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

There is a very nice chart on "The Digital Picture".
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …igital-Camera-Review.aspx

-> If there were no advances in sensor technology, the 400D and 1D MK IV should have the same ISO performance (same pixel size) - but I don't think anybody will discuss that the 1D MK IV is much better at high ISO than the 400D.
-> so add the developments and make the pixels smaller = roughly the same performance, but more detail (better cropping)

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.

HKGuns wrote in post #11788680
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.

Yeah Mike, cropping really is one if you are say a wildlife shooter! And believe me, there are a lot of us here, and we all know that there is never enough "reach" for this! So, I have one camera body, the 5DC, where most of my shooting I do in a way that requires very little in the way of cropping, and I'm happy with my 5DC. When I'm out chasing critters, I shoot with the 1DM3. It has the better AF performance, which is important (expecially the fact that it can AF at f/8 which I'm often "stuck" at) and, it has a higher pixel density/more pixels on target, meaning I get some cropping leeway, which I need. I'd get a 1D4, but at this point in life the finances no longer allow, so I'm happy I jumped on the 1D3 and the 5DC when I could!

umphotography wrote in post #11788642
I like to hear what the needs would be.

We already said 'cropping' but you don't want to believe it.

As for the original question, it's invalid. The OP is assuming that 'less is more' for some reason I don't understand.

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.

The ratios are still the same. If you crop a 15MP shot down to 5MP that is the same as cropping a 8MP shot down to 2.7MP. And honestly, both are now super-cropped, probably kinda soft and not printable huge.

If we are just talking a light crop, 15-10MP crop is the same as a 10MP to 6.7MP. And again, is 6.7MP any worse than 10MP for most tasks?

So yes, "cropping" is a reason, but in real world situations probably not as big of an advantage as people try to claim.

Higher MP = Larger prints

tc4canon wrote in post #11789480
Higher MP = Larger prints

I thought bigger paper = larger prints..

AntonLargiader wrote in post #11789409
We already said 'cropping' but you don't want to believe it.

As for the original question, it's invalid. The OP is assuming that 'less is more' for some reason I don't understand.

the "less is more" is based on comments saying someone with an older camera with less mega-pixels can take just as good if not better than a camera with more mega-pixels.
then the discussion went on to explain that a few felt that the fact that they are adding more pixels, which are smaller, were disrupting the images, and not producing as clear or true an image as larger mega-pixels could produce. this is what confused me and led me to ask the question.

having read all the posts here, i can see that those statements were "less than true", albeit they stood by what they said, and that the smaller pixels blend to make a clearer, sharper image which provides more crop-ability if the photographer can't/won't move his feet.

hope that makes sense.

jay125 wrote in post #11789575
the "less is more" is based on comments saying someone with an older camera with less mega-pixels can take just as good if not better than a camera with more mega-pixels.
then the discussion went on to explain that a few felt that the fact that they are adding more pixels, which are smaller, were disrupting the images, and not producing as clear or true an image as larger mega-pixels could produce. this is what confused me and led me to ask the question.

You encounter a lot of points of view about this and other aspects of a subject like digital photography or any other field of complexity. It's the nature of things.

It would be nice if we all could be well-informed before being opinionated, but too often opinions come first!

You will see some informative discussions about this stuff -- they crop up regularly, but even they will have a lot of opinionated statements made that need to be "tamped down" into a "just the facts, man" way!

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

That was an interesting link, thanks for posting it. I was particularly impressed with the accuracy of DaveG's prediction: "I think that we will see an increase in MP over the next while. I would even expect a pro camera in five years to be somewhere around 20-25 MP." He was writing in September 2003 and the 21.1MP EOS 1DsIII was released in November 2007.

Maybe he worked for Canon R&D!

Another interesting thing I noticed in that thread is something I've seen in other old POTN threads, and that is that a whole lot of early members became inactive with very few post counts. Check out that thread and you will see only one poster with a post count over 1000 and maybe half of the posters falling below 100. And these are people who joined in 2003!

Thing began to change, though -- in '05 the activity was really picking up -- the Rebels began coming out in late '03, the 20D in '04 and P&S as well as "super zoom" digicams were going on a real tear, and a lot of folks who joined in '05 or so continued to be pretty active, and this forum just keeps on going!

Tou don't get a choice on the MP count Canon et al magically discontinue a model you want. In my move to an SLR Rebel from a 5MP powershot I knew full well the 8MP would be fine. That model didn't last long. I ended up choiceless with only the XS Rebel with 10 MP About the same instrument maybe a tick better with 2 more MP. The time beween the 8 and 10 was less than a year. A real gearhead would have pounced on the 8 rebel and been happy if he was moving from a5MP P&S.He'd jump again when the 10MP rebel came out. The end result for Canon is you bought two SLRs of essentially the same thing in two years. That's their win. The sales strategy is to collect boxes. It's not like you can trade or get rid of them easily. I won't move from my current platform unless I see a radical change beyond a 18 MP rebel.

DutchVince wrote in post #11787135
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.

Going by its native resolution, your 7D is capable of recording almost 120 lp/mm because it has a smaller sensor. After accounting for Bayer demosaicing (70% of the resolution, or 84% on a side), you get 98 lp/mm. So in terms of resolving capability, we have reached that of high end slide film.

We just haven't yet done that with a full frame sensor (i.e., one with the same pixel density as the sensor on the 7D).

We already know the answer to that: yes, they will be, at least towards the center.

In fact, the resolving power of lenses on cheap point'n'shoot cameras, which have tiny sensors, illustrates that it's physically possible to vastly exceed the resolving power of current DSLR lenses, but chances are it's very expensive to do so. The cost of doing so will drop over time, just as it has been (new lenses are noticeably better at resolving detail than older lenses are).

tonylong wrote in post #11782312
Just to expand on this -- camera research and development (R&D) has been very focused on improving technology, including efficiency in collecting light the result has been "cleaner" pixels.

From there, different makers follow somewhat different paths. Canon, who for years led the way in improving low-light/high ISO/low noise performance, has also been using this higher efficiency in increasing the pixel count while not creating noisier images but actually balancing the two enough so that the newer generations get better low noise performance even while increaing the megapixels. If you think about it that's pretty cool.

Nikon has made huge strides in its low noise performance -- they've held back in the big increase in pixel count to do this.

So, yeah, you could say that Nikon shows "less pixels are better" but then something to consider is that if you size a file from the canon 5D2 or the 1Ds3 down to the size of a "less pixels" Nikon body the noise is reduced as well.

So, really, having more pixels doesn't "take" anything from the image.

Well, there is one thing it does take from the image: dynamic range.

As you note, both manufacturers have improved their sensor performance and they have diverged from there in terms of how to take advantage of it. Canon's sensors have increased resolution while maintaining the same per-pixel noise, while Nikon's have improved per-pixel noise.

If you take the Canon image and reduce it in size using the proper techniques, you'll get a cleaner image with roughly the same noise characteristics as those from a Nikon sensor.


But the Nikon sensor retains one extra advantage: dynamic range. It has this advantage because the light gathering capabilities of each pixel is greater. Downsizing an image from a Canon will reduce the noise but will not increase the dynamic range, because the recorded tonal values remain the same.

As it happens, though, most people don't actually care about dynamic range even when they claim they do, else you wouldn't have so many people in the "5Dmk2 has low ISO pattern noise" thread claiming that said pattern noise can't possibly be a problem because it shows itself only when you push your shadows or exposure "too much" or something...


So even though Canon's cameras aren't as good at dynamic range as Nikon's, it doesn't really matter because few people really care about dynamic range anyway.

tonylong wrote in post #11790115
Maybe he worked for Canon R&D!
Thing began to change, though -- in '05 the activity was really picking up -- the Rebels began coming out in late '03, the 20D in '04 and P&S as well as "super zoom" digicams were going on a real tear, and a lot of folks who joined in '05 or so continued to be pretty active, and this forum just keeps on going!

Yes, interesting observation......Then you have some, like me, who were over on the "other" site, (full of reviews) since 2002 or so, but got so fed up with the immature arguing that goes on, we moved over here where it appears to more evenly moderated with a lot less childish arguing.

tonylong wrote in post #11788535
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?

medium format is already up to something like 50-60MP now
think we have a little bit of room to go before we beat or meet medium format unless you are refering to film