Indeed! he's wrong and it should have been corrected. But just look what came up!
d/n
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
More megapixels means bigger pictures, not better pictures!!!
- Thread starter VizBiz
- Start date
d/n
Phileas Fogg
Veteran Member
The 1DSmkII has higher resolution than say a 20D. But if one wants to gain the same apparent reach in focal length the 1DSmkII requires a larger lens. If you use the same focal length lens on a 1DsmkII and a 20d, and shoot the same subject. If the end is to have the images look the same printed and framed the 1DsmkII requires you to post produce crop losing many of those pixels. But put a lens of a focal length on the 1DsmkII that allows it to get the same reach in camera that a smaller lens gives with a 20d then in the end it will maintain its resolution advantage.
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Hello all.
I've avoided this thread until now because it seems as if many people are more interested in defending their particular "belief systems" than they are in trying to understand things. In short, this has become an emotional argument instead of a scientific or even aesthetic discussion.
New camera users may be confused by all of this. Us die-hards, who have our own interpretations of the terminology, and who are comfortable with our understanding of the tradeoffs between various sensors probably understand this all quite well. But we end up being dragged into this, sometimes trying to defend not actual facts, but instead the semantics of the argument or our own feelings about what is most important.
Here are some updated graphics I've prepared to show the sizes of the sensors in the current Canon DSLRs as well as their resolutions (represented by grids showing every 100th pixel, rounded off, of course).
In addition, I've shown a dime (a common American coin) superimposed upon these sensors exactly the way it would be projected onto the sensor if each of these cameras was fitted with a 1:1 macro lens focused to its closest focus.
I won't argue the subjective claims of the OP of this thread because we probably won't agree about "how many pixels are enough", and it's pointless to argue such a thing.
If the OP feels that an image of a dime that is 2185 pixels across will produce as good of a print as an image of a dime that is 2789 pixels across, then he is entitled to that opinion.
But the OP also presents many other opinions as if they were facts. And other participants in this thread have also presented opinions as if they were facts too. This might be very confusing for people new to these concepts. So hopefully the following will at least help folks to understand the basic and undeniable facts of the issue.
A macro lens set to closest focus is an example of a case where you cannot "get closer" to the subject. Most macro lenses can focus only close enough to yield a 1:1 magnification of their subject. The actual distance at which this 1:1 focus is achieved will depend on the focal length of the lens. But the point is that at "closest focus", you end up with a 1:1 sized image of the subject projected onto the sensor or film in your camera.
Note that this magnification has nothing to do with the size of the sensor itself just as the size of the projected image of a distant bird has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.
You can also see that the total number of pixels that the sensor has is related to two things: Pixel pitch (the size/spacing of the pixels) and sensor size.
We have an interesting combination of sensor sizes and pixel pitches in the Canon DSLR lineup. But one pair of cameras is somewhat handy for comparison here.
The 1D MK II and the 5D both share the same pixel density (pixel pitch). Yet the 5D has a larger sensor than the 1D and thus has more pixels in total.
Now obviously, if one can get close enough or focus close enough to "fill the frames" of these two cameras with their subject, then the 5D will yield a more highly detailed photo than the 1D because it has more pixels.
But if one is limited in their ability to either get closer, zoom in, or focus closer (as is the case with a macro lens and a dime), then one can easily see that the image of the dime, bird, tiger, or other "non-frame-filling") subject might well end up being represented by the exact same number of pixels. Thus, for cases where one will end up wanting to crop the image of the 1D down in order to present ONLY the "non-frame-filling subject" in their final print or other presentation, the 5D and the 1D can end up yielding identical images.
In this case, it is the pixel pitch which determines the resolution of the final cropped image.
Now, examine the 20D and the 1DS MKII sensors. Both of those sensors have considerably higher pixel density (finer pixel pitch). That means that for our same Dime at 1:1 with the macro lens example, those two cameras will offer greater resolution for our "non-frame-filling" subjects and thus, after cropping down to see just the bird, tiger, etc., the final images from these cameras will have higher resolution than the shots we could have gotten from the 5D or 1D.
Now all of this is irrelevant if we CAN focus closer or move closer or zoom further.
But what the bird and macro enthusiasts like about the 20D/30D is that they have the highest pixel density of any current Canon cameras. There are clearly many times when one cannot get closer, zoom further, or focus closer and in those cases, the 20D/30D is the current "champion" of pixel density and should yield more detailed rendition of our "non-frame-filling" subjects.
Please note that pixel density has nothing to do with the sensor size. It's a separate specification.
And also please note that there are other factors which come into play here as well. For example, if our lens is not sharp enough, then it won't matter that the 20D has higher pixel density because the lens isn't good enough to make use of that potential higher resolution.
Here's a snowflake shot taken with my 20D and a macro lens that lets me focus down to achieve a magnification of 5X. On a 5D, this photo would have even less detail than it does now. I'm not completely happy with this shot as it is. I'm quite sure it would have been worse had I used a 5D.
I know, I know, I should have just used a wide angle lens and then cropped it down. That would have made for just as good of a picture, wouldn't you agree?
--
Jim H.
I've avoided this thread until now because it seems as if many people are more interested in defending their particular "belief systems" than they are in trying to understand things. In short, this has become an emotional argument instead of a scientific or even aesthetic discussion.
New camera users may be confused by all of this. Us die-hards, who have our own interpretations of the terminology, and who are comfortable with our understanding of the tradeoffs between various sensors probably understand this all quite well. But we end up being dragged into this, sometimes trying to defend not actual facts, but instead the semantics of the argument or our own feelings about what is most important.
Here are some updated graphics I've prepared to show the sizes of the sensors in the current Canon DSLRs as well as their resolutions (represented by grids showing every 100th pixel, rounded off, of course).
In addition, I've shown a dime (a common American coin) superimposed upon these sensors exactly the way it would be projected onto the sensor if each of these cameras was fitted with a 1:1 macro lens focused to its closest focus.
I won't argue the subjective claims of the OP of this thread because we probably won't agree about "how many pixels are enough", and it's pointless to argue such a thing.
If the OP feels that an image of a dime that is 2185 pixels across will produce as good of a print as an image of a dime that is 2789 pixels across, then he is entitled to that opinion.
But the OP also presents many other opinions as if they were facts. And other participants in this thread have also presented opinions as if they were facts too. This might be very confusing for people new to these concepts. So hopefully the following will at least help folks to understand the basic and undeniable facts of the issue.
A macro lens set to closest focus is an example of a case where you cannot "get closer" to the subject. Most macro lenses can focus only close enough to yield a 1:1 magnification of their subject. The actual distance at which this 1:1 focus is achieved will depend on the focal length of the lens. But the point is that at "closest focus", you end up with a 1:1 sized image of the subject projected onto the sensor or film in your camera.
Note that this magnification has nothing to do with the size of the sensor itself just as the size of the projected image of a distant bird has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.
You can also see that the total number of pixels that the sensor has is related to two things: Pixel pitch (the size/spacing of the pixels) and sensor size.
We have an interesting combination of sensor sizes and pixel pitches in the Canon DSLR lineup. But one pair of cameras is somewhat handy for comparison here.
The 1D MK II and the 5D both share the same pixel density (pixel pitch). Yet the 5D has a larger sensor than the 1D and thus has more pixels in total.
Now obviously, if one can get close enough or focus close enough to "fill the frames" of these two cameras with their subject, then the 5D will yield a more highly detailed photo than the 1D because it has more pixels.
But if one is limited in their ability to either get closer, zoom in, or focus closer (as is the case with a macro lens and a dime), then one can easily see that the image of the dime, bird, tiger, or other "non-frame-filling") subject might well end up being represented by the exact same number of pixels. Thus, for cases where one will end up wanting to crop the image of the 1D down in order to present ONLY the "non-frame-filling subject" in their final print or other presentation, the 5D and the 1D can end up yielding identical images.
In this case, it is the pixel pitch which determines the resolution of the final cropped image.
Now, examine the 20D and the 1DS MKII sensors. Both of those sensors have considerably higher pixel density (finer pixel pitch). That means that for our same Dime at 1:1 with the macro lens example, those two cameras will offer greater resolution for our "non-frame-filling" subjects and thus, after cropping down to see just the bird, tiger, etc., the final images from these cameras will have higher resolution than the shots we could have gotten from the 5D or 1D.
Now all of this is irrelevant if we CAN focus closer or move closer or zoom further.
But what the bird and macro enthusiasts like about the 20D/30D is that they have the highest pixel density of any current Canon cameras. There are clearly many times when one cannot get closer, zoom further, or focus closer and in those cases, the 20D/30D is the current "champion" of pixel density and should yield more detailed rendition of our "non-frame-filling" subjects.
Please note that pixel density has nothing to do with the sensor size. It's a separate specification.
And also please note that there are other factors which come into play here as well. For example, if our lens is not sharp enough, then it won't matter that the 20D has higher pixel density because the lens isn't good enough to make use of that potential higher resolution.
Here's a snowflake shot taken with my 20D and a macro lens that lets me focus down to achieve a magnification of 5X. On a 5D, this photo would have even less detail than it does now. I'm not completely happy with this shot as it is. I'm quite sure it would have been worse had I used a 5D.
I know, I know, I should have just used a wide angle lens and then cropped it down. That would have made for just as good of a picture, wouldn't you agree?
--
Jim H.
nunatak
Veteran Member
I just have a few remarks and observations i'd like to add:
1. more megapixels is just quantity. it can mean either better information, or worse.
2. if you take current cost differences into account, the differential between a 20/30D sized sensor and a full frame sensor might mean one hell of a sweet birding lens for the cheaper camera. that spells "tele-BARGAIN" and let's people into a game they couldn't afford before.
3. more area doesn't necessarily translate 1:1 with the sweet spot of your glass.
4. which leads me to: more reach/less area can only train you to become a better photographer.
5. all things being equal, you assume people use photoshop to crop their images. however there are many others that print directly from camera and bypass editing programs all together.
all things equal, in theory, your point is acknowledged. in practice there are pros and cons to both approaches. size, weight, quality, cost ... trade-offs. pick the solution that works for you, but don't simply argue FF is better. it may only be better for you.
the born 2 design
design guy
If the lens system is up to the task and the sensor is in all other respects as "good" as that in the 5D.
And this seems to be coming. It's not here yet, but just wait and see. The four thirds system will continue to get better as image sensor technology and lenses improve.
I have zero confidence that we've reached the absolute pinnacle of sensor and lens design and production.
People throughout history have made statements to the effect that "technology X has reached its zenith. There are no more improvements possible."
Those people are generally priven wrong faily quickly.
--
Jim H.
And this seems to be coming. It's not here yet, but just wait and see. The four thirds system will continue to get better as image sensor technology and lenses improve.
I have zero confidence that we've reached the absolute pinnacle of sensor and lens design and production.
People throughout history have made statements to the effect that "technology X has reached its zenith. There are no more improvements possible."
Those people are generally priven wrong faily quickly.
--
Jim H.
karbert
Well-known member
OK, everyone talks about pixel density...so what happens when they're the same, as in the 1DsII and the 6MP 300D? Or if tomorrow a 21MP FF body is released? Where's the advantage for the bird-shooters then? One thing I think we can all agree on is that pixel density is not a function of sensor size - the problem with making FF sensors is the low yield from the wafers, not patterning more photosites onto them. There is no reason that FF sensors cannot in the future have the same pixel density as current APS sensors. Look at the Phase one P45 back - it has greater pixel density than the 8.2MP Canon 20D. What will bird shooters say then?
Kartik
--
'Shoot first, ask questions later' - the novice photographer's philosophy.
Kartik
--
'Shoot first, ask questions later' - the novice photographer's philosophy.
FretNoMore
Veteran Member
...I take my pictures with the camera that's in my hand, not the one that may be released in the future. This whole discussion is kind of meaningless unless you limit it to specific camera models. A future camera may of course have different characteristics making it more or less suitable for birding or any other type of photography.
- Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com *
wrider
Senior Member
I'm new to this thread and i didn't have time to read it. What are you all talking about? Looks like fun! So, what's up?
--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com
'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein
--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com
'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein
You really need to read it all.
If you have some time, have a cup of coffee, or maybe better, a good stiff belt of soomething, feel free to read the whole thread.
My head aches
As I someone else once said: "We're lost, but we're makin' good time!"
But the gist of it is:
I like my camera.
No, yours is inadequate. Mine is better.
No, Mine is better.
No, mine is.
So's your mama.
No, YOUR mama.
...................................
--
Jim H.
If you have some time, have a cup of coffee, or maybe better, a good stiff belt of soomething, feel free to read the whole thread.
My head aches
As I someone else once said: "We're lost, but we're makin' good time!"
But the gist of it is:
I like my camera.
No, yours is inadequate. Mine is better.
No, Mine is better.
No, mine is.
So's your mama.
No, YOUR mama.
...................................
--
Jim H.
Phileas Fogg
Veteran Member
Vizbiz,
I was trained as pro to crop as much as possible in camera. This always yields better image qualities. I find inexperienced and lazy shooters often fail to do such. Of course there are times when to subject is not convenient enough to crop in camera and yes then one must crop in printing. In film days using the neg and printer in digital days the P.C. and Photoshop. But one will always get better images if they train themselves to crop as best as they can in camera.
Just my additional 2 cents ;-)
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
I was trained as pro to crop as much as possible in camera. This always yields better image qualities. I find inexperienced and lazy shooters often fail to do such. Of course there are times when to subject is not convenient enough to crop in camera and yes then one must crop in printing. In film days using the neg and printer in digital days the P.C. and Photoshop. But one will always get better images if they train themselves to crop as best as they can in camera.
Just my additional 2 cents ;-)
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Phileas Fogg
Veteran Member
Phileas Fogg
Veteran Member
Technoolgy always is on the march. The only thing is gains become smaller and smaller over time. But then usually a new breakthrough comes about to replace existing technolgy with a new measure. But we can both reach a zenith in growth of a specific technology and still yield future growth. It is just that it grows slower and smaller or in different ways.
Look at drag racing. From the 70's to the mid 80's we saw great gains in tecnology reduce times and increase speeds quite greatly but since the mid 80's the increases have generally leveled off or only minor changes, but the technology continued to grow and new ideas still came about to increase efficency and overal performance. I know my analogy is a loose one but makes a point.
In the computing world we aer reaching the end of tradtitional abiilties to increase speed, performance and computing power based on typical technologies of electricty. But around the corner is the concept of "light gating" instead of using electricity in its intrinsic sense we will develope computers and other similar technologies using light as an engine. The theory is sound and is exciting. It promises thousand fold or even greater in performance and speeds of computers. The engineering is still in its infancy though, but the time will come when we see this technology break through and it will be as momentus to our daily lives as say the Apollo moon missions were to existing technoloy that flowed from them.
In ending, one should never underestimate the inventiveness of the human mind combined with the spirit to develope such. At the turn of the 19th. century when the year 1900 came about the then U.S. Patent officer said the patent office might just as well be closed down as all that can be invented has been invented. BOY AS HE WRONG!
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Look at drag racing. From the 70's to the mid 80's we saw great gains in tecnology reduce times and increase speeds quite greatly but since the mid 80's the increases have generally leveled off or only minor changes, but the technology continued to grow and new ideas still came about to increase efficency and overal performance. I know my analogy is a loose one but makes a point.
In the computing world we aer reaching the end of tradtitional abiilties to increase speed, performance and computing power based on typical technologies of electricty. But around the corner is the concept of "light gating" instead of using electricity in its intrinsic sense we will develope computers and other similar technologies using light as an engine. The theory is sound and is exciting. It promises thousand fold or even greater in performance and speeds of computers. The engineering is still in its infancy though, but the time will come when we see this technology break through and it will be as momentus to our daily lives as say the Apollo moon missions were to existing technoloy that flowed from them.
In ending, one should never underestimate the inventiveness of the human mind combined with the spirit to develope such. At the turn of the 19th. century when the year 1900 came about the then U.S. Patent officer said the patent office might just as well be closed down as all that can be invented has been invented. BOY AS HE WRONG!
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
nunatak
Veteran Member
your view is complementry to my earlier remarks.
the born 2 design
design guy
the born 2 design
design guy
You talk about 11 x 17 with a 6 megapixel camera. I'm talking about clean 8 x 10s, roughly half the size. So the more pixels will indeed get you "bigger" pictures. But the smaller ones will indeed have all the available detail. Geez, what else can I say? By the way, there's a guy here who says the pro labs give him great 24 x 30 pictures from his 20D. So 5mp would get you at least a 12 x 15...
The point is that you can get all the detail available in the 5 mp left from that 5D crop. The only limitation is the size of the print. And I did compare an 8 x 10. There is a guy here says he gets fabulous 20 x 24 from his 20D. So I guess he could do quite well with the 5mp left from the crop.
As for experience, I suppose 40 odd years and professional experience does make me an amateur. Not to mention over a dozen digital cameras over the years. But it is interesting that people like you back their ideas by insulting me.
As I said, more megapixels gives you bigger pictures. And it does. I never said any amount of pixels gives you infinite picture size.
As for experience, I suppose 40 odd years and professional experience does make me an amateur. Not to mention over a dozen digital cameras over the years. But it is interesting that people like you back their ideas by insulting me.
As I said, more megapixels gives you bigger pictures. And it does. I never said any amount of pixels gives you infinite picture size.
Or even just the title. The title says it all. I never said that "every" size print will be of equal quality. As a matter of fact I said that "more megapixels means bigger pictures." A billion pixels mean nothing if you are printing an 8 x 10 print. We can only resolve 220 lines/inch, so, as I said, those extral pixels are discarded. So if you have 5mp and print an 8 x 10 and you have a zillion pixels, you get the same results, with the exception of lens and sensor quality.
I got both, and I like my camera (5D) more than MY camera (20D). But I acknowledge also the advantages of the higher pixel density sensor of the 20D (note that I didn't say "smaller"). I think the small group of us debating this to death also note the obvious other advantages of the 5D.
You really need to read it all.
If you have some time, have a cup of coffee, or maybe better, a
good stiff belt of soomething, feel free to read the whole thread.
My head aches
As I someone else once said: "We're lost, but we're makin' good
time!"
But the gist of it is:
I like my camera.
No, yours is inadequate. Mine is better.
No, Mine is better.
No, mine is.
So's your mama.
No, YOUR mama.
...................................
--
Jim H.
M
misha
Guest
And for 4x6 you can get buy happily with 3 megapixels. So what was the point of talking about crop, full frame, etc?
--
Misha
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum