megapixels????

Syntaxxor wrote in post #10599848
The larger amount of megapixels the better glass you're going to need for clarity. So more isn't always better.


Also, how many of us really make prints at 24" + ? You don't REALLY need anything at all over 15mp, unless you're working specifically with stuff as your specialty.

This is what I was told. 15mp was the max you really need and 99% of people could get away with 10mp.

Syntaxxor wrote in post #10599848
Also, how many of us really make prints at 24" + ? You don't REALLY need anything at all over 15mp, unless you're working specifically with stuff as your specialty.

While true, it is sometimes nice to be able to get an 8x10, 300ppi vertical crop from a horizontal pic.

Bill Boehme wrote in post #10602140
The world need ad men because:

of this

I see a new footer line in this. LOL

Resolution has nothing to do with sensor size or number of Pixels. The 1D Classic has excellent resolution at 4.1Mp. You just can't crop much or print big. Even old point and shoots had great resolution, if you kept the prints at 4x6.

Jacobsen1,

"at low ISOs, pack those suckers in there, they don't really hurt and usually help (look at MF cameras)".

So my dream 100mp FF 1Ds mk"V1" with ISO 12 as the base looks more likely. I've never understood the need for those extreme ISO's currently being offered anyway. Thats far more of a sales gimmick than high mp.

Many of the posts here seem to want a return to some golden age that in fact never really existed. I say lets just wait and see where the next ten years or twenty years takes us before deciding. Digital photography is still in its infancy, and its bound to develop in ways we simply cannot comprehend right now.

Try shooting a concert with a 500 mm. at f8 (or f11 for a little more DoF). ISO 6400 is a delight.

The truth is that Canon has given us higher megapixel cameras that match Nikon's low res models for noise. The new Canons provide stunning image detail and are a cut above the competition. After shooting 8-10 mp models from a few years ago, I really appreciate the file detail and ability to crop as needed in the 50D and 5D2 I currently shoot. The 40D is a distant backup at this point.

Forget the internet "wisdom" about high mp being a drawback. It simply isn't true in the case of Canon's latest cameras. Feed them great glass and you'll be amazed.

Lowner wrote in post #10603781
Jacobsen1,

"at low ISOs, pack those suckers in there, they don't really hurt and usually help (look at MF cameras)".

So my dream 100mp FF 1Ds mk"V1" with ISO 12 as the base looks more likely. I've never understood the need for those extreme ISO's currently being offered anyway. Thats far more of a sales gimmick than high mp.

I'm not sure. For the average Joe, do they print massive prints more, or shoot in dimly lit situations? I know shooting my personal stuff around the house, I shoot in sRAW (~5mp) and ~3200 all the time. But I know an occasional 8x10 will come out of those and a bunch of 4x6s so the resolution isn't key. That's where I consider myself shooting more as an average Joe. When I'm shooting paid shots, it's at 100 and full resolution and I know my clients will most likely be getting prints or possibly publishing them in mags (I shoot for architects). So for that I need the resolution (within limits, is more than ~12 really needed?).

As for the MF point I made, let me clarify something there. Yes they concentrate on base ISOs and MP more. But their sensors are enough bigger their pixels never get all that small... But MF proves that you can get INSANE quality with a lot of MP (but still not tiny) if you concentrate on base ISOs and ignore the higher end ISOs all together (cap it at 800). But MF is a PITA if you're a wide shooter, they're cropped sensors based on 645 which never had great wide angle options to begin with... So starting with a 20~28 and cropping it? Landscaping is pretty much out.