End of the megapixel race? Two interesting articles by Ctein

[ErikKaffehr]

Jim,

My experience, too. Just to mention, the ink include with the printer represents significant value. An Epson SP3880 comes with nine cartridges containing 720 ml of ink.

Best regards
Erik

In the case of every printer I've ever owned, I've spent far more money on ink than on the printer itself. Larger printers tend to have bigger ink carts and lower cost per ml of ink. So, the smaller printer isn't always a bargain.

Jim

[dwswager]

In the case of every printer I've ever owned, I've spent far more money on ink than on the printer itself. Larger printers tend to have bigger ink carts and lower cost per ml of ink. So, the smaller printer isn't always a bargain.

Jim

And considering that about $600 of the $1299 cost of say the Epson R3888 is ink, the difference isn't all that much.  But there is a difference between startup cost and production costs.  And someone thinking of printing at 8x10 instead of 16x20 because it is a splurge isn't likely to be buying a $1300 or $2000 printer.  Of course, there is the size and weight of the bigger printer to consider as well which is not insignificant either.

[Ray]

In the case of every printer I've ever owned, I've spent far more money on ink than on the printer itself. Larger printers tend to have bigger ink carts and lower cost per ml of ink. So, the smaller printer isn't always a bargain.

Jim

Not only that. The larger printer, such as my Epson 7600, uses 30 meter rolls of paper. Divide the total area of a 30m roll which is 600mm wide, by the area of any of the single sheet size of A4, A3, A2 etc, and you'll find that the cost of the same type of paper used in the larger printer is vastly cheaper, per unit area, than the packets of single sheets.

The significant savings in both ink and paper were a main motivation for me to buy a large professional printer.

Another point which I think is lacking in this thread, is the effect that increased pixel count has on 'effective' lens quality.

Let's say we've been using a 12mp D700 or D3 with the rather average-performing Nikkor 24-120 zoom. When comparing the results with a good prime of the same focal length, whether 24mm or 35mm or 85mm, and so on, we should find that the primes deliver sharper results, but that might produces a conflict if we're concerned about both sharpness and 'getting the shot', because zooms are so much more convenient to use and can avoid this constant necessity to change lenses.

Let's say that the technical results from the primes, used with a 12mp camera, are satisfactory for our needs, but we're a bit pissed off at having to change lenses and carry the extra weight of a number of primes instead of a single zoom, whenever we go out shooting.

Solution? Get a 36mp camera. The Nikkor 24-120 zoom, used with a D800E, will provide at most focal lengths a similar degree of sharpness as a good quality prime used on a 12mp camera. Voila! 

[dwswager]

Just for completeness and accuracy, I will say that there are mediocre primes and sharp zooms.

As a general shooting amateur, I shoot everything from studio still life and portraits to landscapes, nightscapes, and sports.  I wanted the D810, because I wanted a camera that worked well at everything. My D7100 (24MP DX) is a great camera, especially at the $896 price you can get it for at Amazon right now (Nikon D7100 Amazon Prime).  Personally, I find this one of the best deals in DSLRs ever.  Since I can shoot sports w/o super high frame rates, I can take advantage of the D7100 better sensor and lack of OLPF than what is available on much more expensive APS-C bodies.

However, the D810 gives me everything I need in a single body.  This is not insignificant for an amateur that does not get to work with his camera day in day out.  I can learn the D810 operation inside and out and not be 'surprised' or frustrated when out in the field.  I can shoot 15.3MP DX mode if I so choose or crop the 36MP when shooting sports.  I can see where if you require shooting 50 frames at 10 fps to get the one you want, the larger files size could be an impediment, but since I don't have that problem, it's a non issue.

Not only that. The larger printer, such as my Epson 7600, uses 30 meter rolls of paper. Divide the total area of a 30m roll which is 600mm wide, by the area of any of the single sheet size of A4, A3, A2 etc, and you'll find that the cost of the same type of paper used in the larger printer is vastly cheaper, per unit area, than the packets of single sheets.

The significant savings in both ink and paper were a main motivation for me to buy a large professional printer.

Another point which I think is lacking in this thread, is the effect that increased pixel count has on 'effective' lens quality.

Let's say we've been using a 12mp D700 or D3 with the rather average-performing Nikkor 24-120 zoom. When comparing the results with a good prime of the same focal length, whether 24mm or 35mm or 85mm, and so on, we should find that the primes deliver sharper results, but that might produces a conflict if we're concerned about both sharpness and 'getting the shot', because zooms are so much more convenient to use and can avoid this constant necessity to change lenses.

Let's say that the technical results from the primes, used with a 12mp camera, are satisfactory for our needs, but we're a bit pissed off at having to change lenses and carry the extra weight of a number of primes instead of a single zoom, whenever we go out shooting.

Solution? Get a 36mp camera. The Nikkor 24-120 zoom, used with a D800E, will provide at most focal lengths a similar degree of sharpness as a good quality prime used on a 12mp camera. Voila!  

[Ray]

Just for completeness and accuracy, I will say that there are mediocre primes and sharp zooms.

As a general shooting amateur, I shoot everything from studio still life and portraits to landscapes, nightscapes, and sports.  I wanted the D810, because I wanted a camera that worked well at everything. My D7100 (24MP DX) is a great camera, especially at the $896 price you can get it for at Amazon right now (Nikon D7100 Amazon Prime).  Personally, I find this one of the best deals in DSLRs ever.  Since I can shoot sports w/o super high frame rates, I can take advantage of the D7100 better sensor and lack of OLPF than what is available on much more expensive APS-C bodies.

However, the D810 gives me everything I need in a single body.  This is not insignificant for an amateur that does not get to work with his camera day in day out.  I can learn the D810 operation inside and out and not be 'surprised' or frustrated when out in the field.  I can shoot 15.3MP DX mode if I so choose or crop the 36MP when shooting sports.  I can see where if you require shooting 50 frames at 10 fps to get the one you want, the larger files size could be an impediment, but since I don't have that problem, it's a non issue.

Absolutely! I was referring to a situation where a photographer with a 12mp camera, which he'd perhaps bought with a walk-around zoom, had become a little dissatisfied with the lack of tack-sharpness of the zoom, and had invested in some best-quality primes which did produce satisfying results,

Along comes the D800 or D810 with 36mp and the photographer thinks, "I don't need 36mp because I never make prints larger than A3+", perhaps not realizing that those apparently superfluous megapixels have the effect of converting his average quality zoom into a series of high quality primes, according to his standard of 12mp used with high quality primes. DXO illustrate this point with their P-Mpx ratings.

If the photographer's zoom is already adequately sharp and almost as good as the best primes at most focal lengths, such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 or 24-70/2.8, then the high-megapixel camera still offers the advantage of allowing one to shoot in DX mode to produce a 15.3mp file, as you mentioned in your post, which should still be of sufficient quality for anyone who's anchored to a 12mp standard, and which also has the effect of extending the reach of whatever lens one is using, whilst maintaining that 12mp standard. On the other hand, a 12mp FF image cropped to a DX size is a mere 5.3mp which might not be satisfactory

However, we should not overlook the fact that the prime lens might still have the advantage of a wider maximum aperture. If the reason a photographer uses primes, in preference to a zoom, is because he specializes in shallow DoF, then he'd still need to use the primes with the 36mp camera, even though 12mp is sufficient for his print sizes. The wider aperture might also have the advantage of allowing one to use a lower ISO for lower noise, according to the lighting conditions and shutter speed requirements.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My best images were shot with 12 MP digital. Now, I have progressed to 24 Mp and even 39MP on MFD…

I would say, that going on travel and joining workshops may be a far better way than investing in megapixels.

