What would more MP mean to you ?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Beat Traveller
Contributing MemberPosts: 588Gear list
Like?
Re: Hi Sal,
In reply to nixda, 9 months ago

nixda wrote:

nick_webster wrote:

Thanks for your replies - sorry if I gave the impression I was disregarding your answer because it didn't fit in with my view. That wasn't my intent at all.

I've never suggested that there aren't those who wouldn't need/want more MP, I'm genuinely interested to hear from both sides of this issue. I was curious why there are so many posts asking for parity with the latest Sony ( or whoever else's ) 24MP sensor, without ever giving a reason for wanting more MP.

If you take a look at the latest retina display devices, you'll have your reason. What I envision is a large print of a scene that looks stunning from a distance, and then when you get closer and closer you see more and more details until you're right up there. 330dpi, and higher, if closer than 10 inches viewing distances are desired, or cropping should still be possible. t is absolutely fantastic to look at a picture of, say, the Grand Canyon like this.

Personally, I support any feature someone else desires, even if I personally do not 'need' it, as long as it doesn't interfere with my own desires With respect to pixel density, it would be easy to allow in-camera binning, so that those who want it, can output a lower-resolution image. That is already implemented in most cameras, at least at the JPEG level. It would be easy to extend this to the raw level (e.g., through hardware binning).

Everybody can be accommodated; there is no real downside to go to higher pixel densities (within reason, of course).

Two things. Firstly, the highest 'retina display' specs only equate to about 5mp of resolution. You don't get any benefit from going to 16mp over 24mp on one of those screens, because you'll be zoomed in anyway. Yes, you will be able to print a larger size at base ISO, but at a lower ISO the signal to noise ratio will be visibly poorer - at least until they improve the technology in the sensors.

That leads me to the other point, which is that simply downsizing the resolution in-camera won't change the actual size of the pixels for the purpose of light-gathering, which has the major effect on signal to noise ratio. So there are genuine downsides to more megapixels given the present technological limitations.

Although I must concur that Fuji should at least offer something like a variant of the X-T1 with a higher resolution, for landscape shooters. Give people the choice - don't do what Nikon does and force everyone to up their resolution whether or not they want to.

 Beat Traveller's gear list:Beat Traveller's gear list
Nikon D60 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 18mm F2 R Fujifilm XF 60mm F2.4 R Macro Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow