Unimportance of a high MP Camera

It was eight years ago that I upgraded to a Canon 1Ds Mark III...I wanted a camera that convinced me that any errors were my fault.
At the same time I got addicted to Photoshop. That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

You won't get an argument from me. I had an 8mp shot from a 20D that was blown up to 3x5 feet and on display for years in the Long Island Aquarium. Nobody complained about it as far as I know.

There is a sizable percentage of photographers who believe that "better" gear will give them better photos. That's what feeds the megapixel wars in my opinion. Many experienced photographers have learned that the skills of the photographer are the key factor. I bought a 20mp 7D2 some time back because my cameras were getting long in the tooth. I rarely shoot it at full resolution. In fact, I shot a 5k race at small jpeg resolution, which gave a file size that was near what a full resolution image from my 20D would have given. There were no complaints.

It's common among those who are new to the craft to want to "upgrade" their gear in order to take their photography to "the next level". When asked, I usually tell them that they'll get a bigger bang for their buck if they improve their skills and technique. It's not just in photography. I had a nephew who once told me that his guitar [Insert appropriate 4-letter word]. I asked to see it because it was a model that I had considered purchasing. Now, I am by no means a gifted guitarist. But I was better than him. When I played it, his jaw dropped. His guitar after all didn't [you know].

Super high res shot of a bird in flight?

Large clean prints without potentially hours of post?

There is a lot that can be done with medium and low resolution cameras. One of my projects years ago was generating technical imagery that came out to being about 10 megapixel images out of a 9x9 sensor array. We took about two days to run the tests at the time, and the general error rate was higher than we would have liked. Last I heard they finally got new equipment in the lab a few months back, and are creating 50mp images for the same tests in about an hour, which included their setup time. You can guess which setup I would prefer to work with...

Never seen a 20x30 print of one of those...

If money was no object I would agree, but...I don't live in that world.

Good luck with that when you have a subject that still requires you to crop 2/3 (so that length of short edge becomes the long edge of image) while using an APS-C body and 600mm lens. Oh and that subject is also traveling at up to 500 Kts.

There are a huge number of situations where for one reason or another you will need to use longer focal lengths than 300mm just to frame the subject, as getting closer is not possible for a whole variety of reasons. There are also lots of occasions where even if you had no problems with lack of focal length, it is still not possible to shoot multiple exposures. Pretty much anything with a moving subject/component will preclude multiple exposures. So you may still need to shoot at 11mm and utilise a high resolution body for large prints. Of course using a medium/large format camera might be a better choice in that situation.

Alan

chauncey wrote in post #17773130
Never seen a 20x30 print of one of those...

If money was no object I would agree, but...I don't live in that world.

Nature and wildlife photos are rather impressive at 30" on the long edge from high res prints. You tend to not see them that large because they're harder to produce than an 8x10 or smaller format. (At this point in my photography adventure I can't say that I can reliably produce an image that I'm happy with for printing at that size. But I'm exceptionally picky about my work.)

And of course money is a factor in the issue. Would I like to have a 5Ds and a bunch more L series lenses? Of course. Am I going to be replacing the pair of 7D bodies I'm currently working with any time soon? Probably not. I did however upgrade from the T3 I started with a few years ago when I got into taking photography more seriously as a hobby and went with the 7D as it was a tool that better suited my needs and was within my budget.

However if someone is consistently doing a lot of work, putting in a large amount of time and effort to produce a desired end result from an older lower res camera by doing lots of photo merges, then it is a sign that it is probably a good idea to explore newer and higher resolution options. The conclusion may be that it isn't worth the investment and to keep on with what is already at hand, but in some cases the logical conclusion may be that upgrading is going to be worth the effort.

That little 9x9 sensor we had ten years ago, that is, a single capture produced 9x9 pixels, was cheap enough that we could afford it at the lab, and worked well enough that they got a decade of science out of it. My point was that it worked, and it was enough, but newer tech is making the task so much easier and far faster.

You do realize that some commercial photographers use dslr's and use high mp camera's in advertising. So yes, they serve a purpose and are important to the industry.

Let us all remind ourselves that improvements in sensor resolution MUST take into consideration what our lenses can deliver to the focal plane, and that ultimately is what we capture and reproduce on any large size print. If we analyze this...

