How many pixels for macro/landscape?

[Lin Evans]

Hi Ron,

The issue revolves around print sizes and resolution. As you know, 35mm color film is primarily limited in enlargement potential to around 16x24 by grain intrusion. For the majority of landscapes taken in a single frame, we pretty much accept 16x24 as the limit because if we go larger grain becomes the limiting factor and we must then use grain removal (noise removal) software which softens the image and destroys the aesthetic for larger prints. We might then make the statement that film is never resolution limited for enlargement, but nearly always grain limited.

Digital, on the other hand is almost never grain (noise) limited for enlargement, but nearly always resolution limited. With film we simply can't enlarge to the point where we see the effects of resolution loss bcause of grain, but with digital it's easy to enlarge until marker pixels (incompletely defined detail) become the aesthetic limiting factor.

To be absolutely equivalent to 35mm color flm up to 16x24 for "all" types of captures, we need eleven megapixel resolution. However, there are ways around this which I'll get to shortly. A Caon 1DS will absolutely out-perform 35mm color film for enlargement of any type subject. A 20D or 1D Mark II will come very close, but not quite have the resolution to make equal detail in wide angle, hyperfocal landscape captures.

The issue is that the 1DS has some limitations in ISO and frame to frame (buffer issues) which the eight megapixel cameras don't have. This makes it less suitable for certain types of shots than the 20D or 1D Mark II. But then we have the issue of resolution cropping up again.

The solution for an all-around excellent tool at a reasonable price/performance ratio is likely the 20D. I find it very easy to shoot a few quick overlapping frames and stitch them thus achieving the resolution equivalency (or greater) of my 1DS while still enjoying the high ISO and other features of the eight megapixel camera.

In short, if you don't mind the small additional step of a quick stitch of a few frames, you can achieve your goal without buying a more expensive and somewhat specialized solution.

Lin

[Lin Evans]

Yes, exactly. There is a 1.6x crop factor with the 20D so your existing lenses will have a decrease in their field of view of 60 percent. By taking multiple overlapping (about 30%) frames and stitching them you achieve not only the original field of view or better, but increase the resolution by 70% with each frame. So were you to shoot three overlapping horizontal frames with the 20D, after the stitch you would end up with a pano having 3504 pixels times three minus 30% or 7358 pixels horizontal by 2336 vertical. Should you shoot both horizontal and vertical overlaps you can stitch and have a significant resolution increase. By using a telephoto rather than wide angle and using multiple overlapping frames it's quite possible to make beautiful gigantic prints from a rather low resolution camera. Of course if the wind is blowing leaves or clouds are rapidly moving this will not be a solution, but in many cases it works wonderfully.

As an example, Max Lyons displayed a 10X12 "feet" 300dpi uninterpolated Lightjet print made with his D60 (6 megabyte resolution sensor) at PMA in Las Vegas last year. The Bryce Canyon landscape was 1.09 gigapixels in resolution from a 2.5 gigabyte file made from 196 overlapping frames captured over a 13 minute period. The resolution was absolutely incredible and the prnits had to be seen in person to be appreciated.

It's an alternative which works well for me.

Best regards,

Lin

[Lin Evans]

I use a number of different products to stitch depending on the complexity of the individual situation. For seriously difficult stitches I use PanoTools which is freeware, but difficult to learn and use without a GUI front end. There are several graphical user interface front end programs for PanoTools and you really should try a couple before purchasing to find one which works best for you. Links below...

For simple stitches sometimes I use PhotoShop CS and for intermediate stitching I like PanaVue Image Asembler.

Stitching in two dimensions is no more difficult than straight pano sitiching "provided" that the images were properly acquired. To prevent parallax when stitching more than one row you really need to use a spherical pano head which provides the ability to keep the entrance pupil (sometimes mistakenly referred to as nodal point) constant, especially if there are objects in reasonable proximity to the lens.
Here are a couple links to learn more - and I would suggest the third link to get a good foundation on stiching. Lots of experts here to answer any technical questions about stitching:

Lin
http://www.ptgui.com/
http://www.tawbaware.com/ptasmblr.htm
http://www.tawbaware.com/forum2/

[Lisa Nikodym]

Are you using the panosaurus? Didger mentioned he had issues with its stability in another forum thread.  

The Panosaurus is only recommended for camera/lens combinations up to three pounds.  Anything heavier, and it has trouble holding it steady because it just isn't built sturdy enough to hold much more without deflections and vibrations.  It's possible that didger is using one of his heavier cameras with it and isn't within the recommended weight limit; he'd have to answer that himself.  I haven't used mine outdoors (in the wind) enough yet to tell if there are any stability problems with cameras under the weight limit, but indoors it seems fine with my lightweight D70.

Lisa

[Lisa Nikodym]

But since I do primarily macro and landscape, it sounds like I would have to stich almost every shot I wanted to print.  Which sort of defeats a big attraction of digital - simplicity compared to processing and scanning slides.

I agree wholeheartedly.  I wouldn't want to do the panorama head setup all the time, or the stitching - only for special shots where I don't mind spending some extra time and effort.

I then took it apart and used bits and pieces of it to make a much more compact and stable unit.  Then I made an even more stable and compact and lighter version out of carbon fiber.

P.S. To didger - five minutes after we got the thing together, my spouse was already mentally going down that same path (though thinking titanium rather than CF, I think).  
I wouldn't be surprised if he starts mucking about with it one of these days...

Lisa

[didger]

I wouldn't want to do the panorama head setup all the time, or the stitching

Yeah, I can relate.  However, with my 3.5 oz CF pano head permanently glued to my 1ds, there's absolutely NO set up issue.  However, I can only do single row and only do panos with my 35 and 50mm lenses if there's close subject matter.  Wider than 35mm there's too much distortion and falloff and other problems anyway.  For distant subject matter I often use my 100mm lens and the stitching results are fabulous.

As for the hassle of the stitching, again I can relate.  However, I find the results worth the effort, but only with PTMac, and not any of the cheap quick and easy programs.  PTMac is now far enough along so that once you learn the various quirks and workarounds for problems, it's actually quite efficient and the quality of results is phenomenal, I would even say PERFECT EVERY TIME.  I've got lots of 30 to 50 Mpixel things done now, and the only other way to get that is with 4x5 film.  Even a p25 back won't do it.

I've decided to buy a used 1Ds.

Congrats!! For anyone with a big lens commitment to Canon, 1ds is definitely the way to go (if you can handle the weight and you can live with the poor choices of ultrawide lenses).  If you don't have a serious Canon lens investment or if weight or better ultrawide performance are important issues, then D2X is the better move.  I have a big 1ds system (with Zeiss wide angle primes) that I plan to keep, but I'm also getting a D2X as soon as they become more readily available.  For long backpacking trips, or any foreign travels the 1ds kit is just too much bulk and weight.

[didger]

"Ultrawide" refers to how wide a field of vision you can frame and has nothing to do with format (sensor size) per se.  For medium format you get an ultrawide field with a 35mm focal length, for 35mm format a 21mm or shorter focal length is considered ultrawide, for a 1.6x sensor camera 12mm or so focal length gives you an ultrawide field of view.

Canon is notoriously poor for ultrawide lens support.  There a no primes and the available zooms tend to be rather soft in the corners at short focal lengths.  For this reason I use Zeiss distagon wide angle lenses with my 1ds.  This is a very expensive solution and you lose all lens automation.  The Nikon 12-24mm lens for 1.6x cameras is from all reports considerably better than the Canon ultrawide lenses and the performance of the D2X is apparently all around very closely comparable to 1dsMKII at considerably lower cost, less weight, and with much lighter and more efficient batteries.

Most landscape photographers tend to use wide angle lenses quite a bit.  I use ultrawides so much that if I were starting fresh on a new system I wouldn't even think of Canon.  A used 1ds is not that much cheaper than a new D2X.  It's all a question of your needs and whether you already have a lot invested in Canon lenses.

A final factor you need to consider is that with a used camera you can't be sure there's not problems that you'll need to deal with, like perhaps a scratched sensor or something more subtle in the electronics.  With a new camera this is less likely and you have warranty recourse.

[BJL]

I supose it is too late, and it is not so sruprising n this forum that all the discussion was about landscapes, but I have been thinking about resolutin and pixel neds for macros.

To put it positively, don't worry about it; once you have the resolution for big detailed landscapes, you should have more than enough for macro work. Loosely, big, wide distant scenes are the easiest ones for getting lots of detail with adequate DOF, while small, close subjects are teh greatest resolution struggle.

Once you stop down to get adeqaute DOF in a close macro, say f/16 in 35mm format, you will be significantly diffraction limited with the 16MP 1DsMkII according to observations reported by Jack F. in this forum, and backed by the math on diffraction spot sizes. At an estimate, you will not gain much visible detail beyond 11MP, due to diffration. Even 8MP is probably fairly close to as god as it gets. (Changing formats does not change the diffraction/DOF trade-offs on resolution, once the lens limit is those factors rather than lens resolution.)

[Ron123]

Hello,

I am thinking about taking the plunge into digital.  I use Canon EOS.  I have read a few comments from people that the 20D has enough pixels/image detail "unless you do landscapes" or other such comments.  My main interests are macro/landscape.  This leads me to think I may need a 1Ds (used) or 1Ds II.  Any comments from users experienced with both of these cameras (20D/1Ds) would be helpful.  FWIW, I currently used an Elan 7E.

Thanks

[duranash]

"I find it very easy to shoot a few quick overlapping frames and stitch them thus achieving the resolution equivalency (or greater) of my 1DS while still enjoying the high ISO and other features of the eight megapixel camera."

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying.  If I have a scene before me that I might compose at 28mm on my 35mm film camera and 18mm will give me roughly the same view/perspective on a 20D -- are you saying to use a longer focal length on the 20D and take several shots to stitch together to get the same 28mm composition?  Or am I not understanding.

[Andrew Teakle]

Lin,
May I ask what software you use to stitch your images together? Is there much more involved in multi-row stitching ie. 2 rows of 2 shots to give (almost) double the width & height, rather than panoramic stitching?

[Andrew Teakle]

Thanks for the links, Lin. I've downloaded Pano Tools and PTAssembler. Seems like a steep learning curve ahead. At least it's Sunday tomorrow, and I can play at leisure. Next stop is a dedicated panorama head. Are you using the panosaurus? Didger mentioned he had issues with its stability in another forum thread.  :p

[didger]

It's possible that didger is using one of his heavier cameras with it

I was using it with a 1ds and it was definitely a bit shaky.  I then took it apart and used bits and pieces of it to make a much more compact and stable unit.  Then I made an even more stable and compact and lighter version out of carbon fiber.  

For a light camera (which 1ds is NOT), a Panosaurus is OK at least to get started. If you really get into pano shooting and stitching you'll probably want something better (more stable, more compact) eventually.  Once you understand the idea of a panorama head and how the Panosaurus works, if you're a little bit handy with tools, you can make your own Panorama head using pieces of the Panosaurus and custom made wood components to make a unit that's exactly right for your camera/lens combination.  The Panosaurus is so clunky because it has to accomodate so many combinations of camera and lenses.

[Ron123]

Thanks for the advice.  But since I do primarily macro and landscape, it sounds like I would have to stich almost every shot I wanted to print.  Which sort of defeats a big attraction of digital - simplicity compared to processing and scanning slides.

[Ron123]

Thanks for all the feedback.  I've decided to buy a used 1Ds.

Ron123

[Ron123]

Congrats!! For anyone with a big lens commitment to Canon, 1ds is definitely the way to go (if you can handle the weight and you can live with the poor choices of ultrawide lenses

I don't understand your comment about "poor choice of ultrawides".  I don't need ultrawides on the 1Ds - it's a full frame sensor.

[IanS]

"Ultrawide" refers to how wide a field of vision you can frame and has nothing to do with format (sensor size) per se.  For medium format you get an ultrawide field with a 35mm focal length, for 35mm format a 21mm or shorter focal length is considered ultrawide, for a 1.6x sensor camera 12mm or so focal length gives you an ultrawide field of view.

Canon is notoriously poor for ultrawide lens support.  There a no primes and the available zooms tend to be rather soft in the corners at short focal lengths.  For this reason I use Zeiss distagon wide angle lenses with my 1ds.  This is a very expensive solution and you lose all lens automation.  The Nikon 12-24mm lens for 1.6x cameras is from all reports considerably better than the Canon ultrawide lenses and the performance of the D2X is apparently all around very closely comparable to 1dsMKII at considerably lower cost, less weight, and with much lighter and more efficient batteries.

Most landscape photographers tend to use wide angle lenses quite a bit.  I use ultrawides so much that if I were starting fresh on a new system I wouldn't even think of Canon.  A used 1ds is not that much cheaper than a new D2X.  It's all a question of your needs and whether you already have a lot invested in Canon lenses.

Hi didger,

Your comments made me curious. With the 1Ds (Mk I or II) being full frame, the widest canon lens would be a 14mm f2.8, which is equivalent to a 14mm. On the Nikon your widest prime (non-fisheye again) is a 14mm f2.8, which is actually a 21mm equivalent. Now I've not used either but is the Canon that bad?

Also in the zoom stakes, the Canon 17-40L always seemed to get good reviews and would be the 'cheaper' equivalent to the 12-24 on the Nikon, again I thought the 17-40 was regarded as a decent performer all round?

Ian.