MP's...if less is more, than why do they add more?

dave kadolph wrote in post #11782431
This half is usually the amateur contingent that really doesn't really know how to use the basic functions--much less the "extra" features that most pro's and advanced hobbyist disable as soon as they get a new body.

Like the "intelligent" viewfinder and 63 zone metering

Out of curiosity, what are the extra features one can disable to get a greater understanding of the basics. i've gotten rid of 9 point autofocus because i learned quickly what i was shooting was being focused wrong.

I've printed and sold images up to 24x36 taken with a 6.3 MP camera. You can see the pixels if your nose is 6 inches from the image. Stand further back than that and it is clean. Print on canvass and it is also clean. Anyone standing that close to the print will get a smack on the side of the head from me. The peepers will carry on looking at things at 100% and try to convince everyone that you need to do this. The rest will enjoy large prints with whatever MP they have handy.

Having said that, I will be upgrading soon to something in the 18-20 MP range. Do I need this sort of resolution? Nope. 10-15 would be just fine. Extra cropping ability is only there if you have the technique and glass to produce razor sharp images because any flaws in the image are just going to be amplified. And the really high resolution sensors are brutal on anything but the best lenses. My upgrade isn't based on MP but on features of the camera (AF ability, viewfinder etc) as I've found these to be limiting on my current camera. Having said that, most people don't think about why they want/need to upgrade. They are wowed by the numbers and they buy on emotion. This is one of the big reasons why the MP race is still on. The manufacturers know that people will upgrade their gear to get bigger file sizes. How often do you see people with an 20MP camera taking snapshots on their holidays (super zoom lens, no tripod etc) and never printing bigger than an 8x10 or viewing it on their HD TV? They do it because they want to. Not because they need to.

Copidosoma wrote in post #11782477
I've printed and sold images up to 24x36 taken with a 6.3 MP camera. You can see the pixels if your nose is 6 inches from the image. Stand further back than that and it is clean. Print on canvass and it is also clean. Anyone standing that close to the print will get a smack on the side of the head from me. The peepers will carry on looking at things at 100% and try to convince everyone that you need to do this. The rest will enjoy large prints with whatever MP they have handy.

Having said that, I will be upgrading soon to something in the 18-20 MP range. Do I need this sort of resolution? Nope. 10-15 would be just fine. Extra cropping ability is only there if you have the technique and glass to produce razor sharp images because any flaws in the image are just going to be amplified. And the really high resolution sensors are brutal on anything but the best lenses. My upgrade isn't based on MP but on features of the camera (AF ability, viewfinder etc) as I've found these to be limiting on my current camera. Having said that, most people don't think about why they want/need to upgrade. They are wowed by the numbers and they buy on emotion. This is one of the big reasons why the MP race is still on. The manufacturers know that people will upgrade their gear to get bigger file sizes. How often do you see people with an 20MP camera taking snapshots on their holidays (super zoom lens, no tripod etc) and never printing bigger than an 8x10 or viewing it on their HD TV? They do it because they want to. Not because they need to.

What you're saying here is good common sense. It is not that more resolution is "bad" in any way, it's just that for most people and most shooting scenarios it's not needed.

I, like you, have nice prints made from less pixels -- in fact I have several 12x16 prints that I've framed and hung on my walls made from an old 4MP camera! I'm happy with them, although like you said at close inspection they start to show the lack of fine detail.

As far as the need for good glass, well, let's put it this way -- you will get the same capabilities of that glass no matter what resolution you shoot at but then the more the image is enlarged you will lose fine detail either from lens quality or the limits of the resolution, whichever comes first.

But with better glass and good technique, we haven't reached the limit.

For me, the "breaking points" would be first if using the best glass we still ended up getting "smeared" results (fine detail being "overresolved") or if the increase of resolution overstepped the advance of sensor efficiency so that there was a loss of image quality.

Well, back in 2003 6.3 MP was too much for some people - LINK.

For me, more mega-pixels means more options!

With a larger image, there is larger leeway for crops. With a larger image, there are more options in reducing the size (getting rid of noise. Solving slightly OOF areas etc.). With a larger image, the noise becomes almost negligible when downsized to average print sizes, which makes the 18mp ISO 6400 sensor of the T2i / 550D very attractive.

I understand how even 6mp is "enough" for most people, but I certainly believe they should continue improving the technology to give us even more mega-pixels and even more options.

Given the same sensor technology, higher pixel density means more noise. But sensor technology improved tremendously over the last few years and that's why Canon's 18mp sensor has better high-ISO-performance than all of their (lower resolution) APS-C sensors before it.

I'd still like to see them focusing more towards image quality rather than pure resolution but I don't think they'll go much beyond 24mp on APS-C anyway.

More MP: useless... I dont know.