On the other hand, I also feel the need to reshoot the old images with better equipment, but those opportunities never come back.

Best regards
Erik

Absolutely! I was referring to a situation where a photographer with a 12mp camera, which he'd perhaps bought with a walk-around zoom, had become a little dissatisfied with the lack of tack-sharpness of the zoom, and had invested in some best-quality primes which did produce satisfying results,

Along comes the D800 or D810 with 36mp and the photographer thinks, "I don't need 36mp because I never make prints larger than A3+", perhaps not realizing that those apparently superfluous megapixels have the effect of converting his average quality zoom into a series of high quality primes, according to his standard of 12mp used with high quality primes. DXO illustrate this point with their P-Mpx ratings.

If the photographer's zoom is already adequately sharp and almost as good as the best primes at most focal lengths, such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 or 24-70/2.8, then the high-megapixel camera still offers the advantage of allowing one to shoot in DX mode to produce a 15.3mp file, as you mentioned in your post, which should still be of sufficient quality for anyone who's anchored to a 12mp standard, and which also has the effect of extending the reach of whatever lens one is using, whilst maintaining that 12mp standard. On the other hand, a 12mp FF image cropped to a DX size is a mere 5.3mp which might not be satisfactory

However, we should not overlook the fact that the prime lens might still have the advantage of a wider maximum aperture. If the reason a photographer uses primes, in preference to a zoom, is because he specializes in shallow DoF, then he'd still need to use the primes with the 36mp camera, even though 12mp is sufficient for his print sizes. The wider aperture might also have the advantage of allowing one to use a lower ISO for lower noise, according to the lighting conditions and shutter speed requirements.

[Ray]

I would say, that going on travel and joining workshops may be a far better way than investing in megapixels.

That's a separate issue, Erik. If one feels one needs to attend workshops in order to increase one's photographic skills, then that's what one should do regardless of the equipment one owns.

However, I would hope that such workshops would include advice on the benefits of a high-megapixel camera, along the lines that I've described in this thread. 

[Abe R. Ration]

My best images were shot with 12 MP digital. Now, I have progressed to 24 Mp and even 39MP on MFD…

A famiar situation. My best images were taken with 8MP - now I've got a 24MP, but the events that allowed me to capture the moment will never come back

Well, at least I can always get more pixels - geeking with them is fun too!

[Hulyss]

That's a separate issue, Erik. If one feels one needs to attend workshops in order to increase one's photographic skills, then that's what one should do regardless of the equipment one owns.

However, I would hope that such workshops would include advice on the benefits of a high-megapixel camera, along the lines that I've described in this thread. 

In my workshops I never advice on the benefits of a higher MP camera. Never. Because I often got guys with very low end and outdated gear who did better photos than the guys with MF or whatever luxury devices. My constatation is that a lot of MF shooters are not even ready to shoot even a D200 and lack some basic understanding of lighting and photography in general, wasting time and energy on 1k$ tripods to produce files who do not worth it. In + it slow down considerably the course of the workshop when you have a limited time to climb a mountain or another circuit. For my Scotland workshop I almost warn ppl to not bring something heavier than a D700/800 + 70-200. Even that is heavy when you walk around 6 to 10 hours in a day.

Meanwhile, the guys with light gear and few MP snap all around, having fun, having time to discuss life and enjoying the wonderful landscapes. Often, the "best pictures" come out from a snapper with inexpensive gear while the MF guy is in his room trying to PP his huge files on his MBP.

MP are ok today. We need lighter MF gear ASAP, digital mamyia 7 for example ... This will bring the workshop world to a new era.

[chez]

Extreme money saving tip.  If your are deciding between 8x10 or 11x17, get a printer with a 13" platen and save a couple grand!  It will even print 13x19 in borderless mode.  As someone with a Epson printer with a 13" platen, I fantasize about ways to sneak a printer with a 17" wide platen into my home office without the SuperWife suspecting precisely because I want to print 16 x 20 and larger multi-shot (not really panoramic) images!

Those initial savings in price are usually misleading. You typically get more ink with your 17" printer and the ongoing ink costs are less...so that initial price difference is not really there.

[Ray]

In my workshops I never advice on the benefits of a higher MP camera. Never. Because I often got guys with very low end and outdated gear who did better photos than the guys with MF or whatever luxury devices. My constatation is that a lot of MF shooters are not even ready to shoot even a D200 and lack some basic understanding of lighting and photography in general, wasting time and energy on 1k$ tripods to produce files who do not worth it. In + it slow down considerably the course of the workshop when you have a limited time to climb a mountain or another circuit. For my Scotland workshop I almost warn ppl to not bring something heavier than a D700/800 + 70-200. Even that is heavy when you walk around 6 to 10 hours in a day.

Meanwhile, the guys with light gear and few MP snap all around, having fun, having time to discuss life and enjoying the wonderful landscapes. Often, the "best pictures" come out from a snapper with inexpensive gear while the MF guy is in his room trying to PP his huge files on his MBP.

MP are ok today. We need lighter MF gear ASAP, digital mamyia 7 for example ... This will bring the workshop world to a new era.

That does seem to be a serious omission, Hulyss. Although, to be fair, I do understand that some people can get very emotionally attached to their equipment. If a tutor at a workshop were to start implying that certain individuals had inappropriate, or less-than-ideal equipment for the task at hand, such people might get offended and not attend any future workshops.

One of the first things that should be learned in photography is the fundamental principle of 'the best tool for the job'. That's universal and applies to all crafts and arts.

One should not be seduced by a high megapixel camera if the consequence is a lack of usability for the type of photos one hopes to capture. In fact, this was always one of the main drawbacks to the MFDB system, for me.
Despite my already owning a Mamiya 6"x7" film camera with a couple of Mamiya lenses, and despite my great attraction towards high megapixels, it never made sense to me to splash out the money for a 40mp digital back. I could see that such a system was not only ridiculously expensive, but heavy and cumbersome, and generally lacking in flexibility, with relatively poor high-ISO performance and a greater need for the use of a heavy tripod in order to extract the benefits of the higher pixel count.

Such a system might be fine for studio shots, or for shots of landscapes that can be accessed by an SUV carrying all that heavy equipment and accessories, but clearly wasn't suited for my type of peripatetic photography.

My first cropped-format DSLR was the 6mp Canon D60. My latest cropped-format DSLR is the 24mp Nikon D7100. There's absolutely nothing that I could have shot more easily with that 6mp D60. In fact, the reverse is true. The D60 body is even slightly heavier than the D7100.

If I were to claim that my best images were shot with the D60, (which I don't claim, I hasten to add), then that would indicate that either my photographic skills had deteriorated over time, or that I just happened to have been at some interesting locations with my D60, which had presented lots of photographic opportunities and which I'd never revisited with my D7100.

[ErikKaffehr]

Ray,

That was a big one :-)

Now, I would say there are a few different issues discussed here.

• It is good to have resolution high enough to make perfect prints, if you print, that is.
• There is a lot to the principle of a small camera with small pixels and a lens system optimised for that pixel size. That is the reason 4/3 works for many people.
• Small pixels are needed for correct rendition of detail.
• Portability of systems and efficiency of work also matters. The workshops that Hulyss mentions are an example of that.

If we look at the above, small pixels are actually good.

Within reasonable limits small pixel sizes don't really have disadvantages. If the resolution is not needed, the image can be downsampled to a more practical size. Very clearly, small pixels don't play well with symmetrical lenses typically designed for range finder cameras, but the situation is different once the lenses are built to match the sensor.

Finally, bigger is better. Ask any astronomer. Just keep in mind that astronomers care little about depth of field.

As a side point, a large sensor camera doesn't need to be big and heavy. Technical cameras can be really small, especially now that the new Sony 44x33 mm sensors offer well working live view.

Best regards
Erik

Despite my already owning a Mamiya 6"x7" film camera with a couple of Mamiya lenses, and despite my great attraction towards high megapixels, it never made sense to me to splash out the money for a 40mp digital back.

[shadowblade]

Ray,

That was a big one :-)

Now, I would say there are a few different issues discussed here.

• It is good to have resolution high enough to make perfect prints, if you print, that is.
• There is a lot to the principle of a small camera with small pixels and a lens system optimised for that pixel size. That is the reason 4/3 works for many people.
• Small pixels are needed for correct rendition of detail.
• Portability of systems and efficiency of work also matters. The workshops that Hulyss mentions are an example of that.

If we look at the above, small pixels are actually good.

Within reasonable limits small pixel sizes don't really have disadvantages. If the resolution is not needed, the image can be downsampled to a more practical size. Very clearly, small pixels don't play well with symmetrical lenses typically designed for range finder cameras, but the situation is different once the lenses are built to match the sensor.

That's more an issue with the angle of incidence of light relative to the sensor, hence UWAs are typically affected more than other lenses. A retrofocus lens design solves this and also improves vignetting, but also makes the lens larger and more complex.

Finally, bigger is better. Ask any astronomer. Just keep in mind that astronomers care little about depth of field.

Most telescopes don't have a very wide aperture, though, due to the long focal lengths involved. For photographing celestial objects which subtend a wider angle of view (e.g. large, but dim nebulae) wide-aperture lenses usually do it better anyway.

As a side point, a large sensor camera doesn't need to be big and heavy. Technical cameras can be really small, especially now that the new Sony 44x33 mm sensors offer well working live view.

I would love a 24x72mm panoramic body, similar in concept to the film X-pan, with lenses to match.

[Dave Millier]

The disagreement over what constitutes a doubling in size is a bit of a semantic debate, I feel.  Maybe where you come from influences the thinking a bit. 

Here in the UK, we've long moved to the Euro A sizes of paper (it's been a long time since I printed on foolscap!).  Now, for me, if you go up one A size (double the area),  you are printing twice the size (because if you put two A4 pieces of paper together, you have A3, so A3 must be twice the size of A4).  Seems obvious.  However, from reading forums, it seems that Americans in particular seem to think of "twice the size" as meaning twice both linear dimensions.

I'd recommend thinking of twice the area as twice the size is convenient photographically in europe because it means that when you get a camera with twice the pixels you can print on the next size up printer at the same quality!

Personally, the concept of "twice the size" really being 4x the size is something I struggle with intuitively - if someone hands me two pieces of chocolate rather than 4 I might be tempted to say "hey, that's not twice as much as 1 piece" but I'd not really believe it... 

I'm sure it all just boils down to what you are used to.

When was the last time anyone ever came up to you and said "I just took the most spectacular image and I'm having it printed at 187 SQIN to hang in my living room!"

The fact of the matter is that an image has a set aspect ratio and therefore as one dimension changes, so does the other.  I know for certain that 16x20 is double 8x10 while the actual printed area is 4 times as large!  In addition, real world objects are represented in 2 dimensions in an image.  If I print an 8x10 where an object is reproduced at 1/2 life size, then to get to life size, I have to double the size of the print...16 x 20. 

It is not that MP count and knowing that double the MP means a doubling of the print area is useless, but it can be misleading.  95% of people that own cameras believe they can make a print twice as large from a camera with double the megapixels and they aren't thinking I can print twice the area.  Monitor and TV people got around this by specifying an aspect and diagonal length.

[dwswager]

The disagreement over what constitutes a doubling in size is a bit of a semantic debate, I feel.  Maybe where you come from influences the thinking a bit. 

