Panasonic 'Nature' Competition - Win A LUMIX FZ1000 II!

How many megapixels is enough? Do you need 50mp+


Chris_L 5 5.1k United Kingdom
31 Jul 2019 11:34PM
You made your ill-informed comments here earlier in the thread before any video was posted. You were fixated on 300 dpi yet NOBODY had mentioned that figure. I had mentioned 300 pixels per inch. Furthermore we were talking about screens which don't use CMYK 🤣

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2019 12:40PM

Quote:You made your ill-informed comments here earlier in the thread before any video was posted. You were fixated on 300 dpi yet NOBODY had mentioned that figure. I had mentioned 300 pixels per inch. Furthermore we were talking about screens which don't use CMYK 🤣

My first thread comment was

"There is no one answer as each photographer is different.

Lower MP is "enough" for perhaps 80% of what 80% of advanced photographers do.

Higher MP helps if you print A2 or larger, or if you sometimes need to crop a lot."

---

My later response you refer to seems to taken out of context.

I was responding to a thread comment that someday monitors will have 300 dpi.

In response I commented 300 dpi is not a "magic number" and is primarily relevant to CMYK high speed printing - as in magazine production.

On a detail advanced image editing software (such as PhotoShop) has an option to display the relatively narrow CMYK gamut for images being prepared for CMYK printing.

Dave_Canon 13 1.5k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2019 1:37PM
Unfortunately, is seems common place now to interchange DPI and PPI and thus create more confusion. While Tony Northrup did in my view communicate messages such as the printed pixel resolution required depends on viewing distance amongst other things. However, I recall that Tony did mix up DPI and PPI. Hence I would not have given him top marks but much more than 2/10. I print for competitions so do need around 300 PPI as the prints are viewed very close particularly by judges. When I take photographs, they are all potential prints so treated as such. It is only when I output that I make decisions about the output format.

Some years ago I was lecturing on a photography course which included inkjet printing. So I explained half toning. To keep it simple, my example was of B&W which with a single ink at that time could not produce enough grey levels. I went on to explain how the addition of the colours and GCR and UCR very briefly and why multiple "black" inks are needed for quality B&W. A comment at the end from one student was "Do we really need to know this?". So he had a point and I dropped explaining half toning etc. from the course. Perhaps all three of us Len and Chis and myself do care about detail but most people don't and mange to get away without understanding exactly what they are doing.

Dave
Chris_L 5 5.1k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2019 3:14PM

Quote:I was responding to a thread comment that someday monitors will have 300 dpi

Nope. The monitor post says 300 ppi you even quoted the post

250184_1564668681.jpg



Still trying to put us all right you get it wrong again when you start talking about 75 dpi for CMYK. Look up lpi (lines per inch), dot gain, halftone before coming out with stuff like this.

gcarth Plus
15 3.1k 1 United Kingdom
1 Aug 2019 3:44PM

Quote:My first thread comment was

"There is no one answer as each photographer is different.

Lower MP is "enough" for perhaps 80% of what 80% of advanced photographers do.

Higher MP helps if you print A2 or larger, or if you sometimes need to crop a lot."

Not being technically minded, I'm keeping out of the dpi/ppi argument but I know that dpi refers to printing dots and ppi refers to digital pixels. Len may not know his dots from his pixels but I think his quote above on how many Mega Pixels are needed is about spot on. Smile
Carabosse 16 41.2k 270 England
1 Aug 2019 5:32PM
Most people are happy enough to have loads of pixels (e.g. 48Mp ) crammed onto the tiny sensor of their smartphone and blow the quality - if it's good enough for Instagram, Snapchat or even old-fashioned Facebook that's all that matters. grin-light.jpg

Chris_L 5 5.1k United Kingdom
1 Aug 2019 5:48PM

Quote:ppi refers to digital pixels

It's also a print term. You can print so many pixels per inch. The printer driver and equipment will make up each of those pixels from tiny droplets or dots of ink of various colours and even affordable inkjets might print 360 dpi, 720 dpi, 1440 dpi or 2880 dpi.

Think of ppi as input amount when it comes to printing.

There's a decent calculator here

Industry standard, good quality photographs usually require 300 pixels per inch, at 100% size, when printed onto coated paper stock, using a printing screen of 150 lines per inch (lpi). This delivers a quality factor of 2, which is optimum. The lowest acceptable quality factor is considered 1.5, which equates to printing a 225 ppi image using a 150 lpi screen onto coated paper.

Screen frequency is determined by the type of paper the image is printed on. An absorbent paper surface, uncoated recycled paper for instance, lets ink droplets spread (dot gain)—so requires a more open printing screen. Input resolution can therefore be reduced to minimize file size without loss in quality, as long as the quality factor of 2 is maintained. This is easily determined by doubling the line frequency. For example, printing on an uncoated paper stock often limits printing screen frequency to no more than 120 lpi, therefore, a quality factor of 2 is achieved with images of 240 ppi.

kris34 1 2 France
5 Aug 2019 8:54AM
my first digital was the "Canon Eos 10D": 6.3M pixels, and even today, I regret having given it to a friend for a small fee, I still have pictures of the "Bee-eaters of Europe" (Merops Apiaster) made with this very beautiful body, for several years I have abandoned reflex to switch to lighter and I only use the sony RX100 III, GH4, and in recent days I have acquired a RX10 m3. (deepl traductor)
lemmy 12 2.8k United Kingdom
6 Aug 2019 6:07PM
I have a Panasonic S1 ( which I'm selling!) which will give near 200Mb HiRes images. Viewed on my WQHD monitor, there is absolutely no discernible difference between the S1 HiRes image, a standard S1 image or indeed my Panasonic G9. I have a top range computer but working with 200MB files is still a chore.

Luckily for the camera makers there will always be people for whom too much is not enough (nothing wrong with that) and the money they pay enables others to afford more down to earth cameras.



joshwa Plus
8 898 United Kingdom
12 Aug 2019 11:09AM
I guess the question should have been - Do you need 60, 100 or 108 megapixels?

Fujifilm GFX100 - 100mp samples:
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/fujifilm-gfx100-full-size-sample-photos-33865

And now Samsung has announced a new 108mp sensor for smartphones Blush
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samsung-smartphone-100mp-images-with-new-sensor-33873
LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
12 Aug 2019 12:01PM

Quote:I guess the question should have been - Do you need 60, 100 or 108 megapixels?
Fujifilm GFX100 - 100mp samples:


According to this weeks Amateur photographer the Fuji using Imatest resolves 8,500 lines per picture height.
I do not recall AP recording a 50MP 35mm format camera reaching more than about 5,000 - meaning a significant resolution increase by any reasonable standard.
The increase is part due to the Fuji being 4:5 rather than 2:3 format.
Whether any photographer needs to have enough quality for a print looking good viewed from 12 inches when printed at 40x50 inches size is a personal decision.
lemmy 12 2.8k United Kingdom
12 Aug 2019 12:29PM

Quote:Whether any photographer needs to have enough quality for a print looking good viewed from 12 inches when printed at 40x50 inches size is a personal decision.
Those things are for competitive teenagers, really. As soon as a photographer starts to get a grip on photography as more than a recording medium such considerations tend to fade into the background.



LenShepherd 11 4.0k United Kingdom
13 Aug 2019 8:03AM

Quote:
Quote:Whether any photographer needs to have enough quality for a print looking good viewed from 12 inches when printed at 40x50 inches size is a personal decision.



Quote:Those things are for competitive teenagers, really.

Why do you say this?
Few teenagers have the money, I know two older people already using Fuji medium format for their highest quality photos, and these cameras are no heavier than larger DSLR's.
The reality seems very different to your point of view.

Quote: As soon as a photographer starts to get a grip on photography as more than a recording medium such considerations tend to fade into the background.


You could argue then that anybody getting a grip on photography (whatever you mean by that) should not consider digital because film generally gives lower image quality.
There may be a world out there that you do not want to be part of - which is fair enough - for you.
Some of my 11 year old work has been exhibited printed 8 feet tall and used on BBC Country File - but with the technology of the era it does not look at its best viewed from even 3 feet.
I know with 45 MP and AF/dynamic range advances I am producing better quality and capturing more action than 10 years ago from from 12 MP I had then.
If you were photographing 10 or 20 years ago has your photography improved?
Mine has Grin
New advances (as with twin AF motors in lenses) push the boundaries of what is photographically possible - including for those with a good photographic eye - and good second equipment trickles down to those who prefer this route.
lemmy 12 2.8k United Kingdom
13 Aug 2019 5:27PM
You seem to be anxious to be offended and have refuted my post by responses that indicate you didn't read it properly.

Camera makers have entered a new phase of pixel wars, with models rapidly topping one another for pixel count. This is something that I thought had gone out many years ago. It strikes me as an immature (teenage) basis on which to sell and even more so to buy a camera. If you are one of a tiny minority who have a reason to need those huge file sizes then that is a different matter but that is a statement of the bleedin' obvious and I didn't think I needed to say it.

The getting to grips - the resolution required for reproduction becomes less and less as the viewing distance increases. A reasonable distance for viewing an 8 foot print would be around 10 feet. You would be amazed how little resolution is required for a sharp appearance at 10 feet. I used to shoot an occasional poster for Athena and had a formula for working out what camera I'd use but it was always less than you'd think, so I'd be thinking of hiring a 8x6in stand camera but found the Haselblad backup more than good enough.

What I mean by getting to grips is that I cannot think of anything more insulting than to make an 8 foot print and have someone peering at it from 12 inches to see if it is sharp. What they have, rather rudely, told you is that your picture has failed to interest them. Imagine going to a Sebastion Dalgado exhibition and peering into his prints to see if they are sharp. Or my favourite artist Mark Rothko, going up to one his large canvases to see if his brush strokes are up to muster.

When I got my first job age 17 as a trainee photographer, the chief photographer gave me a pile of 50 pictures and gave me half an hour to sort out the 5 I liked the best. To my surprise out of many, many applicants, I got the job even though I told him that I'd never picked up a camera in my life. I asked him a year into my 3 years of training why he'd picked me and his answer has stayed with me all my life. "I can train a monkey to use a camera, I can't give it an eye for a picture".

Has my photography improved? I earned enough from my photography to retire at 55 but I've continued with it, along with writing my technical books on digital cameras and making videos. I haven't so much improved my photography as changed the nature of it in that I now do what I want and i that respect it has improved, mainly because I now have no interest in whether others like my pictures. I don't do them for others. I do continue to make a healthy income from them though.

I'm well aware of the advances in equipment - I have a shelf full of cameras and lenses including a Panasonic S1 so I am aware of what is happening with cameras. What I do know is that, much as I love cameras, they have little influence on my photography. I get quite a big postbag and I am struck by the number of photographers who, when they can't achieve something, think they need a new 'better' camera when all they really need is to forget the camera and get a little practise in.

13 Aug 2019 5:41PM
As TheWilliam2 said 'Am I just being cynical when I think that manufacturers tell what we want rather than ask what we need?'


It is all about selling cameras and duping the general public in to thinking more is better

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.