We haven't reached the resolutions of high end slide film yet.
Fujichrome Provia 100F Professional 35mm Slide film can resolve about 100 line pairs/mm.
When you do the math that is about 35 MP. This is actual MP not Bayer interpolated by the way. Since Bayer arrays have about 70% of the claimed resolution (due to demosaicing) we will need about 50MP on Full Frame to equal the best slide films.

The question is: will the lenses be good enough?
This article has more on that:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial​s/resolution.shtml

At the moment though the 18MP of my camera is more than enough, I would prefer more Dynamic Range and less high ISO noise and ISO ranges going up to 100000 for the 7DMKII (Somewhere near the limit of physics.)

More pixels are not needed by most people for the prints they make and their IQ is probably hampered my motion blur, focus errror, inadequate DOF or other issues more than by a lack of pixels.

But that said, there is no downside to having a greater number of pixels. There are two reasons people think more pixels are bad.

1) Some people look at 100% views and note that higher pixel count cameras look worse. If you do not account for degree of enlargement, this can be confusing.

2) People hear that smaller pixels = more noise. This is true per pixel, but it is resolved by each pixel representing a smaller percentage of the final image.

Smaller pixels only create more noise in an image if the total pixel count is constant, because this in turn means the sensor is actually smaller and each pixel is being enlarged more (back to point 1).

jay125 wrote in post #11781878
Still pretty new here, and still learning copious amounts of information from this forum and from other sites as well. I have come across many posts about the newer bodies having more MP's, however there are just as many, if not more, who swear by thier 450D's and up who say adding more MP's actually creates a hardship as the pixels are smaller and don't come together as well. If this is the case, then why add more megapixels?
I've read posts and seen photo's taken with camera's with 10mp's which are clear and sharp and clean. My T1i is 15, the T2i and 60D are at 18.
I can read google responses and get a feel, but I'm more curious to know the opinions here, as there seems to be an immense amount of experience and knowledge floating around here.

I would need more MPs if I would start to print on something huge.
I would need more MPs for Photoshop.
Right now I'm not using both.
Right now I fish my both cameras would have smaller RAW files option.
I have 500D with 15MPs and 5D with 12MPs. Most of the times 5D pictures are the same by IQ or (IMHO) are way better.

I want more megapixels

Today I was testing out my 1D2N, and saw some dragonflys resting on some reeds

I was kicking myself that I didn't have my 5D mark II with its 21MP. Instead I had to settle for 8MP and limited cropping ability. With the 5D Mark II I could have made great macro shots by cropping heavily

Bring on more MP!

hollis_f wrote in post #11786898
Well, back in 2003 6.3 MP was too much for some people - LINK.

Heh! Thanks for the memory!

I wasn't a POTN member back then -- I was transitioning into the digital photography realm and hadn't yet started into DSLRs but I was quite active in a UseNet photography "news group" as the 10D made its way into the professional mainstream. It was quite a time -- up 'till then pros were very reluctant to even consider digital as a "real" tool but all of a sudden these same shooters began discussing the 10D as a real contender for replacing 35mm film.

Something that also got brought out in that thread was speculation as to at what point digital SLR resolution might catch not just 35mm film but actually challenge medium format film. Back then, almost 8 years ago, they were projecting from the 6 MP 10D forward, and looking toward the idea of, say, a full frame 30-40 MP sensor could actually be reaching if not equality but at least a real-world challenge to MF. Sounds like things keep moving along, right?

For those who are not interested in the idea of moving forward in this way, in the idea that our current DSLRs could reach a point where people can grab a 5Dx happily rather than depending on an MF body, well fine! In fact, I myself don't shoot with the latest and greatest -- I've been happy for several years with the ancient 5D Clasic and the outdated 1D3...oh well.

Anyone saying the don't need more megapixels doesn't do any cropping. There are very good and very real reasons for adding more.

HKGuns wrote in post #11788551
Anyone saying the don't need more megapixels doesn't do any cropping. There are very good and very real reasons for adding more.

well cropping really isnt one. I prefer to crop with my feet. Really not trying to be a smartass either. Cropping should be the last reason. probably better ways to get a shot or look than relying on a crop.

I realy cant think of a reason why more mps are needed other than to do larger prints. IF these cameras hit 40 mps, what could possibly be the need 40mps other than bill board and medium format work ??

I like to hear what the needs would be.

umphotography wrote in post #11788642
well cropping really isnt one. I prefer to crop with my feet. Really not trying to be a smartass either. Cropping should be the last reason. probably better ways to get a shot or look than relying on a crop.

I realy cant think of a reason why more mps are needed other than to do larger prints. IF these cameras hit 40 mps, what could possibly be the need 40mps other than bill board and medium format work ??
I like to hear what the needs would be.

Tell me how to crop with my feet while camouflaged, sitting beside a body of water shooting BIF with a 400+mm lens? Great if that works for you but not everyone shoots the stuff you do.

Medium Format is at 80 MP now:
http://www.phaseone.co​m …180/IQ180-Tech-Specs.aspx

Great for billboards