 | 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,282 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3543
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 22, 2012 11:16 |  #43

mafoo wrote in post #13943653 (external link)
But that's the point of this question. Does less MP ever mean better IQ?

For example, people think the 5D2 has better IQ then the 7D. But let me ask you this...

So setup any senario you like, and take a picture with the 7D. With the exact same settings, take a the photo with the 5D2, such that you have the exact same framing if you cropped the 5D2 down to 1.6, and then crop it. Would there ever be a time when that 5D2 cropped image printed, would look better then the 7D print?

So effectively, if you used the 5D2 as a crop body, do you lose every IQ advantage it has over the 7D?

If the answer is yes, then that answers my question. If the answer is no, well, that answers my question as well.. it just makes me wrong :)

The 5D2 will indeed look better due to a few factors:

a) less aggressive AA filter means the photo will be sharper
b) color rendering and contrast (which actually is a bigger factor than sharpness visually) will be a bit better
c) ISO handling is better by a stop or so, so less software-driven NR equals better end product

Apples to apples would be to do this test with no post processing, then with equitable post processing on both, to see what results you end up with.

I have already done this in my own mini-reviews, and yes there is a difference. I always point this out in the innumerable 7D vs 5D2 posts, and only go on the offensive when people use adjectives like "the FF is magical" and "the 5D2 blows the 7D out of the water", etc. There is a difference, but certainly not one so exaggerated. Also, add in the subjectiveness of "what is acceptable", and you end up with a never ending argument for one vs the other. :)

In any case, this thread should not turn into that, should it? ;)

I think Nikon will do quite well with a 36mp and it should show in the prints. However, Nikon does "bake" their IQ a bit more in-camera than Canon does (or used to anyways), so you would have to take the best FF Canon image and massage it to match the Nikon-processed image in order to do a comparison.


Past Equipment | My Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Feb 22, 2012 11:19 |  #44

mafoo wrote in post #13943653 (external link)
But that's the point of this question. Does less MP ever mean better IQ?

For example, people think the 5D2 has better IQ then the 7D. But let me ask you this...

So setup any senario you like, and take a picture with the 7D. With the exact same settings, take a the photo with the 5D2, such that you have the exact same framing if you cropped the 5D2 down to 1.6, and then crop it. Would there ever be a time when that 5D2 cropped image printed, would look better then the 7D print?

So effectively, if you used the 5D2 as a crop body, do you lose every IQ advantage it has over the 7D?

If the answer is yes, then that answers my question. If the answer is no, well, that answers my question as well.. it just makes me wrong :)

5D II might look better if very high ISO or for shallow DOF; other than that no I think a 7D would win out in the scenario you describe; otherwise why would the bird shooters still prefer crop (ignore AF, think Nikon where both crop and FF models have comparable AF systems)?


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Feb 22, 2012 11:22 |  #45

TeamSpeed wrote in post #13943693 (external link)
The 5D2 will indeed look better due to a few factors:

a) less aggressive AA filter means the photo will be sharper
b) color rendering and contrast (which actually is a bigger factor than sharpness visually) will be a bit better
c) ISO handling is better by a stop or so, so less software-driven NR equals better end product

...

But are you saying that would still hold true allowing as this scenario does for using same lens at same distance and cropping the 5D II heavily, and making a large enough print?


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

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

9,055 views & 0 likes for this thread
18 vs 36 mp in print...
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 brotherbear86
816 guests, 367 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.