With the Sony (A7R) 36MPixel camera, with the Sony FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS lens, its peak delivered detail resolution has been tested to provide 4146 line-pairs/picture height. Blown up to 30x45" size (31.75X magnification), we have 5.44 line-pairs/millimeter on print.
With the Canon (5DII) 20MPixel camera, with the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, its peak delivered detail resolution has been tested to provide 3720 line-pairs/picture height. Blown up to 30x45" size (31.75X magnification), we have 4.48 line-pairs/millimeter on print.

5.44 vs. 4.48 is an detail resolution improvement of 21%, yet actual difference in line-pairs per millimeter is not so impressive.

Chet wrote in post #17773167
You do realize that some commercial photographers use dslr's and use high mp camera's in advertising. So yes, they serve a purpose and are important to the industry.

This^

Comments like in the op are based in an amazingly narrow scope of what photographers do.

chauncey wrote in post #17773100
.....That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

Because, while "inexpensive" maybe an important criteria for you there are many for whom other factors are more important. Upgrading to pro gear is never really about taking better pictures, it is about taking pictures in a more efficient manner.

A pro camera with more dedicated buttons and customizable controls allows a photographer to work faster. The better construction of a pro body allows it to shoot all day every day, long after a cheap prosummer camera has failed; and a high MP camera allows a photographer to produce a high MP image without having to spend time sticking multiple images together. Different criteria are important for different people, one size does not fit all.

chauncey wrote in post #17773100
It was eight years ago that I upgraded to a Canon 1Ds Mark III...I wanted a camera that convinced me that any errors were my fault.
At the same time I got addicted to Photoshop. That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?

Have you ever seen a good, large gallery print? People walk right up and put their noses on it looking for hidden details. I want to be able to print a 20x30 print at 240-300ppi, even if I have to crop some (straightening, etc). I did a 60mp HDR pano with a 5DII for a development company back home and I can tell you it was a pain. The final print was huge and looked great in their community center, but the process would have been a lot easier using a camera with higher dynamic range and more MP. As a matter of fact, it could have been done in two or three shots with an A7RII. With a Phase One IQ280 it would only take one shot. Beyond that there are some things you simply can't take multiple shots of, and while people like to talk about "print size vs viewing distance", that all goes to crap in a gallery setting.

Ultimately, it comes down to what you need (or in most of our cases, what we want). Personally, I want the higher MP for large, wall hung prints. I want the high DR for landscape shots where I may want to extract detail in dark areas, or simply be able to "expose for the highlights". I want the clean, "natural" noise/grain in images for less distracting prints of subtle gradations. If money weren't an object I'd be shooting MF, but it is, so I went with an A7RII instead.

I did a billboard sized print with my Canon 10D, only had 6 megapixels.

maverick75 wrote in post #17773925
I did a billboard sized print with my Canon 10D, only had 6 megapixels.

Unless you work for LAMAR, you can't put your face against a billboard.
Which is my point. Print a 6mp image as a 20x30 print, then take the same image from a 40mp camera and print the same size. You'll see the difference (assuming quality processing and printing). Of course if you're printing on canvas then it won't matter. . . . . .

Wilt, "line-pairs/picture height"...what does that mean in reference to IQ?

It should be noted that, aside from my "stacking and merging" techniques, there is no upsizing of images.
Nose length viewing distance is something that has importance in my print results...300 ppi/dpi.

You tell me...what's the difference in a 300 ppi 50 MP "standard image" as opposed to a 300 ppi 50 MP "photo-merged image".
An additional benefit is that you get zero distortion using that long lens and merging...unlike the usual distortion resulting from a WA lens.

chauncey wrote in post #17774116
You tell me...what's the difference in a 300 ppi 50 MP "standard image" as opposed to a 300 ppi 50 MP "photo-merged image".

about an hour or two worth of work. Sorry but this thread seems very "troll-ish". Outside of the studio i rarely take pictures of things that sit still long enough for multiple exposures. In the studio, the thought of having to seam together 400 shots to get 100 photos is absurd.

fixing distortion in most lenses is a one click operation. the Tokina 16-28 I use is excellent … between 20 and 28 i almost never even worry about distortion.