OK, More MP or Better IQ?

OK, Lets vote do you need(want?) more MP (from the 10-12 Mp cameras) or better IQ at say ISO 640-1600?

Let me put out some numbers. Would you want 20 to 24 MP (FF or APS, I do not care) OR Have your current D200/D2x Give ISO 1600 and have it look like ISO 200??

I vote for better IQ, but then that is just me.

Mike

I'm with you, Mike. Better IQ over more MP's any day of the week, not only with noise/acuity, but also with regard to WB under mixed and fluctuating artificial lighting.

I'm very pleased with the d200 IQ up to 400 and pleased with it up to 800-1000, but that's where the WB starts to become critical, because those shots are usually under artificial, fluctuating color temp and intensity lights.

As a side note, my understanding is that there isn't a strong "standard" for color temps, so matching the camera to anything other than capture can be a royal PITA.

--
my gallery of so-so photos
http://www.pbase.com/kerrypierce/root

Unless you regularly print at sizes greater than 11x14 (e.g. most of your prints) and unless you crop most of your pictures a lot (e.g. as much as 50%), you will generate better pictures by getting higher IQ equipment than by getting more megapixels.

High quality 6MP images can make absolutely stunning prints at sizes even larger than 11x14, so as long as you aren't cropping tons of those pixels away, you don't "need" lots of megapixels.

IQ, on the other hand, will affect every single image you take at every single size you show/print it at.
--
John
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

Another vote for better IQ. And better colour rendition, of course.

increasing MP maybe in the future we won't be able any longer to see such differences, while a noised picture over ISO 1000 will be always recognized from a not noised one.

--

Photography is the most beautiful way to discover God around us in little and simple things.
My kits under my profile

http://italy74.smugmug.com
http://it.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dlb74pr/my_photos

I too would like IQ,except that I need it for the OPERATOR. My d200 is way smarter than I am.
--
Gary Dietz
Celina Ohio

12MP is more than enough from my D2X; the two photo agencies that I submit to require images at no less than 6MP and 8MP respectively, so I can either crop or downsample to suit - therefore although a higher pixel count might be useful in certain situations, it's not needed.

So with that in mind, I'd much rather go for a camera with better IQ. If Nikon could bring out a D3 series camera with 12MP count and good, clean ISO1600 and 3200 settings with decent (7~8 stop) dynamic range, I'd upgrade in a heartbeat.

If such a camera had better AF performance, higher burst frame rate etc. then those would bonus features. IQ is king.

--



http://www.vikingphotography.co.uk

it is tonal range and detail. Tonal range is DR but detail is pixels. Yes the D70 and other 6mp cameras take teriffic photos, crisp, sharp good tone but they do not capture sufficient detail for all situations and in the end tone and pixels decides sharpness, high edge contrast is sharpenss but the higher the number of pixels the sharper the edge. Seems the D200 while having more MP requires more PP for sharpness. It may be a result of more flaws being enhanced by more MP but the fact remains. Tone is important to capture mood, it is astounding how vey sublte nuances of tone drastically alter the impression of a photograph. That being said I would love 24MP for detail but I would take better tone than MP.

I don't think you can have one without the other though. All photographs and indeed anything you care to think of is determined by the sum of a large number of small variables, a Fourier series if you will. If you remove enough of the almost imperceptible variables you drastically alter the output. Send Bach down a phone line and it sounds like junk.
Emotion seems to be mostly tonal and interest seems to be mostly pixels.
jmho
Andrew

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

"Both"

I h ave the IQ part taken care of....

Give me the 24MP so I can print REALLY big!!

But if I could have both.....now your talkin!!!

Roman
--

Photoshop is like bondo. Use it to smooth out and polish your work, not to compensate for your lack of body work skills.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

michaeljberman said:

OK, Lets vote do you need(want?) more MP (from the 10-12 Mp
cameras) or better IQ at say ISO 640-1600?

Let me put out some numbers. Would you want 20 to 24 MP (FF or
APS, I do not care) OR Have your current D200/D2x Give ISO 1600
and have it look like ISO 200??

I vote for better IQ, but then that is just me.

Mike

Click to expand...

--
Osku

RomanJohnston said:

I h ave the IQ part taken care of....

Give me the 24MP so I can print REALLY big!!

But if I could have both.....now your talkin!!!

Roman
--
Photoshop is like bondo. Use it to smooth out and polish your work,
not to compensate for your lack of body work skills.

Click to expand...

More MP is always desirable if other factors remain the same, but 24MP from a DX sized sensor would probably result in excessive noise and reduced DR at high ISO. Without dramatic breakthroughs in digital sensor technology, more MP will require a larger sensor, e.g. full frame.
--
Bill Janes

A high-dynamic-range, 8MP version of the D2HS would be my ideal, one-camera-does-it-all body; it would pretty much be a straight replication of film with the low noise characteristics of digital. Take the D2HS, give it an extra stop of DR on the highlight end so that you can expose a little hotter and take the pressure off shadow noise, and the 8MP, and you'd have a winner. The D2XS and 1DSII are quite simply overkill for most purposes, although I can see their use in at least reducing post-process workflow for those who need to enlarge to 20x30 and providing a little extra edge of detail.

I'm greedy - I want both

Ok, I'll take a few more megapixels for the landscape work - don't need a lot - 18 would probably do it, in a FF body.

-m

6mp with clean 3200 will certainly work for me.

I really like the square aspect ratio on my phase one back.
4096 x 4096 pixels at 40 mm square 16 bit RGB but . . .
a perfect back would IMO would be

60 mm x 60 mm 8096 x 8096 pixels given excellent DR characteristics and acceptable noise to ISO 400.

Given the 2 1/4 tx's I use to scan at 1000% on a high end drum scanner, those specs would put the detail and image size at a level that would make excellent life time master files.

Imagine all beautiful shots we all have taken in the past, and if our library of images had the data size and detail of a drum scanned 2 1/4 with professional color correction . . .

Regardless of what the company's give us (thats affordable)

Post processing can scrub a lot of dynamic range into a photo
I'd like to see higher MP and square aspect ratio's

Dont mind FF.....and I agree...that is what it would take....and Thom Hogan's crysta ball seems to see it that way too (not a guarantee by any means...but I trust his hunches more than most)

So....give me a FF 24MP D3X.....and I will be extatic.

Roman
--

Photoshop is like bondo. Use it to smooth out and polish your work, not to compensate for your lack of body work skills.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

I hope not......a square is static....and harder to fill with a compelling composition...

Not impossable, but harder to work with (for me at least)

I hope its FF and with 35MM aspect ratio.

Roman
--

Photoshop is like bondo. Use it to smooth out and polish your work, not to compensate for your lack of body work skills.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/