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

Some will welcome such high pixel counts for good reason. Others won't find it necessary in any way. It really depends on what your final output size requirements are.

I'd take less noise and 6mp over noisier 10mp any day.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

How do you know your final output requirements in advance?

Eric Haglund said:

It really depends on what your final output size requirements are.

--
Eric

Click to expand...

That's a very good question, made me think. I have to answer your question with a question: How would you NOT know?

I guess if you are a pro then perhaps you would just simply want as many mps as you can have so that your bases are covered.

As a hobbyist, I shoot a bunch of snapshots for my family albums. My S80 bumped down to 5mp is plenty because that's enough for an 11x14 for the wall. If I'm shooting something I know for sure I'm going to hang, then I will use my DSLR because I will want all of the resolution I can get for 11x14 plus.

--
Eric
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

Partially true, cropping is the other benefit of more MP's.
--

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

I made very nice 8X10's from 4 MP camera - prints that 99% of consumers go WOW at. Even 2 MP was adequate for almost all drugstore photographers (i.e., 4X7 drugstore prints) A pro photographer needs 12MP + when dealing with clients, maybe even more, probably wouldn't turn down 24 MP.

I don't think there is an optimum size. To use your house analogy, if a 5000 sq ft house cost $50,000 would you buy it, or would you buy a 1500 sq foot one? Some of us may not want the extra cleaning and housekeeping, but most of us would jump at the chance.

So, if the future hold sub $1000 cameras that at 16 MP you wouldn't buy one?

Damo83 said:

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

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just too old Damo. I feel like it talking to people on these forums although I'm only 30 years old. You see, I didn't go out and buy a camera and expect to produce perfect pictures easily. I expected to have to learn to use my first camera. I expected to have to understand exposure, lighting, depth of field control, etc. I went to school and recieved a classical education in the fine arts that included photography, and I learned what quality looked like by studying prints made by the masters of our art. Try it some time, a lot of major art museums have fine collections of photography, or come out here to Santa Fe, our commercial galleries sell actual prints by Weston, Adams, Cartier-Bresson, etc. None of us can afford them, but it costs nothing to look!

Too many people buy a digital camera and proclaim themselves to be photographers without taking the time and effort to learn the technical and aesthetic skills needed to become one. I still hold to what I said. If you can't shoot film, you have no skill. Film and digital work very much the same regarding exposure, composition, lighting, etc. The difference is, with digital you can see if you screwed up and keep trying over and over till by dumb luck you get it right. Good photographers shoot digital all the time...don't think I'm saying you have to shoot film to be a good photographer. You don't have to. I don't very often. But you should have the ability to do so if you ever wanted to, and anyone who is a good photographer with digitial will be able to shoot film easily, as easily as digital, because he will have the basic skills needed to be a photographer.

Regarding making small prints for catalogs, etc. Yes, if that's all you do then you don't need a lot of resolution. My beef with the original post I had responded to was his seeming assertion that NO ONE needs high resolution capture. That's bull. I need and use the resolution of my 14mp camera everyday because i routinely make large exhibition prints. A lot of pros need the resolution and many amateurs do too. A lot of people claim to have made huge prints with 6mp cameras that they're happy with. Fine, but I can make that happiness dissapate instantly by showing them the same size print made from my 14mp system or a scanned 645 negative. I've done that many times and probably stimulated the purchase of a number of Canon 5D and Nikon D2x cameras.
--
Chris Crawford
Santa Fe, NM
Fine Art Photography of Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/index.htm

Check out my new project:
http://www.plumpatrin.com

Svein Eriksen said:

How do you know your final output requirements in advance?

Click to expand...

I ask my editors.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Shaun Williamson said:

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.

Click to expand...

Even in an 8x10 my printer shows a difference in fine detail between 6MP and 8MP cameras. My educated guess is it would take 10 to 12 MP to max out the quality on an 8x10 -- and there are better printers available.

Is the difference important in every photo? No. However, in landscape or still life that depends on fine detail it can make a big difference.

--
J.R.

Somewhere south of Amarillo

You can find a seeming gap between those who were brought up shooting esp. 35m film and the host of digital users today. As I turned pro many years ago, being tutored by then experienced pros, I was taught about in camera cropping. To be so lazy to not in camera crop whenever one can is a reason why many digital users cry for more MP. "Why should I bother to crop in camera? " "I'll just crop on the computer, that is what I need XX mega pixels." LAZY, LAZY, LAZY and a lack of care to train and educate oneself. But since 99% of all digital users are in reality just click happy snap shot users many who buy $3000- $8000 DSLRS to sanp away like they would a P&S well why should they care about learning the art of composition cropping and lighting? QUICK FIX ON THE P.C. is their answer but "Lordy no, I'll be losing pixels by doing such so I NEED A 12-14-16-20MP whatever..."

Look there is nothing wrong with more MP. Just as there was nothing wrong with moving from 35mm film to 120 or larger if need be at the time. I'd never say no to such but I laugh when I keep reading here the "We need the extra pixels for cropping." crapolla.

Learn to crop in camera, gives you better pics and teaches you to be more disciplined. But then again who and I, there are posters here who say they ned 8FPS to shoot their kid's birthday too... (Rolling eyes).

--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html

Phileas Fogg said:

You can find a seeming gap between those who were brought up
shooting esp. 35m film and the host of digital users today. As I
turned pro many years ago, being tutored by then experienced pros,
I was taught about in camera cropping. To be so lazy to not in
camera crop whenever one can is a reason why many digital users
cry for more MP. "Why should I bother to crop in camera? " "I'll
just crop on the computer, that is what I need XX mega pixels."
LAZY, LAZY, LAZY and a lack of care to train and educate oneself.
But since 99% of all digital users are in reality just click happy
snap shot users many who buy $3000- $8000 DSLRS to sanp away
like they would a P&S well why should they care about learning the
art of composition cropping and lighting? QUICK FIX ON THE P.C. is
their answer but "Lordy no, I'll be losing pixels by doing such
so I NEED A 12-14-16-20MP whatever..."

Look there is nothing wrong with more MP. Just as there was
nothing wrong with moving from 35mm film to 120 or larger if need
be at the time. I'd never say no to such but I laugh when I keep
reading here the "We need the extra pixels for cropping."
crapolla.

Learn to crop in camera, gives you better pics and teaches you to
be more disciplined. But then again who and I, there are posters
here who say they ned 8FPS to shoot their kid's birthday too...
(Rolling eyes).

--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html

Click to expand...

I often crop my pictures to a square format, which I like from the old days when I used a Mamiya C330f and an ancient Rolleiflex. That's not laziness, it's an artistic decision that I make since no one makes square digital cameras (except for a few medium format backs with square sensors...but I can't afford that!)
--
Chris Crawford
Santa Fe, NM
Fine Art Photography of Indiana

http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com/fine_art/index.htm

Check out my new project:
http://www.plumpatrin.com

You are cropping for a specfic reason or look then. But many want to crop to save a lousy or lazy composition and to that I say to them cry me a river. LEARN TO SHOOT!

--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html

I didn't buy the printer because of those figures I stated...

the printer matched my needs of a decent photo print, direct printing to CD/DVD and separate inc catridges and was ony £70

But "if" a printer could come anywhere near translating a photo to 9600x2400dpi then 10-12 megapixelswould show less detail than an even higher resolution.

Someone earlier in the thread thought that a printer would take about 25 of those dots to make up one photo pixel so that might translate to around 1 megapixel per square inch of printed photo

so a 6x4 photo could take 24 megapixel to match the resolution of the printer.

And that assumes that one could tell the difference, some on here say they can tell the difference between different camera resolutions, while others say they can.

Has anyone compared the quality of 6mp vs 12mp on a 10x8 print?

Damo83 said:

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

Click to expand...

Phileas Fogg said:

You are cropping for a specfic reason or look then. But many want
to crop to save a lousy or lazy composition and to that I say to
them cry me a river. LEARN TO SHOOT!

Click to expand...

All well and good. I think most of us all try to frame the shot in camera....but now and then, when we have a leisurely second look, we see a marvelous picture within the picture. It's very nice to have the extra mp for cropping then.

-Don

'Where do we go when we die?' said Billy.
'I don't know', the old man said, 'Where are we now?'
.....Cormac McCarthy
http://www.pbase.com/dond

I am assuming you are referring to crop in camera as a composition technique - In case some people may think it refers to using the in-camera cropping features that are becoming more prevalent.