Here in the UK, we've long moved to the Euro A sizes of paper (it's been a long time since I printed on foolscap!).  Now, for me, if you go up one A size (double the area),  you are printing twice the size (because if you put two A4 pieces of paper together, you have A3, so A3 must be twice the size of A4).  Seems obvious.  However, from reading forums, it seems that Americans in particular seem to think of "twice the size" as meaning twice both linear dimensions.

I'd recommend thinking of twice the area as twice the size is convenient photographically in europe because it means that when you get a camera with twice the pixels you can print on the next size up printer at the same quality!

Personally, the concept of "twice the size" really being 4x the size is something I struggle with intuitively - if someone hands me two pieces of chocolate rather than 4 I might be tempted to say "hey, that's not twice as much as 1 piece" but I'd not really believe it... 

I'm sure it all just boils down to what you are used to.

That is precisely what the paper size specifications where designed to do.  It has the area computation built into the sizes to provide 2 times the area.  Even here in the US, I know that a Tabloid sheet 11 x 17 is 2X the area of an 8.5x11 sheet.  I agree for a lot of purposes, it is in fact correct to think in terms of area.  Say how much ink is needed.

But to a customer, that is a failing sales pitch.  If you put a 5x5 (25sqin) square image up and then a 7x7 (49sqin) next to it, no customer in the world will believe that is twice the size.  That is because we are representing a 3D scene in 2 dimensions and both those dimension count.  I certainly don't look at a 11 x 14 and think 16 x 20 is double the size.

My original point, was not to confuse the issues, but to merely point out it takes 4x the MP to produce a double size print at the same resolution.  Therefore, a small MP difference between cameras is, in general, not significant.  My is Nikon D7100 is 24MP while the Canon 7DmkII is 20MP.  While i'm happy for those 4MP extra, it really isn't all that significant.  Now, my 36MP D810 is a significant difference.  Those 12 MP extra are big.

[Jim Pascoe]

Not only that. The larger printer, such as my Epson 7600, uses 30 meter rolls of paper. Divide the total area of a 30m roll which is 600mm wide, by the area of any of the single sheet size of A4, A3, A2 etc, and you'll find that the cost of the same type of paper used in the larger printer is vastly cheaper, per unit area, than the packets of single sheets

Ray - I'm not sure that is correct.  I remember a couple of years ago working out the costs of roll paper compared to A4 and A3 sheets.  I use roll paper extensively (24") but I also use quite a lot of A4 and A3 paper.  I considered cutting down roll paper into sheets - until I realised it did not actually work out cheaper.  If I could be bothered I would redo the calculation - but I can't!  I am comparing to buying boxes of 50 sheets or so of cut paper.

Jim

[dwswager]

Ray - I'm not sure that is correct.  I remember a couple of years ago working out the costs of roll paper compared to A4 and A3 sheets.  I use roll paper extensively (24") but I also use quite a lot of A4 and A3 paper.  I considered cutting down roll paper into sheets - until I realised it did not actually work out cheaper.  If I could be bothered I would redo the calculation - but I can't!  I am comparing to buying boxes of 50 sheets or so of cut paper.

Jim

It really depends on the sizes and aspect ratios you are printing.  In general, for standard sizes, the cut sheets are almost always cheaper than trying to get them out of rolls.  This is especially true if the paper type has sizes exactly or very near what you printing.  There is a difference printing 11 x 14 from 13x19 stock or from 11.7" x 16.5" stock.  On the other hand, if you are printing specialty sizes where there is a lot of waste from the standard size sheets, then yes, you might be able to save some money at the cost of hassle of dealing with cutting your own.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

250 MP in APS-H. We are getting closer to that 400 figure Ctein came up with.

http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep07e.html

[BernardLanguillier]

250 MP in APS-H. We are getting closer to that 400 figure Ctein came up with.

http://www.canon.com/news/2015/sep07e.html

That after the ISO 4 million surveillance camera a few days back, Canon marketing is having a busy summer!

Cheers,
Bernard