pixel counting seems to be a time waster to me

[idenford]

I have a Canon G9 for walk around shooting. I did some shots by the Humber River two weekends ago, printed perfect no noise 13 x 19 prints on Ilford Paper in black and white.
Given the sensor size on that camera, what's the point for printing of having more than 10-12 megapixels on an slr?
21 megapixels on a camera? Seems like measuring body parts.
If I can get perfect prints from a G9.
Here are the shots
http://idenford.blogspot.com/2008/04/congr...es-society.html

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I have a Canon G9 for walk around shooting. I did some shots by the Humber River two weekends ago, printed perfect no noise 13 x 19 prints on Ilford Paper in black and white.
Given the sensor size on that camera, what's the point for printing of having more than 10-12 megapixels on an slr?
21 megapixels on a camera? Seems like measuring body parts.
If I can get perfect prints from a G9.
Here are the shots
http://idenford.blogspot.com/2008/04/congr...es-society.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For 13 by 19 - you're right, generally. My first digital, a 1D, was only 4.6 megapixels and it did quite well at that size with a little rezzing up.

But if you want to crop....

Or if you want 20 by 24....(as I do)

Or if you compare  1DsII files directly with the G9...

THen you may see some differences!

Bill

[michael]

And why would anyone buy a medium format camera when 35mm is good enough? (He said ironically)

Maybe, just maybe, different photographers have different needs and different standards.

[dalethorn]

I once printed two 11x14 inch B&W's from 8x11mm Minox AgepeFF negatives, apparently grain-free, and looking pretty sharp and detailed too.  I wouldn't want to do that very often (very difficult), and you should have seen the grain on the negatives under a 33x Wilde microscope!  I could hardly believe my eyes.

[idenford]

For 13 by 19 - you're right, generally. My first digital, a 1D, was only 4.6 megapixels and it did quite well at that size with a little rezzing up.

But if you want to crop....

Or if you want 20 by 24....(as I do)

Or if you compare  1DsII files directly with the G9...

THen you may see some differences!

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that makes sense to me but I did quite a crop on those shots. Anyway, I know what you say is correct. Thanks

[idenford]

And why would anyone buy a medium format camera when 35mm is good enough? (He said ironically)

Maybe, just maybe, different photographers have different needs and different standards.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194742\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ironically? I love irony and I agree. I have never have shot mediium format and really am ignorant about it. I was a hobbyist film photographer and started with Digital seriously about four years ago. I could never imagine going all the way to Antarctica or travel anywhere exotic with just a G9, except the shoot other photographers on the boat. But I am curious about the whole pixel counting and what the reality is about the limits and the capacity of mega megapixels on cameras. Why there needs to be 20 plus megapixel cameras except to shoot huge and magnificent landscapes.
Thank you for the post.

[BernardLanguillier]

Why there needs to be 20 plus megapixel cameras except to shoot huge and magnificent landscapes.
Thank you for the post.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because, even at 13x19 inch, there is a clear difference between an image shot with a compact digital camera and a higher end device.

Regards,
Bernard

[MarcRochkind]

Here's the best writeup I've found on this subject:

http://www.bythom.com/printsizes.htm

What you need for a print is 180ppi, minimum. Any combination of total pixel count and cropping that give you that is enough. Thom Hogan also says that 288ppi or better gives you even better results.

If the exposure is off, or the lens isn't focused, or the camera isn't on a tripod, or the printer isn't top notch, or the print process isn't perfect, the numbers don't apply, of course.

--Marc

[idenford]

I also wonder if sensor technology has changed to the point where you can take a point and shoot like the G9 and get amazing prints. I am not a techno geek, but I suppose if you are making very large and fine prints, the higher end megapixel cameras have and keep extraordinary detail.
Never having been exposed to medium format, I really wondered again about sensor technology and whether it has changed so dramatically that you can take the smaller sensor and do amazing things.
I am truly curious about this, clearly there are many types of photography and needs.

[dalethorn]

You may get some amazingly good prints with a G9, and some may even look comparable to prints from big-sensor cameras, depending on the orientation of the pixels, to use a crude analogy. But when the shooting conditions aren't perfect - low light, dull overcast, and so on, the differences will become more pronounced.

[idenford]

You may get some amazingly good prints with a G9, and some may even look comparable to prints from big-sensor cameras, depending on the orientation of the pixels, to use a crude analogy. But when the shooting conditions aren't perfect - low light, dull overcast, and so on, the differences will become more pronounced.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

makes complete sense, the shots I took were on a bright sunny day and that is when the G9 works best for me. Lots of noise on low light conditions

[bjanes]

I have a Canon G9 for walk around shooting. I did some shots by the Humber River two weekends ago, printed perfect no noise 13 x 19 prints on Ilford Paper in black and white.
Given the sensor size on that camera, what's the point for printing of having more than 10-12 megapixels on an slr?
21 megapixels on a camera? Seems like measuring body parts.
If I can get perfect prints from a G9.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no doubt that one can get excellent 13 by 19 inch prints from a 12 MP camera. The benefit of more megapixels may be overestimated by some photographers, and this view is reinforced by this article in the [a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]NY Times[/url].

Perceived image quality requires a high MTF at relatively low frequencies as shown by SQF theory. In the example given by Bob Atkins for an 8 by 10 inch print from a 35 mm image, the resolution that is most critical for perceived print quality is from 4 to 16 line pairs/mm on the film or sensor. For a print 11 inches on the smaller side, the corresponding frequencies are 5.5 - 22 lp/mm. One can achieve good MTF at those frequencies with a good 12 MP camera and good technique.

For subjects with a lot of high frequency content such as landscapes more resolution is required than for a portrait and more megapixels might be helpful. To get the extra benefit of 22 MP requires good technique such as a sturdy tripod, mirror lockup and accurate focusing. Otherwise, the difference between 12 and 22 MP might not be apparent. For walk around shooting, one likely uses less than perfect technique and the difference between 12 and 22 MP might not be apparent.

[Tony Beach]

I have a Canon G9 for walk around shooting. I did some shots by the Humber River two weekends ago, printed perfect no noise 13 x 19 prints on Ilford Paper in black and white.
Given the sensor size on that camera, what's the point for printing of having more than 10-12 megapixels on an slr?
21 megapixels on a camera? Seems like measuring body parts.
If I can get perfect prints from a G9.
Here are the shots
http://idenford.blogspot.com/2008/04/congr...es-society.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=194737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, all else being equal and viewing small web images there is no difference.  At 13x19 the differences will depend on the subject matter, the light, the ISO, the lenses, and then there's the issue of format as it relates to DOF since you can't get a shallow DOF with a tiny format like the G9.

The same argument you are making about digital photography and resolution could be applied to film.  There is no comparison in the detail between larger film formats and smaller film formats; with digital it is a combination of the number and the quality of the pixels (often associated with the size of the photosites they are derived from).

[Plekto]

Also, bigger, "fatter" pixel sensors of course make a big difference.  All the resolution in the world isn't as important as good color fidelity and contrast.    It's also why a typical digital back looks more vivid, resolution aside.  People will notice poor color, blown highlights, and artifacts far more than whether it's 12 or 20mp.  

The Fuji cameras with their expanded dynamic range(dual sensor models), btw, appear to take excellent black and white photos.

[dalethorn]

BTW, you'll read a lot on these forums about how small cameras don't do so well in blurring background info, which big cameras do so much better.  I'd take that with a large grain of salt, if you've seen how absurdly overboard many or most photogs go on that issue.  There are certain types of scenes which benefit from a pronounced shallow DOF, but too much of that is *not* a good thing.

[MarkL]

BTW, you'll read a lot on these forums about how small cameras don't do so well in blurring background info, which big cameras do so much better.  I'd take that with a large grain of salt, if you've seen how absurdly overboard many or most photogs go on that issue.  There are certain types of scenes which benefit from a pronounced shallow DOF, but too much of that is *not* a good thing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you shoot weddings, portrait or fashion it really is a big issue.

I wish I could be satisfied with the output from a £200 camera. I'd have a lot more spare cash!