MPs...are more better?
Bottom line. Keep it simple, please. How many mega pixels do I need in a DSLR? Will I ever notice a difference between, say 6MP and 10MP?
Thanks. Lyle
Thanks. Lyle
Gear: D200, G9, Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, Nikkor 35 f/1.8, Vivitar Series 1 28-105 f/2.8-3.8, Sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3
0
Comments
For non pro landscape shooter...all you really need is 12MP.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
The real question is, how many MP do you need for what sort of work, printed at what size? If all you want to do is take photos for yourself and look at them on your computer display or print them out at small sizes (8"x10" or smaller) on your printer at home, then 6 MP should do just fine. (In fact, a high-quality P&S such as the Canon G11 may be quite adequate.) If you want to do larger prints, or if you want to do professional work, then I would suggest at least 10 MP. If you want to do large, high-quality art prints, then the more MP the merrier -- at least, up to the point where the individual pixels on the sensor become so small that image quality is adversely affected due to increased noise, reduced contrast, etc. I don't think APS-C cameras should be pushed beyond 12 MP with current technology; 35mm full-frame seems okay up to about 25 MP.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
My Canon 5D MKII (21 MPix) is now the last of my cameras that I would part with and yes, it is demonstrably and visibly better than any 8 MPix camera that I own. The level of detail and improvement in color purity in prints is visible in print sizes larger than 8" x 10". (It does require very good lenses and careful image processing to bring out the best from the camera so it is also very demanding of equipment and technique.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
It's kinda like driving around in a Corvette. An extreme majority of its capability remains unused, but it's nice to have that .5% of the time you want/need it.
I would disagree. I had an XT (which was 6mp, I believe?); I now have an xsi which is 12mp. When I need to shoot loose and crop, those extra pixels are VERY VERY handy to have.
I don't know that I need any more than that (although I'm likely stuck with them when I upgrade given the way cameras are going), but I was very pleasantly surprised at how much more cropping I could do with the extra pixelage. Given some of the situations in which I shoot, it has sometimes been the difference between a shot being useable and not.
{From Thom's Guide}
<table width="500" border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]sensor[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8x10"[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]11x14"[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]13x19"[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]24x36"[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]4mp
2464x1632
[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
204 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
148 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
130 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor-
68 dpi[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="34">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]6mp
3008x2000[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
250 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good-
181 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
158 dpi
[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor-
83 dpi[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]8mp
3504x2336[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
292 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
212 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good-
184 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
97 dpi[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]10mp
3872x2592[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
324 dpi
[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
235 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
203 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
108 dpi[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]12mp
4288x2848[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
356 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
259 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
225 dpi
[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
119 dpi[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]16mp
4992x3328[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
416 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
302 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good
262 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
138 dpi[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]18mp
5232x3516[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
439 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
320 dpi[/FONT]
</td> <td bgcolor="#cccccc">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]good+
275 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
145 dpi[/FONT]</td> </tr> <tr> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]21mp
5616x3744[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
468 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
340 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td bgcolor="#999999">[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]excellent
295 dpi[/FONT]</td> <td>[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]poor
156 dpi[/FONT]</td></tr></tbody></table>
YMMV.
You Canon folk are sitting pretty with options like the 7D and 5DMK2...I wish Nikon would hurry up with my D700x!
What do you lose? Oh geez, where do I start...Memory card space, storage space, backup space on all your backup drives, RAM for processing, CPU cycles for processing and generating previews, disk space for previews, bandwidth out to your online backup server...there is a high cost to carrying around and processing far more pixels than you really need. Your entire system must be upgraded if you begin to work with far more megapixels than your last camera, if you want to maintain performance and disk space availability. For example I went from a Rebel XT (8MP) with 5 megabyte raw files to a Canon 7D (18MP) with 24-26MB raw files. I just cut the capacity of my existing memory cards, dramatically, since each shot on the new camera consumes around 5 times as many megabytes. If I want to shoot as many of the 7D images on a card as I could on the XT, I'd better buy 5 times more cards! They say storage is cheap, but remember, you aren't going to buy just one volume here. In some cases, if your system is old enough, you may need to buy new everything in the chain. That might not turn out to be cheap.
The table above needs a label beyond "Excellent" and that label should be called "Overkill." When you go beyond about 360dpi for an 8x10 print, you're processing and sending pixels you simply don't need to send. Your print job will probably take longer while the system crunches the pixels down to the ones the printer can actually use. Even top of the line printers aren't going to show you 360dpi worth of detail unless you're printing at the highest quality setting on the most expensive paper. Most people couldn't tell the difference if it was a 240 to 300 dpi print. A 240dpi 8x10 is just 4.6 megapixels, folks.
More megapixels are better if:
It isn't going to slow down your system
You have the hardware capacity from end to end to handle that many more megapixels
You want to have a lot of cropping flexibility
Your lens is so good and expensive that it can actually resolve that resolution
If you can say yes to at least a few of those points, more megapixels is better. If you say no to most of those points, more megapixels will hurt you more than help you.
I don't see any of these issues as a loss - they are simply indicators that your existing workflow is due for an upgrade.
All of these high-megapixel cameras have the ability to shoot a lower resolution image. If the additional overhead of more detail, better quality, and greater creative latitude is really going to sink your workflow than simply shoot at half-res - meanwhile, beg your grandma for a loan to upgrade your old Celeron Gateway clunker and get some extra HDD's.
Obviously different people have different needs, a pro photog shooting with the finest lenses is going to need very high (and clean) resolution to make a living. But most of us who shoot for fun and to share with family/friends (especially when sharing photos online), I think 6-8 MP is well more than enough. If you get a shot you really love and want to make a large print to hang on your wall, you are going to be limited, but I think for the vast majority of people, we have likely reached the end of defining "better" cameras simply by using MP count.
My site 365 Project
yes, more MPs and you can crop those air show and wildlife pics and still get good resolution
I'm told that the lower-res raw options are demosaiced. For some purists, that could be an issue.
I have no problem with staying with the times, and I'm all about being able to crop and still have resolution. I'm just contesting the notion that more megapixels is OK because "what do you have to lose." I'm saying it is not even close to being free, which means you have to be prepared to lose some cash and some time in researching and procuring newer gear just because you're clogging up your old gear with megapixels. In this economy where a lot of people are trying to defer major expenses, a new strain on the budget from overhauling the entire pipeline is not a good thing. Also, people always complain about space, RAM, and network bandwidth, and overkilling megapixels is no way to fix that.
Aberdeen, WA USA
glockman99@hotmail.com
Are you suggesting that Dorothea Lange, Edward Weston, and Julia Margaret Cameron aren't "old school"?
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Absolutely. But there are times when cropping in camera may not be possible. I shoot a lot of performance/theatrical stuff - sometimes the best way to handle the difficult lighting is to use a shorter focal length even when it's not optimum framing, and then crop tighter afterwards - I'm not ashamed to take advantage of what my camera can offer me
Link to my Smugmug site
no problem if you have a long telephoto lens or are able to get real close to wildlife but otherwise try out a camera with more MP's - it could be exciting!
:bigbs
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Out of respect to Thom the chart is a bit out of context as presented here. Thom is specifically talking about using an inkjet printer for the purpose of the chart and he does go on to say:
"I've produced and seen 36" prints from a 12mp camera that look excellent, though it takes a great deal more control over every variable from shoot-to-print to do that with any consistency."
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
but the chart is dumb and takes into account no real-world stuff. It's silly. We print from 150dpi all the time, and the 20x30s are gorgeous.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
IMHO, I've found this a good rule of thumb on the mega pixel sizing for folks who aren't going to use a professional printer & that don't have high end ink jets plotter to use.
I've got shots with my 8MP camera and great glass that rival the stuff I've got from a rented D3. Seems that DIY printing on consumer gear brings out the devil in the MP debate.
As with anything, YMMV - but for the common man, it's not too bad.
@Andy: To the original question: What's your take on the great MP debate Andy? How much is enough, and where is the low-bar these days?
The thing that I have learned is that I would rather be in the position to decimate the data later (crop it in our turns as well as changing the bit depth) than not have that option at all. I also realize that it all depends on the application of what you are trying to do with the image.
If you are going for prints, I have found the SmugMug resolution guide very much right on the money for image quality. It is also not just about the Megapixels for data size, it is also the bit depth. If my math is right a 5MP 32bit depth image is the same data size as a 10MP 16bit depth. So how much bit depth do you need? Well that also depends; if you are only showing on a 24bit monitor do you need 32bit depth? Well how much processing do you want to be able to do....
Each photographer needs to think about this for themselves and all that we can do is provide guidance. My personal opinion, and this is without as much experience as other people have, "Go for as many MP at 24bit depth as you can get." This seems to be the right balance of data to performance. I have a 20x30 inch metallic print hanging behind my desk at the office that I shot with my P&S that I had to cut down from the 12MP to get rid of extraneous items (I could not zoom in enough) and it looks great.
Pictures | Website | Blog | Twitter | Contact
"14-bit" RAW files contain more tonal information than any consumer monitor or print system that I'm aware of can display, it's just processing headroom.