24 MP from an entry level DSLR

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
DSHAPK
Contributing MemberPosts: 631
Like?
Re: photography isn't about how many pixels...
In reply to Sovern, 6 months ago

Sovern wrote:

DSHAPK wrote:

Sovern wrote:

Midwest wrote:

Sovern wrote:

A lot of the best world reknown wedding photographers still use a 12MP 5DClassic......it's not about the mega pixels it's really about the photgrapher. I'm seeing a lot of crops taken from FF cameras and even than I'm seeing a lot of foreground blur, image noise, and color inaccuracy's a long with CA at such close crops.

I don't doubt for a minute that the photographer can be and often is a lot more important than the number of megapixels. I've taken great shots at 12mp and people who insist they HAVE to have 24 or 36 mp and probably don't need them anyhow are misguided.

That however does not change the fact that moving from 8 to 12, or 12 to 18mp, does provide a significant difference in resolution and ability to crop, as I proved in my other post.

Did Ken Rockwell come up with that 'how to calculate the difference of resolution' method that you used? It's laughably simplistic - and wrong.

--
Do people really spend $700 on a camera so they can take a picture of a squirrel or a duck?

Personally I think that your method is complicated and undermines the point that he and me both made....MP's are not based on a linearity scale.

More Megapixels does not allow you to crop much better and you risk making your photos look like they were taken with a point and shoot cropping to such a degree as shown earlier with the photo examples posted.

I can upscale my 12.2MP photos to 24MP's if need be. Crop ability is not solely dependent on megapixels or else there would be $100 point and shoots that perform better than full frame cameras with L lenses.

It's much more complicated as you have to factor in the sensor capability's sensor size, lens and the resolution it can acquire, the minute CA, sharpness lost, color inaccuracy's and other things that come up when you push your crops past the point of what your lens and sensor are capable of resolving as shown with the past crops posted on here.

You wind up posting crops that show softness in the detail (IE the ground and the subject itself) a long with color inaccuracy's and micro CA a long with blur because megapixels a lone won;t fix this problem. The problem is that the sensor isn;t capable of resolving such minute detail and the lens isn;t capable of resolving that much resolution to keep everything crisp that cropped in, you're also pushing the limitations of the sensor processor.

Thing 2x2 square. Resolution is 4 pixels. Doubling the dimensions to make it a 4x4 square increases the resolution to 16 pixels. The percent increase is 300%. So increasing the number of pixels on each side by 200%, results in a 300% increase in resolution.

Interesting discussion regarding cropping, opened my eyes as I never thought about it like that. However, there are all sorts of trade-offs, imo that don't make it a foregone conclusion to jump to the camera with the highest megapixels.

The thing is megapixels are not calculated like that. 12MP is a set resolution of say 4:3 or 16:10 it depends on the orientation that you shoot but it's not a 1+1 = 2 type of formula it's more complicated than that.

That's the skinny on the math. Very straightforward. It's made more complicated due to the fact it takes 4 photosites to make 1 pixel. However, doubling the number of photosites on the horizontal or vertical does not double the resolution, as the math shows.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow