More pixels?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
golf1982
Contributing MemberPosts: 660
Like?
More pixels?
6 months ago

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

dwight3
Senior MemberPosts: 1,804Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I now have 10, 16, and 36. I do not forsee the need for additional pixels.

But the future is uncertain, so I will not make any blanket statement to that effect. The one thing about life that is constant is that it changes.

 dwight3's gear list:dwight3's gear list
Nikon Coolpix S52c Nikon D200 Nikon D4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF +9 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Robin Casady
Forum ProPosts: 11,680
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

I think we have further to go. A D800E 36MP image will produce a 20x30" print at 240 ppi. That is without any cropping. Some prefer to print at 300 or 360 ppi.

My printer with print 24" roll paper. A 24x36" print would be only about 200 ppi.

Then there is cropping. Say your composition doesn't work best in a 2:3 frame, or your lens didn't have the reach you wanted. It would be nice to crop and still have the resolution to print large.

Nokia has a phone camera with 41 MP.

-- hide signature --

Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html
"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."
—Mark Twain

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
cpkuntz
Contributing MemberPosts: 615Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

36 is great; you can print a 16" x 24" at 300 dpi. I wish Canon had a 36 megapixel body. Ultimately I'd like to be able to print 24" x 36" at 300 dpi with one shot instead of a stitch. So that's about 78 megapixels. Since I can't see myself ever printing a digital image larger than 24" x 36", I don't see myself ever needing more than 78. For larger prints I'd rather use a 4" x 5" rail camera.

78 megapixels for a 24mm x 36mm sensor isn't unrealistic, by the way.  The pixel dimensions would be 10800 x 7200, and the pixel pitch would be about 3.33 microns.  A lot of compact cameras have smaller pixels.

 cpkuntz's gear list:cpkuntz's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EOS 5D Mark III Nikon D810 Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lance B
Forum ProPosts: 27,169Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

I wuldn't be surprised to see the Mp's go higher. I think the next step will be 54Mp, maybe next year.

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Horshack
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,140
Like?
More real pixels
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

Diminishing returns on lens acuity (at least at a reasonable cost, not Otus $$$) and technique portend a switch to non-bayer sensor technology as the path to achieving higher resolving ability.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Lance B
Forum ProPosts: 27,169Gear list
Like?
Re: More real pixels
In reply to Horshack, 6 months ago

Horshack wrote:

Diminishing returns on lens acuity (at least at a reasonable cost, not Otus $$$) and technique portend a switch to non-bayer sensor technology as the path to achieving higher resolving ability.

If they can do it, it sounds promising.

 Lance B's gear list:Lance B's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Nader Erfani
Contributing MemberPosts: 546
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

I would prefer more speed than more resolution

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AlephNull
Contributing MemberPosts: 799Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

Need it or not, there will be more pixels

It could be interesting to see if they come up with some interesting ways to use the more pixels, though - imagine a camera shooting 128Mpixel, then down-sampling to 32Mpixel - it's quite possible that you'd see increased sharpness and definition with such an approach. Of course, you'd have to expect one set of whiners complaining that they want access to the raw data, and others saying that no one needs that kind of tech...

-- hide signature --

They say you must take a thousand bad pictures to take one good one - I have mastered the bad pictures part!

 AlephNull's gear list:AlephNull's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D810
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,724
Like?
Why not? ... Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

Why not? ... as improving soft, CPU, lenses and sensors, I'd like more pixels in a lighter tool.

-- hide signature --

Regards.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mgblack74
Senior MemberPosts: 1,589Gear list
Like?
DX seems to precede FX
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

The D7000's 16mp gave us the D800's 36 when up scaled. 10mp DX gave us 24 FX. 24mp DX is estimated to be 54 FX.  A month before the D800 was launched I scoffed at the idea, now I don't think I can do without one high mp body.  People will always have use for high and higher mp cameras. Once upon a time ago it was the peripheral issues around high mp (noise, storage) that people feared. But as mp count climbs, the supporting tech increases too. Storage gets cheaper, and if the D4s RAW small is any indication where things are headed, 54mp may yield a 13.5 mp small RAW file. So, as long as they keep pushing and people keep buying, mp are likely headed up still.

-- hide signature --

"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
_______________________________

 mgblack74's gear list:mgblack74's gear list
Nikon D4s Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G +4 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
mmmmmmmm
Senior MemberPosts: 2,637
Like?
stop the pixel madness
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

We now have more than enough pixels!  Fortunately for the camera manufactures they know that all they have to do is come out with a "new" camera with more pixels and all the "newbies" will buy it thinking that their photography will improve.

I have printed 20X30 prints with a 6mp sensor that looks great.  The pixel peepers will get out their magnifying glasses and get about 4" from a print and say, "Gee, this print could be sharper!"

Why do you think that Nikon and Canon uses 24 or less pixels for their "professional" grade cameras?  Think about it!

This forum is more of a "gear" forum than a "photography" forum.  More emphasis is placed on the gear than the pictures it produces.

respectfully,

David Miller

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,140Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

More pixel just mean more cropability. Don't forget, the less pixels a sensor produces, the bigger the pixels. Bigger pixels produce cleaner images with less noise. Also, 36mp is about it for ff. Next res already exists in the form of medium format digital. Unless you are printing billboards, or cropping a 50mm like an 800mm, there is no point to anything above 12mp. I like 24 because I can crop really deep and still have a great image. 5mp is all the average print needs.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Apple Aperture +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
TOF guy
TOF guy MOD
Forum ProPosts: 10,714Gear list
Like?
12 MP is plenty for most folks
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

The rest is more about marketing than anything else.

To answer your question expect the MP race to go on for nothing else than marketing reasons.

-- hide signature --

Thierry - posted as regular forum member

 TOF guy's gear list:TOF guy's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS Macro HSM +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Leonard Shepherd
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,471Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

If you make large prints more MP makes for more image resolution and more tonal separation.

If you do not either make large prints or crop heavily you do not need 36 MP.

As a rule of thumb upgrading MP gives more image resolution than upgrading lenses.

-- hide signature --

Leonard Shepherd
We all aspire to take great photos but may always achieve this perhaps due to a lack of application, a lack of knowledge, or even a lack of talent.
The best photographers probably work quite hard at their photography.

 Leonard Shepherd's gear list:Leonard Shepherd's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR +19 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 29,913
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to golf1982, 6 months ago

golf1982 wrote:

Now we have 16, 24 and 36mp models, it seems that at these levels we have almost everyones needs covered. though this was also said by some at 6 and 12 mp. I just wondered if there are many people who feel they would benefit from more than 24 and 36 in an upgrade, and as these MP numbers keep on rising, or will they plateau, a bit like intel's MHZ bumps,

They will tend to rise. There is an ecology of fabrication technology amongst the big producers. Most of the money and R&D effort is in the tiny sensors for phonecams, and the competitive pressure is to improve those and increase the pixel counts. This needs new processes and new fabrication lines with finer geometry, which in turn means that the older lines get released for making bigger sensors. So, the end effect is that at each sensor size, the available geometry gets finer - which means that the optimum pixel size reduces. The other effect is that bigger sensors become more easily available, because they can make use of the older coarse geometry lines and there is not so much product that can be put through those lines, so, for instance, now Sony is making a 50MP medium format sensor for Phase 1.

I think the problem is that workflows don't seem to adapt to the new high resolution sensors. I workflow based around downsampling should be differently optimised to one based around upsampling.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
larrywilson
Senior MemberPosts: 3,314
Like?
Re: stop the pixel madness
In reply to mmmmmmmm, 6 months ago

I think personally that the pixel thing is about selling cameras.  My camera has more pixels than yours so it is better ugh!!!!  From what I've seen the auto focus systems and frames per second need improvement over the amount of pixels that a camera has.  A 24 mp sensor can produce a 16 X 24 inch print easily.  Yes lots of mp's is good for cropping, but I think we depend on cropping too much these days where the subject is really too far away.  Get in as right in the camera as possible without cropping 100% as I have seen a lot with the 36 mp cameras.  Sharp images depend more on sharp focus than mega pixels.  I've worn out cameras getting the focus adjusted right.

Larry

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,140Gear list
Like?
Re: stop the pixel madness
In reply to larrywilson, 6 months ago

larrywilson wrote:

I think personally that the pixel thing is about selling cameras. My camera has more pixels than yours so it is better ugh!!!! From what I've seen the auto focus systems and frames per second need improvement over the amount of pixels that a camera has. A 24 mp sensor can produce a 16 X 24 inch print easily. Yes lots of mp's is good for cropping, but I think we depend on cropping too much these days where the subject is really too far away. Get in as right in the camera as possible without cropping 100% as I have seen a lot with the 36 mp cameras. Sharp images depend more on sharp focus than mega pixels. I've worn out cameras getting the focus adjusted right.

Larry

Agree 100%. Seems the tendency to just point the camera in the general area of the subject and crop to compose later is too prevalent. I crop sometimes to get a more pleasing composition, but it never completely changes the image. Spend more time behind the lens and less behind the computer and you don't need high mp.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Apple Aperture +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
rubank
Contributing MemberPosts: 619Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to bobn2, 6 months ago

I certainly wouldn´t mind more pixels. So far, everything has gotten better with smaller pixels.

I have been a RAW only shooter for years, since I want the best possible output, but with the D800 I have lately come to have new thoughts on in-camera JPG:s.

For smaller publications, web and social media use the in-camera medium or small JPG:s make a lot of sense; they´re actually quite good (compared to what I was used to with lesser (MP) cameras).
These files are small enough to send via WiFi or mail.

My guess is, that for ordinary newpaper use there is little use for 36 or more MP RAW files and that the smaller JPG:s are good enough (thanks to the high amount of data they´re rendered from).

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Rservello
Senior MemberPosts: 1,140Gear list
Like?
Re: More pixels?
In reply to rubank, 6 months ago

rubank wrote:

I certainly wouldn´t mind more pixels. So far, everything has gotten better with smaller pixels.

I have been a RAW only shooter for years, since I want the best possible output, but with the D800 I have lately come to have new thoughts on in-camera JPG:s.

For smaller publications, web and social media use the in-camera medium or small JPG:s make a lot of sense; they´re actually quite good (compared to what I was used to with lesser (MP) cameras).
These files are small enough to send via WiFi or mail.

My guess is, that for ordinary newpaper use there is little use for 36 or more MP RAW files and that the smaller JPG:s are good enough.

You're still better off shooting raw and then processing jpegs in camera as needed.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/49019071@N03/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2334596/
* Sensitive Internet User Disclaimer: All opinions are my own and are not meant to offend you or damage your precious beliefs.

 Rservello's gear list:Rservello's gear list
Nikon D600 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Voigtlander 58mm F1.4 Nokton SL II Rokinon 85mm F1.4 Apple Aperture +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads