More megapixels is almost always better, so...

I recently watched a popular YouTube content creator who pulled out some very old glass negatives that looked to be about 3in X 3in square. He talked about how much fine detail he could see when he zoomed in for a look. That prompted me to this post.

Without debating larger pixels vs smaller pixels and everything that comes with that, let me ask a question.

20MP became 30MP which became 40MP and on and on. In general, you can gather finer detail (visible when zooming in, of course) in a 50MP image versus a 20MP image and most everyone loves that.

So, why haven't most camera manufacturers and most camera users gravitated to medium format sensors over the years now? If MF was now mainstream we could all be enjoying stunning 100MP images on our 27in and larger monitors without spending $10,000 on a body.

It's like solar panels. If every house had 10 on the roof, by now they would cost 1/10th of what they do.

Solar panels offered a financial return that covered part of the cost, and there were enough people concerned about environmental issues to get it rolling.

MF sensors don’t offer a payback, except for maybe a tiny group of pros, are heavier, and require more investment in image processing and storage equipment.

chuckmiller wrote in post #19313732
.....
So, why haven't most camera manufacturers and most camera users gravitated to medium format sensors over the years now? If MF was now mainstream we could all be enjoying stunning 100MP images on our 27in and larger monitors without spending $10,000 on a body. .

I think it's that for the vast majority of people, a phone camera is enough. For those that want more quality, a dedicated compact camera is enough. For those wanting more, a crop SLR, and more a FF SLR and at the tip, those demanding the highest quality, the medium format cameras. It was no different when film was king. Even though the resolution per sq. mm is the same, most people used Instamatic cameras with tiny film. For the vast majority of people, it was quality enough. Very few shot with large format cameras.

Excluding the price and lens selection issues aside.

If watching the camera market change over the last 20 years has taught us anything it is that size and convenience matter more to most people than anything else.

MF is going to stay the a niche market because the larger sensor will require a larger body and larger heavier glass with few distinct advantages over other ILC systems. The compact camera died because smart phone cameras got good enough to compete but in a smaller more convenient package.

Mirrorless cameras grew in popularity years before their auto focus capabilities overtook DSLR's because of their smaller size and lighter weight.

FF, APS-C/ and M43 all offer advantages over smart phone cameras in several ways. Better image quality, better low light performance, DOF control, resolution, auto focus etc.

MF's prime advantage over other system is resolution and slightly better image quality. Given the market trends I do not see that being enough to convince people that 30-60mp is not enough and that they need 100mp+ in larger heavier package.

One must consider that the optical SYSTEM -- what the lens can deliver and what the sensor can capture -- both contribute to ultimate performance, it is NOT the sensor ALONE!

In the days of film where both MedFormat and 135 used the same emulsions, using more grains or color clouds made for better photo quality, even when the medium format lens delivered less resolution (in line-pairs per millimeter of film) than the 135 format lens.

Given the far greater cost to increase sensor area and pixel count in the medium format sensor, the 135 format sensor may be far more cost effective than medium format...witness the incredibly high cost of medium format sensors, which have taken a very long period of time to even EQUAL the 645 format size (Hassy used to belittle anything smaller than 56mm x 56mm, and only now can they finally equal what they belittled!)

When lenses have more sensor area to cover, they inherently deliver less optical resolution per millimeter of sensor. That is why microfilm lenses delivered higher resolution than 135 format cameras which in turn outperformed the resolution of Large Format.

My first digital camera was a Fuji 2.1mp. A very useful tool at the time. It made Ebay auctions so much easier. When I went from 24mp to 36mp that was the leap that changed the game for me, detail in grasses in a field. MF is nice but 35mm format is all I need. 100mp is a hard camera to shoot. There is 1 lens I know of that resolves to 100mp on a 100mp camera and that is a 63mm. That's it. There is so little to gain in jumping ship at this time it's really not worth bothering with.

it is wrong to assume what huge megapixels is the mainstream.
To me it just an illusion after overseating at forums and watching contend created to have subscribers on YT.

What is in the real world in front of me is different.
Canon Canada embassador is using old Canon DSLR. Toronto Star photogs - same.
One photog I know as street photog, works with big brands for clothes and such. He is using 6D.
Vs just one retired cameraman, who traded his Canon gear to Fuji dMF. Only because he makes good sells via selling extra large prints for specific customers.

And looking at our kids, none has 27 inch monitors. They are using small computing devices. Most of the time it is phones and if something more complicate is involved, it must be Apple notebook or you are looser.

dMF is not this expensive anymore. Just check Fuji gear, lenses prices. Zoom for 1k$, with superior to L build.
The only problem is, no, are what those dMF have so-so AF, so-so low light capabilities.

I was close to let go of most of my gear to get one of those. Just because images are one of the most sharp digital images I have seen and I'm addicted to sharp rendering. But then I saw review and moire was present. Something I heard of, but never really experienced.
So, not only megazillion of pixels is needed, but no AA filter to have truly sharp image.
But it seems to be a problem with dMF.

Some m43 based content creator must make content about this. Views guaranteed....

Wilt wrote in post #19313879
.
One must consider that the optical SYSTEM -- what the lens can deliver and what the sensor can capture -- both contribute to ultimate performance, it is NOT the sensor ALONE!
.

.
Wilt, you bring up the primary limiting factor with medium format systems. . This is a huge reason for MF not being more widespread.

Many people complain about the size and weight of a 70-200mm f2.8, or a 100-400mm f5.6. . Heck, a lot of people even complain about the size and weight of tiny lenses like the 24-105 or the 50mm f1.2! . To me that is laughable, because both of these lenses are small and light compared to what I usually use, but to many people the weight and size of these lenses leads to an inconvenience that makes them undesirable.

Now, imagine how much bigger and heavier a medium format lens would be if it covered the same angle of view as a 100-400mm does on a 35mm sensor. . Or a 70-200mm f2.8 that would cover that angle of view on medium format.

To the OP:

Do you really think that there is enough of a market of people who would want to carry around 6 or 7 pound lenses to get the same angle of view that they currently get with 3 or 4 pound lenses? . Or carry around 3 or 4 pound lenses to get the same angle of view that they currently get with 2 pound lenses? . Seriously?

I think that medium format systems are going to remain a niche product, because they are not versatile enough to cover sports, wildlife, and other types of photography where longer focal lengths and faster apertures are necessary. . And also because for more "normal" types of photography, the lenses are so much bigger and heavier than their field of view equivalents on systems that have smaller sensors.


.

In the days of film...

1. the decrease in the magnification needed to enlarge Medium Format image to same size print as 135 format was roughly 1/2
   You enlarged 24mm to 16x20 required about 19.6x vs. enlarging 56mm about 7.25x; if the lens provided 0.75 of the resolution, the image on film still carried 1.5x more resolution for the same amount of subject. So the gain with MF was both more resolution,
   
2. and the improvements to tonality and color gradation provided by the far greater area of film to capture the same amount of subject detail. Any increase in weight and bulk of equipment was made up for, by the detail and tonality benefit.
   
3. As for decreased capture in low light with slower MF lenses, photographers' reliance on flash complensated for that, or you switched to the smaller format with its faster max aperture lenses.
   

1. There is an opportunity for MF to have not only same size pixel pitch over more sensor area, combined with lenses that have 0.75 the detail resolution (compared to 135 format lenses), so there is opportunity for similar gains in IQ
   
2. But greater tonality or color is not proportionally increased as the result of having more pixels represent the same area of the subject...one is still fundamenally limited by the number of bits assigned to each sensel, whereas increases in grains or color clouds does improve tonality gradation. So resolution alone ends up being the driver...and it seems that fewer today are drawn to 50MPixel over 25Mpixel within 135 digital, and the highest resolution available in MF is not much higher pixel count than 135 digital.
   
3. Now, with super high ISO, far fewer photographers even think about using flash (witness that nobody shows interest in rotating flash brackets today, while a lot of pro shooters bought such brackets 30 years ago!) so the reliance on faster lenses (of 135 digital) gives advantage over shooting same task with MF.
   

“More megapixels is almost always better.” The very premise of this title is debatable. In regards to the average photography enthusiast, how is 100MP realistically better (and I stress realistically) than 20MP or even 12MP? By “most everyone loves that” do you mean “most pixel peepers”? The average person (type who uses a camera phone for snapshots, for example) could probably succeed very well with just 6MP to 8MP, maybe less (I printed good 8X10s with my 4MP Canon G3).

True, there’s cropping advantages to larger MP count, from which some photographers would greatly benefit, and I presume higher MPs allow for removal of the distorting anti-aliasing filter. And for those exceedingly rare people who print, let alone print very large, more megapixels are of value. And yes, if one is truly concerned about image quality, you should print, because for me, no computer monitor, 27” or not, aesthetically surpasses a print. I know others will disagree, and that’s perfectly OK, but that’s kind of the point when discussing “what most everyone loves”; it becomes a bit more complicated.

Anyway, whether necessary or not, MP count will continue to grow for marketing purposes if nothing else…the megapixel race never really died. But keep in mind that while an affordable 100MP sensor, or perhaps a one gigabyte sensor, sounds tantalizing, it would, as others have noted, also necessitate buying higher end lenses to truly capitalize on the resolution as well as demand more costly computer and storage options. And you better keep that camera still, real still.

So as 40MP becomes the average MP for hobby/pro cameras (is “prosumer” used anymore?), there’s still some folks who love their Nikon D700 or original Canon 5D, and for good reason.

As for me, I use Tri-X, so however that contentiously translates to MP count, it’s what I’m stuck with, and I’m very happy about that!

sjones wrote in post #19314952
“More megapixels is almost always better.” The very premise of this title is debatable. In regards to the average photography enthusiast, how is 100MP realistically better (and I stress realistically) than 20MP or even 12MP? By “most everyone loves that” do you mean “most pixel peepers”? The average person (type who uses a camera phone for snapshots, for example) could probably succeed very well with just 6MP to 8MP, maybe less (I printed good 8X10s with my 4MP Canon G3).

And I have printed a 12" x 60" print from a 12MPixel Canon S110, that has more detail than can be seen by the unaided eye even at that size !
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19256236

chuckmiller wrote in post #19313732
If MF was now mainstream we could all be enjoying stunning 100MP images on our 27in and larger monitors without spending $10,000 on a body.

The 27" 5K monitor on my iMac sports 5120 x 2880 pixels, or about 14.75 MP. 100 MP would be wasted if that were my viewing medium.

1. A 4K screen can't display all the pixels from a medium format shot.
2. The vast majority of people will never zoom in. That isn't how people consume media/images.

Given the above two points medium format is unnecessary for anything but certain specific uses.

sjones wrote in post #19314952
“More megapixels is almost always better.” The very premise of this title is debatable. In regards to the average photography enthusiast, how is 100MP realistically better (and I stress realistically) than 20MP or even 12MP? By “most everyone loves that” do you mean “most pixel peepers”? The average person (type who uses a camera phone for snapshots, for example) could probably succeed very well with just 6MP to 8MP, maybe less (I printed good 8X10s with my 4MP Canon G3).
True, there’s cropping advantages to larger MP count, from which some photographers would greatly benefit, and I presume higher MPs allow for removal of the distorting anti-aliasing filter. And for those exceedingly rare people who print, let alone print very large, more megapixels are of value. And yes, if one is truly concerned about image quality, you should print, because for me, no computer monitor, 27” or not, aesthetically surpasses a print. I know others will disagree, and that’s perfectly OK, but that’s kind of the point when discussing “what most everyone loves”; it becomes a bit more complicated.
Anyway, whether necessary or not, MP count will continue to grow for marketing purposes if nothing else…the megapixel race never really died. But keep in mind that while an affordable 100MP sensor, or perhaps a one gigabyte sensor, sounds tantalizing, it would, as others have noted, also necessitate buying higher end lenses to truly capitalize on the resolution as well as demand more costly computer and storage options. And you better keep that camera still, real still.
So as 40MP becomes the average MP for hobby/pro cameras (is “prosumer” used anymore?), there’s still some folks who love their Nikon D700 or original Canon 5D, and for good reason.
As for me, I use Tri-X, so however that contentiously translates to MP count, it’s what I’m stuck with, and I’m very happy about that!

.
Steve,

I really appreciate your response. . Your needs and preferences are very different from my needs and preferences. . But I understand why you feel the way you do about modern gear and megapixels, because you articulate things so well when you write a post. . Thanks for that.


.

Wilt wrote in post #19314962
.
And I have printed a 12" x 60" print from a 12MPixel Canon S110, that has more detail than can be seen by the unaided eye even at that size !
.

.
How is that even possible, if most human's eyes can see detail at a rate of 300 pixels per inch?


.