Phileas Fogg said:

You can find a seeming gap between those who were brought up
shooting esp. 35m film and the host of digital users today. As I
turned pro many years ago, being tutored by then experienced pros,
I was taught about in camera cropping. To be so lazy to not in
camera crop whenever one can is a reason why many digital users
cry for more MP. "Why should I bother to crop in camera? " "I'll
just crop on the computer, that is what I need XX mega pixels."
LAZY, LAZY, LAZY and a lack of care to train and educate oneself.
But since 99% of all digital users are in reality just click happy
snap shot users many who buy $3000- $8000 DSLRS to sanp away
like they would a P&S well why should they care about learning the
art of composition cropping and lighting? QUICK FIX ON THE P.C. is
their answer but "Lordy no, I'll be losing pixels by doing such
so I NEED A 12-14-16-20MP whatever..."

Look there is nothing wrong with more MP. Just as there was
nothing wrong with moving from 35mm film to 120 or larger if need
be at the time. I'd never say no to such but I laugh when I keep
reading here the "We need the extra pixels for cropping."
crapolla.

Learn to crop in camera, gives you better pics and teaches you to
be more disciplined. But then again who and I, there are posters
here who say they ned 8FPS to shoot their kid's birthday too...
(Rolling eyes).

--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html

Click to expand...

--
My boring photography blog: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

I'm refering to compose your image using the camera cropping. Looking at the whole frame you see and adjust composition to the desired look you want. This way you use all the resolution of the camera an do not have to crop the image on your computer.
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html

I think he's referring to cropping by developing a better eye for composition.

I look back on the 20 or so years I've fiddled with photography, and can't ever remember coming up with a truly magnificent photo by massive cropping.

If you didn't get it right in the viewfinder, you probably won't get it right with cut and paste.

And... when one actually puts thought and vision into the original composition, they get a bonus - better resolution, because flaws in the glass aren't being magnified.

Regardless of what gizmos get piled onto cameras, the nut behind the viewfinder is still the most important part.

Yes I can also see this difference but you have to remember that great
photography is not about ultimate quality. The best photographs I have
seen were taken on a 10" x 8" view camera or a 24" x 24" Polaroid camera.

No digital camera even comes close to that sort of quality. However look
at the history of photography and see how many great photographs were
taken on 35mm cameras or on low quality grainy film.

The point is that if you want to be a great photographer and are happy to
limit yourself to A4 size prints then a good 6mp camera will be enough.
No one will ever say that you aren't a great photographer because your
pictures don't have enough pixels.

If you look at great photographers such as the British photographer
Bill Brandt you will see how he overcame the limitations in his equipment.
Todays 6mp compacts easily outstrip the cameras that were available to
him but most people using these better cameras will never be as good
a photographer as he was.

The better photographers learn to see the whole (or most of if possible) image in the viewfinder. It is a skill that takes time to develope and hone but the difference between a skilled photographer as such and one who cares not or refuses to learn such is DAY & NIGHT!

Just as with driving (experts state we only use about 12-15% of our total viewing vision when driving and blissfuly ignore the rest) so to do many photographers esp. newbies, hence the EXIT sign above a person's head in a photo or cropping off an element in a photo. My pro-tutors drilled it into me to learn to see the whole image in viewfinder and I am proud to be able to do so and rarely have I ever had to resort to post image cropping to try to save a picture. I have asked/done post image cropping to get a uniqie size (aka: like a square image) but not to try to save a lousy picture to begin with.

TrapperJohn said:

I think he's referring to cropping by developing a better eye for
composition.

I look back on the 20 or so years I've fiddled with photography,
and can't ever remember coming up with a truly magnificent photo by
massive cropping.

If you didn't get it right in the viewfinder, you probably won't
get it right with cut and paste.

And... when one actually puts thought and vision into the original
composition, they get a bonus - better resolution, because flaws in
the glass aren't being magnified.

Regardless of what gizmos get piled onto cameras, the nut behind
the viewfinder is still the most important part.

Click to expand...

--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D

http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html

Clayton,

I also have used my Pro1 for two years and often also find a picture or two within a picture so the 8 MP helps me crop within limits. I also will be buying a new prosumer camera of higher MP but not a DSLR since my film days cured me of heavy bags of lenses that stayed in my closet. A 10/12 MP Pro2 would be nice but starter DSLR prices are going down too fast to make a viable option.

The new Pany '50' looks interesting although I will miss the 'L' glass in my Pro1............ no, I will not sell it but it will not last forever.
--
Bob,
'There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.' Ansel Adams
Great Pro1
Casio Z750

I shoot 10 meg for landscapes and 5 megs for everything else unless I plan to print above 8 x 10.