How Many Megapixels Are Enough?

Great reply! Thank you very much.

By the way, what is DR?

Gary

What is DR?

Gary

Thanks very much.

Gary

--
http://www.efrench.members.winisp.net/

Thanks. Great reply.

Gary

Wow! Really?

Thanks.

Gary

Thank you!

Gary

!!

Yes, I really like the camera, although it's hard to believe that it takes 8 images a second when I listen to the shutter. I should probably do a test.

Thanks for your reply.

Gary

Thanks very much. I think I'll wait until next year. Perhaps by then the 5D Mk II will drop in price as the new higher-MP cameras come on stream.

Gary

LOL. I am not in the "most" category, however. I really want to know before plonking down $2500 for a camera with 21MP that might be a waste.

Gary

Thanks. You make some good points (although I am not familiar with the 200 dpi rule). I use Canon L Series lenses, so they are the best I can use.

Gary

You think the pixel count will get that high or are you just being funny?

Gary

Dynamic range is the number of stops from the "lowest meaningful signal" to the "full well capacity" as in how many electrons can go into a photosite.

See this article if your really serious about learning. Don't if your just spamming.

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/#dr

GDEllis said:

What is DR?

Gary

Click to expand...

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider

...some of the inertresting responces to this thread has compelled me to discuss this a little more & you may want to follow my thread in c-slr lens talk here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=37654963

--

There is simply too much beauty in the world to photograph it all, but I'm trying.

Photato said:

I'd rather have less noise at higher ISO

Click to expand...

Wouldn't we all? Unfortunately, noise is not a function of resolution. If it were, why do 6MP rebels look like crap compared to 18MP rebels? QED.

The answer, though: Because noise performance is based on the design of the sensor, not its resolution. There's more engineering and R&D in the sensor that came out last year rather than the one that came out eight years ago. There are APS-C sensors that are starting to look a lot like FF ones.

The old myths regarding sensor size and resolution are falling apart in the face of the changing landscape of sensor design. Parroting these myths merely makes you look ignorant. Quit it.

Photato said:

and will surely enjoy the relative smaller size of the Raw files. Snappier to process

Click to expand...

I understand that this can be a problem. If you can't afford to buy a faster computer, then reducing the file size is really your only other option.

The fact that not every camera gives you the option of shooting in a smaller RAW size (especially one that you specify) is a little strange.

However, wishing that the resolution of a camera was, by default, smaller merely because you are cheap is a strange wish. Surely you understand that not everyone is in your same predicament.

Photato said:

and easier on storage and back-up demands.

Click to expand...

Storage is cheap. My 2TB drive was $100; it's even cheaper now. That's somewhere around 67,000 15MP RAW files, literally less than a cent ($0.001) per photo. You're shooting 10MP, so that's even more savings.

Photato said:

For Compact cameras with small sensors 3 to 5 MP does it.

Click to expand...

Well, they don't make those. Period.

GDEllis said:

Thanks very much.

Click to expand...

Gary,

It is very gracious of you to thank everyone individually for their advice and comment, but if you do not "Quote" something of what they wrote in your response, (as in my example, above)....... we don't know for sure WHO it is you're thanking in each case.

Just thought I'd mention it...
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

With inkjet printing I found 100 pixels per inch satisfactory in 2002. But the public at an exhibition I held then did not. The printer I had was not up to the task.

A 30x40 inch print at 100 pixels per inch needs a 12MP camera. An APS-C sensor in a camera with a good lens should ensure that the detail is near-pixel-perfect.

If you do indeed mainly 30x40 inch exhibition prints, a 12MP camera is not a luxury, and an 18MP camera would give you a little elbow room for cropping.

Henry

--



Henry Falkner - SP-570UZ, Stylus 9010, Stylus 7020, D-490Z
http://www.pbase.com/hfalkner

If one likes to examine pixels rather than pictures, 600 dpi is barely enough.

Manufacturers' standards of sharpness based on assumed circles of confusion (CoC) are at least doubly too lax. The 36x24mm format CoC of 0.03mm dates back to 1912 and Barnack's Leica. In fact to do justice to 20/20 vision it should be around 0.01mm. Then to convey all the detail to the standard 10x8inch print looked upon from 10 inches (25cm, minimum eye focussing distance for most people), the print has to be rendered at > 600dpi. That's where the buck stops for the unarmed eye.

Henry Falkner said:

With inkjet printing I found 100 pixels per inch satisfactory in 2002. But the public at an exhibition I held then did not. The printer I had was not up to the task.

A 30x40 inch print at 100 pixels per inch needs a 12MP camera. An APS-C sensor in a camera with a good lens should ensure that the detail is near-pixel-perfect.

If you do indeed mainly 30x40 inch exhibition prints, a 12MP camera is not a luxury, and an 18MP camera would give you a little elbow room for cropping.
Henry

Click to expand...

Fuji MX-600 Zoom, 1.5MP