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

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


gcarth Plus
15 3.1k 1 United Kingdom
13 Aug 2019 6:13PM

Quote: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

Yep. The world is run on propaganda!

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

peterjones 17 4.8k 1 United Kingdom
14 Aug 2019 8:33AM
“most people don't and mange to get away without understanding exactly what they are doing.”

With abject apologies but thanks to “Dave Canon” as I have taken his quote out of context but so true, I am not interested in the nuts and bolts and how processes work but I am intensely interested in what creates a picture and how to apply those processes, the latter I do know .... mostly! If not I can soon find the answer.

As far as the question of how many pixels are enough, the answer probably compares well to the analogy of a piece of string.

In my current genres of street, travel and nature, 24 megapixels or thereabouts is fine for my street and travel and I wouldn’t feel particularly disadvantaged with a little less, however re nature I like to have as many megapixels as possible, I can then crop in that bit of sensor dust in the sky and obtain a reasonable file size, with macro work I can capture the insect miles away therefore not disturbing it and gaining DOF and then crop like mad and still end up with a sizeable file.

I would say that I print sometimes up to >A3 for various outputs, if I was an ardent instagrammer, FB aficionado or somehow confine my imagery to the web then the debate re multi megapixies would be for me meaningless.

Waffle over.
JJGEE 14 7.6k 18 England
14 Aug 2019 9:51AM

Quote:with macro work I can capture the insect miles away therefore not disturbing it and gaining DOF and then crop like mad and still end up with a sizeable file.


I do that quite regularly with my 42mp A99II but do not class the resulting image as macro... just does not seem correct to me as it is not 1:1 at the taking stage.

Just me I suppose, in interpreting the term " macro "
Dave_Canon 13 1.5k United Kingdom
14 Aug 2019 10:27AM
As a scientist, I came into photography from scientific curiosity. After joining a camera club some years later, I quickly discovered that the artistic side of photography was also interesting but I am not a natural at art. My comment quoted is driven by the fact that the most successful photographers in my club are basically artists. There are many of the technical aspects they do not fully understand. However, I note that they know enough to achieve what they want. I have even had them explain how they approach their photography and automatically see in terms of shapes, design interaction of colours etc. It is not that us technical folks cannot see any of that but we do not see it as clearly or as often. The artists also admit that they do not understand the technology very well but find out what they need irrespective of whether they understand it technically. Our training courses do tend to be led mainly by technical guys but I have always included an artistic type who can bring that extra dimension. What is important; to envisage what your final image should look like or know how to achieve that technically? We generally all need a bit of each but without the former you can never achieve your goal.


Dave
thewilliam2 2 1.2k
14 Aug 2019 11:06AM
I'd suggest that a clear understanding of a tools and materials is helpful and I'd offer a quote about a violin and cello maker from Cremona whose instruments have probably never been equalled.

"Most craftsmen do what they they can with their materials but Stradivari does what he wants"
lemmy 12 2.8k United Kingdom
14 Aug 2019 5:17PM

Quote:As a scientist, I came into photography from scientific curiosity.
There's no question that some of the most arresting photographs that we see today are scientific and have no pretensions to be art and no need to either.

All those stunning NASA shots of galaxies and nebulae and distant planets, for example are showing us things that excite as much as any art but are in fact achievements of the scientific community applying the science of photography to show us what otherwise the eye could never see. And at the other extreme, too, the tiniest objects and creatures. And in the video field, with time lapses allowing us to reassess our perception of time itself.


Quote:"Most craftsmen do what they they can with their materials but Stradivari does what he wants"
Well illustrated here - Stradivarius guitar - by the beautiful ringing tone of the only still playable guitar that he built. Such a beautiful instrument both in voice and looks.



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.