10 - 12 mpx .. and why it is a necessity.

I see a lot of talk about the latest cams and nikons new hooking onto the mpix race and that 6 or 8 (or even 4..) obviously is all you need.

It is of course wrong. 10 - 12mpx (maybe even 14) is something of a optimal range for the main market. In all probability, it is a plateu where we will remain for many years.

Why? Because it combines enough detail with adequate speed to serve a wide range of uses. It even contains more detail than you might see on your printer, or have a need for... today. Remember that the image you capture now is what you will be using tomorrow.

Your expectations will rise and shooting under 8 is like using the instamatic from film days or shooting it all with APS. Be honest - how many APS images serve a wide range. Can you print one in A4 or letter format? Of course you can - but will you be satisfied with the image? And if (ghasp) you ever came upon the notion of selling your image... there will be a lot of closed doors to the lowpix.

Compare it all with a house.

Just as with the MPX figure, there is a optimal range of floor space for the majority (be it sq.feet or meter) that suits most needs and has a adequate price tag. In most cases you will even be able to squeeze some more usable space out of the attic or garage space for that extra kid.

Personally, i gratefully think that what many call the mpix race is just about over.

Tranquility on that front will hopefully lead to a focusing on development of other imaging matters that need care.

Anyhow - we all need the 10+ range - most of you just don´t know it yet

--
Mike Rinnan
http://mike.rinnan.com

Even with 5-6 mpx I am shooting better photographs than I ever did with film, and apart from the occaisional desire to crop more when I **** things up, I dont think I need more at the moment...

of course I wouldn't say no...

Alistair
--
http://www.alistair-hamilton.com/Gallery/cpg146/
http://watching-the-time.blogtog.com

12 megapixel is less resolution compared to most printers

my printer can print at 9600x2400 pixels per square inch

so a one inch picture will contain 23 million pixels

Ansel Adams needed an 8x10 view camera to do his work. Henri Cartier-Bresson preferred a small 35mm Leica. Use whatever tools that you think you need. Those of us who are satisfied with fewer than that magic number of 10 megapixels don't need to subsidize the camera industry - we'll leave that to you.

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com

MikRin said:

Your expectations will rise and shooting under 8 is like using the
instamatic from film days or shooting it all with APS. Be honest -
how many APS images serve a wide range. Can you print one in A4 or
letter format? Of course you can - but will you be satisfied with
the image? And if (ghasp) you ever came upon the notion of selling
your image... there will be a lot of closed doors to the lowpix.

Click to expand...

Chortle. I don't know about APS, but I can promise you that no Instamatic came close to matching what I get out of my 6 MP Pentax D.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

My understanding was that the "dpi" of inkjet printers was fake in a sense, since it might need to squirt 25 dots together just to reproduce the colour of a single digital pixel.

for someone needing to do product or fashion, they need quite often need more horsepower when going out to print. (offset)
many of our leaf users have dropped back into a canon 1ds_ii setup.
not a single one has dropped back into a 12mp camera.

--
2oo4 STi gt35r.....

Its necessary for one purpose only, larger prints. If like the majority of
photographers you never print at larger than A4 size then 6mp will be
enough.

I have seen photographs taken on a 24" x 24" Polaroid camera. I have
seen stunning really big photographs from negatives taken on 10" x 8"
view cameras. To be a complete replacement for film, digital cameras
need to match all these things. They don't yet but they soon will.

As long as noise levels can be kept under control, the more pixels the
better.

Huh?

DavidUk said:

12 megapixel is less resolution compared to most printers

my printer can print at 9600x2400 pixels per square inch

so a one inch picture will contain 23 million pixels

Click to expand...

--
'The primary purpose of any business is to make a profit.'
Canon CEO Fujio Mitarai

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home ;jsessionid=GX90G0k1Qp!1508707039?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=186095&is=REG&addedTroughType=search

Hello All,

I'm very happy about the new 10mp models and will be buying one as my first DSLR. Here's why:

1) I got into digicams in 2001 and have worked up through seven different cams, and have been using the Canon Pro-1 as my main camera for the past 2 years (8mp, 2/3 sensor). I have held off getting a DSLR for several reasons (none of which are relevent to this topic). I do fine art BW work, mostly landscapes, and print up to 13x19 (currently on an Epson 2400). Often, in spite of careful composing, I find a "picture within a picture" and end up doing some cropping. I found through experience, that the Pro-1's 8mp is the minimum I require to get the quality I want and still have the freedom to crop.

2) The mpx count is only one aspect of image quality. The other is the quality of those pixels. For that reason I have been wanting to move to a larger sensor. As good as the Pro-1 is, the quality of those 8mp do not match those from a larger sensor, whatever the mpx.

3) An important thing often overlooked in these discussions is that about 12% of the DSLR 2:3 ratio image is discarded for many 4:5 standard print sizes (8x10, 16x20, etc). Actually, for years I have felt that 4:5 was a bit "too short", and the 2:3 35mm ratio was "too long". So I was delighted to find that the digicams all use the 3:4 image ratio, in between those two. I've found it to be the closest thing to perfect and have adopted it as my standard print ratio. I only deviate from it when a composition demands it.

4) Cutting down a 2:3 DSLR image to 3:4 removes 12% of the image. So a 6mp image suddenly becomes 5.3mp (compared to the 8mp of the Pro-1 at 4:3). For my purposes this is simply not enough. However, with the new 10.2 sensors, they will be 8.9mp at 4:3. So I'm a happy camper about this and am looking forward to my first DSLR.

It really depends on our needs. 6mp at 2:3 may be fine for many, especially those who mostly make 4x6 prints or display on a web site. But mpx does make a difference. Pros don't pay $30,000 for 40mp medium format backs just for grins. It's just a matter of what you need and what you're willing to pay. Please don't ridicule someone who wants more px. He or she just might be a serious photographer with a genuine need.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Most people would get great images with a 5MP DSLR with a good sensor. How many people regularly make A3 or A2 sized blowups? 10+MP is a waste for most people. The magazines here have been shooting for years with 3MP, 4MP and 5MP DSLRs like the D30, 1D (mk-1) etc and they've been publishing for years.

twonker said:

Even with 5-6 mpx I am shooting better photographs than I ever did
with film, and apart from the occaisional desire to crop more when
I **** things up, I dont think I need more at the moment...

of course I wouldn't say no...

Alistair
--
http://www.alistair-hamilton.com/Gallery/cpg146/
http://watching-the-time.blogtog.com

Click to expand...

Just because you lacked the skill needed to shoot film doesn't mean that those of us who do have the knowledge and skills to do professional level work don't need the high pixel counts. Personally I think 6mp cameras suck and my 14 megapixel one is barely adequate. If I could get over the health problems that forced me to abandon the darkroom i'd go to shooting 4x5 film for everything.
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography of Indiana
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/index.htm

YOU might "need" it and extra mp is nice but quite frankly I don't "need" it. I'll take all I can get but not at the loss of quality or more money. It's like the difference between 35mm film and larger formats. I found 35mm suited me just fine and I never "needed" a larger format camera.
--
Tom

http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

You can always argue that 6 or even 3 megapixels is enough for most uses, and I agree. High iso performance is another reason to keep the number of megapixels down.

Still as long as the "pixel quality" don't suffer I can't see any disadvantages of increasing the pixel count. Whenever I need to crop it will always be an advantage to have a bigger number of pixels to work with.

That statement is about as convincing as a camera company press release!

Wake up a bit will you! Mp=Camera sales, its not always in the interests of image quality...sad to see so many get sucked into this thinking though...
--

MikRin said:

It is of course wrong. 10 - 12mpx (maybe even 14) is something of a
optimal range for the main market. In all probability, it is a
plateu where we will remain for many years.

Click to expand...

define the main market? the 90% of people who have no idea what they're doing? yeah, then your statement holds merit.

MikRin said:

Why? Because it combines enough detail with adequate speed to serve
a wide range of uses. It even contains more detail than you might
see on your printer, or have a need for... today. Remember that
the image you capture now is what you will be using tomorrow.

Click to expand...

yeah, and for some people who shoot high ISO the newly acquired detail is shipped with some noise in a D200.

MikRin said:

And if (ghasp) you ever came upon the notion of selling
your image... there will be a lot of closed doors to the lowpix.

Click to expand...

Depends on the output/result.

MikRin said:

Anyhow - we all need the 10+ range - most of you just don´t know it
yet

Click to expand...

Personally I need more time shooting dynamic, random, uncontrolled, accidental shots that are keepers.

MikRin said:

--
Mike Rinnan
http://mike.rinnan.com

Click to expand...

--
**********************************
'Most often the glass is more capable than the photographer behind it'.
http://www.designsbydamian.com.au

HA! Most people on these forums will be shooting better with digital than film. Do they lack skill? I don't think so, just they are able to produce the goods quicker, easier and cheaper thanks to digital. And what benefit is there in shooting at such a high resolution when you're a photographer for a mini-magazine/catalogue/CD album cover/etc.

Damo

14nLover said:

twonker said:

Even with 5-6 mpx I am shooting better photographs than I ever did
with film, and apart from the occaisional desire to crop more when
I **** things up, I dont think I need more at the moment...

of course I wouldn't say no...

Alistair
--
http://www.alistair-hamilton.com/Gallery/cpg146/
http://watching-the-time.blogtog.com

Click to expand...

Just because you lacked the skill needed to shoot film doesn't mean
that those of us who do have the knowledge and skills to do
professional level work don't need the high pixel counts.
Personally I think 6mp cameras suck and my 14 megapixel one is
barely adequate. If I could get over the health problems that
forced me to abandon the darkroom i'd go to shooting 4x5 film for
everything.
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography of Indiana
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/index.htm

Click to expand...

--
**********************************
'Most often the glass is more capable than the photographer behind it'.
http://www.designsbydamian.com.au

My friend you are a marketer's dream.

Damo

DavidUk said:

12 megapixel is less resolution compared to most printers

my printer can print at 9600x2400 pixels per square inch

so a one inch picture will contain 23 million pixels

Click to expand...

--
**********************************
'Most often the glass is more capable than the photographer behind it'.
http://www.designsbydamian.com.au

Yay someone who understands it! I wonder how people will transport their large format cameras to a sporting match...

Damo

Gary Martin said:

Ansel Adams needed an 8x10 view camera to do his work. Henri
Cartier-Bresson preferred a small 35mm Leica. Use whatever tools
that you think you need. Those of us who are satisfied with fewer
than that magic number of 10 megapixels don't need to subsidize the
camera industry - we'll leave that to you.

--
http://www.pixelstatic.com

Click to expand...

--
**********************************
'Most often the glass is more capable than the photographer behind it'.
http://www.designsbydamian.com.au

twonker said:

Even with 5-6 mpx I am shooting better photographs than I ever did
with film, and apart from the occaisional desire to crop more when
I **** things up, I dont think I need more at the moment...

of course I wouldn't say no...

Click to expand...

Exactly!
Chasing the latest toy is madness for folks with more money than brains.
Next years toys will outshine todays.
Folks right now are lining up to buy the Sony A100 sight unseen.
Next year it will be something else.

The newness wears off in about 3 months, after that if you don't enjoy taking pictures it's time for a new toy.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/grossinger/sets
DSLR?
I ain't got no DSLR.
I don't need no DSLR.
I don't have to show you any stinking DSLR!'