Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Too many megapixels?  (Read 15368 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9852
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #40 on: May 18, 2012, 05:53:42 AM »

How about the impact of too many pixels on the ozone layer and Greek economy?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged
A few images online here!

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14676
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #41 on: May 18, 2012, 09:11:05 AM »

How about the impact of too many pixels on the ozone layer and Greek economy?

Cheers,
Bernard





Well, Bernard, I'm sure some of the Greeks already think that they are paying for your pixels; it's the voice of that bloody man in the street! Trouble with him is, he keeps on changing his stance: one moment he's for something and the next he's against it. I think he has close relatives here, too.

Rob C

theguywitha645d

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 970
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #42 on: May 18, 2012, 10:04:08 AM »

"are a large number of pixels an asset or a liability in respect of this second requirement"

Is shooting Tmax 100 better than shooting Tmax 400? The look is different, but one is not better than the other.

So where does the pixel resolution become superfluous? That is a hard question to answer. I have made 24" prints from my 12MP E-P1 and Pentax 645D. Both prints are fine. Obviously there is a difference with a comparison, but the quality of one does not make the quality of the other "bad." As far as handheld sharpness, both cameras are the same--the Pentax just has more pixels.

Personally, the most important factor for me is sensor size, rather than pixel resolution. I find that influences the feel/look of the image more. The human visual system has a limited ability to resolve details and cameras today already surpass that ability--and print size ain't going to change that (and I print from 44" printers). If I were to pick up a 35mm camera, the ergonomics would be more important than the pixel resolution.

Maybe you should go back to the M9 just for the way it handles. Unless ISO is an important consideration.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14676
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #43 on: May 18, 2012, 10:53:16 AM »

Maybe you should go back to the M9 just for the way it handles. Unless ISO is an important consideration.




That's a revealing point, though: isn't the rangefinder-style of camera supposed to be made in heaven for 'street' guys and, consequently, isn't great high ISO quality pretty much paramount?

I can understand using a less than 100% frame-finder for street, where I suppose you have less than wonderful opportunities for exact framing and leaving a bit of extra space around the shot isn't the end of the world, but to condemn the M9 to static landscape-style work, tripod-bound as it would be for maximum quality (applicable to all formats/cameras anyway) strikes me as a little perverse, to say the least. If you are going to use a tripd, then it makes sense to be able to frame exactly as you want to frame, so other cameras would come higher up the list, even if the M9 kills most of them on high price rights... So where, exactly, does the M9 score best? It is starting to read like a less than best for anything sort of tool. Which is a pity, even if for me it remains a theoretical purchase only.

Rob C
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 03:15:56 PM by Rob C »
Logged

David Watson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • David Watson Photography
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #44 on: May 18, 2012, 10:58:07 AM »




That's a revealing point, though: isn't the rangefinder-style of camera supposed to be made in heaven for 'street' guys and, consequently, isn't great high ISO quality pretty much paramount?

I can understand using a less than 100% frame-finder for street, where I suppose you have less than wonderful opprtunities for exact framing and leaving a bit of extra space around the shot isn't the end of the world, but to condemn the M9 to static landscape-style work, tripod-bound as it would be for maximum quality (applicable to all formats/cameras anyway) strikes me as a little perverse, to say the least. If you are going to use a tripd, then it makes sense to be able to frame exactly as you want to frame, so other cameras would come higher up the list, even if the M9 kills most of them on high price rights... So where, exactly, does the M9 score best? It is starting to read like a less than best for anything sort of tool. Which is a pity, even if for me it remains a theoretical purchase only.

Rob C

Rob

I actually liked the M9 a lot as an object and as a street photography camera.  I hated it for everything else.  On a tripod? forget it.  Telephoto lens? forget it.  Wide angle focussing accuracy?  Forget it. 

David Watson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 427
    • David Watson Photography
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2012, 12:01:04 PM »

David, how about an M10 with CMOS sensor, liveview and high res screen/EVF?

Will you accept my D800E outfit in part exchange?  I'll have one. BTW how much is it - forget that I don't care I'll have it anyway. ;D ;D

LKaven

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1060
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #46 on: May 18, 2012, 01:18:20 PM »

Hi Bart

I guess as a Scot who cannot abide waste it seems silly to buy a camera with 36MP when one only needs 12 or 18.  If one only needs 12 or so then surely it is better to go with bigger photo sites with the attendant benefits of lower noise and better high ISO performance.  Someone said that a D800 with a D4 sensor would have been a nice product.

If only these things were so:

1) The native 36MP capture, after downsampling to 18MP, will transmit more high frequency detail than a native 18MP capture.  There is a difference in the total MTF, partly due to the AA filter on the 18MP sensor, partly due to bayer demosaicking artifacts.  The differences carry through even at web size.

2) Sensitivity and noise of a sensor are measured /per unit area of the sensor/, and by this measure, the D800 has as good a low light response as the D4.  The major difference between the D800 and D4 sensor in practical terms is the presence of thermal noise in the D800 sensor at very high sensitivity settings and handheld speeds.  But a simple dark-frame subtraction can solve that.

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2012, 01:29:32 PM »

David,

At a given print size the images of the D800 will never look worse than those of lower pixel count cameras.

The issue comes from expecting perfect sharpness when looking at images at 100% on screen.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bingo!  +1.   

You may not always be at an advantage with more megapixels, but you'll never be at a disadvantage, except for file size issues like using more storage space and have a slower throughput in the camera.
Logged

JohnBrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
    • http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2012, 02:14:38 PM »

Will you accept my D800E outfit in part exchange?  I'll have one. BTW how much is it - forget that I don't care I'll have it anyway. ;D ;D
David, since the D800E remains unattainable for mere mortals, I've already blown off the idea of getting one, and instead have turned my attention into acquiring something that really lights up my photographic chimes - an M Monochrom. Chances are I'll have one before Nikon production ever catches up.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 02:17:47 PM by JohnBrew »
Logged

Petrus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2012, 03:06:43 PM »

David, since the D800E remains unattainable for mere mortals, I've already blown off the idea of getting one, and instead have turned my attention into acquiring something that really lights up my photographic chimes - an M Monochrom. Chances are I'll have one before Nikon production ever catches up.

I would wait until there are real side by side comparisons between M9m and B&W conversions form D800E. I place my bets on D800(E) to provide sharper B&W images with bigger DR, better high ISO performance, and the possibility of manipulating the color mapping into grayscale AFTER the shot is taken. Not to mention $5000 savings. (and several other usability things in favor of the Nikon)
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2012, 04:07:28 PM »

I would wait until there are real side by side comparisons between M9m and B&W conversions form D800E. I place my bets on D800(E) to provide sharper B&W images with bigger DR, better high ISO performance, and the possibility of manipulating the color mapping into grayscale AFTER the shot is taken. Not to mention $5000 savings. (and several other usability things in favor of the Nikon)

Well, the M cameras and lenses are about size, so that's the big plus with them.  Either way, I'm not sure how big all of you print, but I'd imagine it'd take pretty large prints to see much difference in resolution.
Logged

jgbowerman

  • Guest
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2012, 09:53:28 PM »

David, how about an M10 with CMOS sensor, liveview and high res screen/EVF?

Hello, its called the NEX-7. And it cost a helluvalot less.
Logged

Justinr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1734
    • Ink+images
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #52 on: May 19, 2012, 03:18:57 AM »

I would wait until there are real side by side comparisons between M9m and B&W conversions form D800E. I place my bets on D800(E) to provide sharper B&W images with bigger DR, better high ISO performance, and the possibility of manipulating the color mapping into grayscale AFTER the shot is taken. Not to mention $5000 savings. (and several other usability things in favor of the Nikon)

I'm yet to be convinced that B&W is about sharpness. If a mono image is heavily dependent on merely being super sharp to be considered good then there is probably something wrong with the picture as a whole.
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #53 on: May 19, 2012, 04:37:55 AM »

Hello, I call it the most uninspiring camera I've ever used.

Wow, I've gotta disagree there.  I've sold all of my DSLR gear for that little camera, and I think having a separate dial for shutter, aperture and ISO is pretty fantastic.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14676
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #54 on: May 19, 2012, 04:39:11 AM »

Hello, I call it the most uninspiring camera I've ever used.


I'm glad you wrote that, Keith.

Cameras really do have their own contribution to how you feel and work. They become an extension of your personality and never more so than when you are a pro: you simply don't even think about which camera to use on a job - you just pick it up and go with it.

That can have its funny side. I was doing a shoot for the IWS at some stately home in England and, as usual, I'd brough along a double-up set of tools because I wasn't sure what I was gong to be facing down there. Anyway, I'd decided it was 500 Series time, and was into the shoot when the lady for whom I was working came over to me and said that she preferred it when I used the 35mm because it was much more exciting to watch... oy veh, already!

Never underestimate the value of appearances, of people or of cameras!

Rob C

jgbowerman

  • Guest
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #55 on: May 19, 2012, 09:22:18 AM »

Wow, I've gotta disagree there.  I've sold all of my DSLR gear for that little camera, and I think having a separate dial for shutter, aperture and ISO is pretty fantastic.

I sold one of my two D700s to make budgeting room for the NEX-7. I'm not sure why one would give the Leica's M series the nod over the NEX-7. I'd love to have some Leica glass and maybe now that I have the NEX-7, I'll go for it one of these days. For a walking-around lens, I got the Sony 18-200. It is not much of a lens in terms of quality glass, but it is solidly built and has taken me back to my old shutterbug days. It is the perfect setup for family vacations. I also got the Sony Zeiss T* 24mm f/1.8. When backpacking, the NEX-7/Zeiss 24mm combo replaced the D700/Zeiss 35 f/2 as a backup system providing a net weight savings of over 2.2 pounds. I'm happy if I can reduce backpack weight by ounces, yet alone pounds. Up until the NEX-7 release, the M9 was on my dream list for a backup camera, but I could not get past the range finder issues, nor the substantial expense.

To each his own. I guess it is a matter of taste and personality in addition to the technology when it comes to camera systems. I would be interested in the details behind Keith's assessment of the NEX-7.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9400
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #56 on: May 19, 2012, 11:49:31 AM »

... I'm not sure why one would give the Leica's M series the nod over the NEX-7...

Because one looks like a real camera, with rich history, the other like a third-place kindergarten design contest, where somebody glued a half-used roll of toilet paper (lens) to a deck of cards (body) as a proof of concept?

JohnBrew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 868
    • http://www.johnbrewton.zenfolio.com
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #57 on: May 19, 2012, 12:19:15 PM »

I can tell you the 24 mp of the NEX-7 is more than enough. I am finding my computer handles the files just fine with no upgrading.
Greg, I'm using "cheap" Leica Summarits on my NEX-7 - the combo of Leica glass and 24 mp is quite incredible. In a pinch I can use my Nikon glass with the Novoflex adapter, but then the package becomes quite noticeable - large and a bit weird. The first time I mounted a 180 2.8 on it I burst out laughing. A NEX-7 with a 50 Summarit is quite pocketable and very, very discreet. Would of been nicer with simple M9 controls, though. If I want WA I have to shoot with ZF.2 Zeiss 21 or Nikon 24 2.8 Ais and with a crop sensor it's still not all that wide. All that said, though, I spent all day yesterday with my D700 and the Zeiss 21 - shooting with old friends makes photography fun and intuitive.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 10:42:14 PM by JohnBrew »
Logged

douglasf13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #58 on: May 19, 2012, 12:28:50 PM »

Because one looks like a real camera, with rich history, the other like a third-place kindergarten design contest, where somebody glued a half-used roll of toilet paper (lens) to a deck of cards (body) as a proof of concept?

 I find this post hilarious, considering the author uses Canon aps-c DSLRs, which are a far cry from the beautiful cameras of the past.  Of course Leicas are beautiful and traditional, but I find the NEX-7 to be among the most beautiful digital camera designs in recent memory.  In fact, when the first prototype images were leaked of the NEX-7 last year, I assumed they were fake, because it seemed too good to be true.  Getting such high IQ in such a small package is a revelation for many of us, and I find the handling superb...outside of accidentally hitting the video button, occasionally.



   :photo by LuisPictor on flickr:
« Last Edit: May 19, 2012, 12:35:13 PM by douglasf13 »
Logged

Keith Reeder

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 256
    • Capture The Moment
Re: Too many megapixels?
« Reply #59 on: May 19, 2012, 02:50:14 PM »

Because one looks like a real camera, with rich history, the other like a third-place kindergarten design contest, where somebody glued a half-used roll of toilet paper (lens) to a deck of cards (body) as a proof of concept?

Heh! That's quite an ironic comment given your signature "tagline", Slobodan..!
Quote
When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
Logged
Keith Reeder
Blyth, NE England
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up