Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
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
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
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!
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!
Depends on the noise vs the Mp count
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.
How Much is too much ? ... Anything over a grand
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.
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 .
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.
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
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 !!.
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?
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....
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.....
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.....
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.
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
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!
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar