Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

megapixels how much is too much

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814
youmightlikethis
youmightlikethis e2 Member 121011 forum postsyoumightlikethis vcard Scotland
11 May 2012 - 7:08 PM

16/18/12/10 in a new digital compact how many mps is too much before it starts to impact on iq iso ect take into consideration canon g10 14.7 g11 10mp

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
11 May 2012 - 7:08 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
11 May 2012 - 7:25 PM


Quote: 16/18/12/10 in a new digital compact how many mps is too much

We just need to bear in mind the 41Mp on the latest Nokia mobile phone sensor to realise there's a long way to go before megapixellage tops out! Wink

User_Removed
11 May 2012 - 7:29 PM

Can you afford the pc or mac spec to realistically process the file sizes?

Im sure we aint seen nothing yet since Sony are having such a bad time at the moment the drive to render every sensor under the sun as obselete will no doubt have started!

MrGoatsmilk
11 May 2012 - 7:53 PM

Depends on the noise vs the Mp count

sherlob
sherlob e2 Member 82318 forum postssherlob vcard United Kingdom125 Constructive Critique Points
11 May 2012 - 10:06 PM

The rule of thumb seems to change as sensor and processing knowledge improves. I have been working in the last couple of years to a max of 10 mp for a typical compact sensor. It's perhaps no surprise that to up the mp's canon have increased their sensor size in the latest g1x.

photofrenzy
12 May 2012 - 1:21 AM

How Much is too much ? ... Anything over a grand Smile

User_Removed
12 May 2012 - 5:07 AM

The real point is that sensor design is improving all the time and we now have much better high-ISO performance from megapixelage that we would not have dreamed of a few years ago. The sensors of today are just so much better, in several different respects, than those of 2 years ago. A lot of the problems of high Megapixels that were forecast a couple of years ago have now been solved.

Of course, that does not answer the question about how many do you need.

The D300 I was using 3 years ago and the D3s that I was using last year both had only 12Mp sensors. That, in one sense, was more than enough for my "needs". Raw files from both those cameras would print to A3+ without any image quality problems at all.

But the D800 that I now use, with 36Mp available, simply gives me more than three times as much data per image to work with as the D3s did. And all that additional data opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities for post-processing. Yes, you do need a fairly fast computer with plenty of RAM but, just as with camera sensors, the bog-standard PC of today is miles ahead of those that were being produced for the same money 2 or 3 years ago.

We don't "need" to keep up with either camera or computer technology - but a lot of us think it is great fun to do so.

photofrenzy
12 May 2012 - 10:49 AM

Leftheforum think your being contradictive there . If the D3s as you said gave you more than enough even printing on a3 + media . Then why go out and buy a D800 ? . If unless your needs have changed dramatically where your clients are requiring much larger prints then I cannot see why you have changed or are you Judy keeping up with camera technology because wether your using a D3 or D800 your clients arnt going to be any the wiser wether you used 12 mp or 36 mp . Also one problem with sensors with high mp that hadn't been addressed is they suffer from highlight clipping even active d lighting activated . That can be a problem for wedding togs and a nightmare in post processing .

snapbandit
snapbandit  102205 forum posts Northern Ireland3 Constructive Critique Points
12 May 2012 - 11:32 AM


Quote: Then why go out and buy a D800 ? .

I'd say this answers why many (if not most) would buy a D800

Quote: We don't "need" to keep up with either camera or computer technology - but a lot of us think it is great fun to do so.

WinkWink

Niknut
Niknut e2 Member 4563 forum postsNiknut vcard United Kingdom61 Constructive Critique Points
12 May 2012 - 11:55 AM

Clearly it comes down to ones needs ?.....with massive file-sizes, it will enable equally massive prints (Poster size, or Billboard size), so for the 'pros' out
there it has to be a great choice, to create the sort of quality that customers are looking for ??

Another advantage is the ability to crop an image drastically.......a 'half-frame' crop would still produce about 18 mgpxls.....so again a lot of 'leeway' for
the 'pros'..........

Me ?......I'm more than happy with 15 mgpxls, on my Canon 50D......I shall never print bigger than A3, & the quality at that size covers all my requirements !!

Would I buy one ?......I can't justify the expense, for 'amateur' work !.....but a lottery-win might convince me otherwise !!.Grin

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
12 May 2012 - 12:00 PM


Quote: Another advantage is the ability to crop an image drastically

That may be the primary advantage. In the longer term we may see nominal high resolution used for other purposes...... an indication of things to come may be the Nokia 808 camera phone where the 41Mp sensor is utilised to provide lossless digital zoom. Imagine the advantages for (say) wildlife photographers.

If it helps to get images we could otherwise get (or would struggle to get) then is it a bad thing?

cameracat
cameracat  108578 forum posts Norfolk Island61 Constructive Critique Points
12 May 2012 - 12:26 PM


Quote: Another advantage is the ability to crop an image drastically

Yup! Far less skill or lack of any real talent means you just point and squirt, Then sort the composition out later by cropping the hell out of it, LOL....Grin

Ultimately you end up with a 6 or 10 mega pixel image, That if your lucky is just about passable, But might have been fantastic if taken properly with the full resolution count.....Smile

When all cameras are just hybrid video cameras, Where you just select a still from a burst of video footage, The game will be well and truly over....!!!

Irrespective of the pixel count.....Wink

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
12 May 2012 - 12:40 PM


Quote: Far less skill or lack of any real talent means you just point and squirt, Then sort the composition out later by cropping the hell out of it

Er, not necessarily. What if something needs a 1000mm lens and you don't happen to have one handy? Cropping is the only answer. A 6 or 10 Mp image may be fine for the purpose.


Quote: When all cameras are just hybrid video cameras, Where you just select a still from a burst of video footage

That will have to await 4K. At present even full HD will only give you 2Mp.

photofrenzy
12 May 2012 - 1:03 PM

I have to agree with camercat . For some sensational reason were now stuck with the excuse of being able to crop tighter as a single reason for having more pixels, Surely if thats the case then whats the point in going for 36 million pixels only to crop it to one third that to get closer . Personaly if image quality was paramount for my clients for me to justify going for say the D800 then to avoid having to crop down the image i would just invest in a longer lens say a 200-400 f4. If the one thing that is limiting the use of having to crop is the focal length of the lens then simply invest in a longer lens and keep the pixel count surely doesnt that make more sense it does to me.

Your investing over two and a half grand on purely the fact that the D800 has 36 million pixels as well as other things :- Video etc. So use them dont crop them out of your image, Invest in a adequate lens that enables you to get closer.

Its like buying a Bugatti Veyron and doing seventy down the motorway lol HAWEY Wink

Last Modified By photofrenzy at 12 May 2012 - 1:04 PM
Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139395 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
12 May 2012 - 1:58 PM

There's an increasing divergence of approach as regards megapixels isn't there?

On the one hand you have the entry-level Nikon D3200 at 560 (body only) with 24Mp and the full-blown pro Nikon D4 at 5300 with only 16Mp. Perhaps the thinking is that the pro will invest in megabucks tele lenses whilst the amateur will .............. crop! Wink

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.