What is the point of 24Megapixels for consumers who don't print large?

It looks like display device resolution is the limiting factor for a vast majority of consumers who purchase DSLRs but who do not make very large prints. They buy higher quality, higher resolution cameras but the stagnation and even regression in the computer display market reduces the usefulness of all that extra resolution.

I had previously purchased a Sony A850 which like the A77 has about 24 megapixels image resolution. I moved up from the Sony A700 which "only" had 12 megapixels.

I upgraded for the full frame benefits of wide FOV, larger viewfinder and reduced depth of field for wide large aperture lenses.

Except for the slightly larger & heavier body and lack of video/live-view (compared to A77) I am happy with the purchase as it opens up my shooting options given the many full frame lenses that I've acquired over the years.

However something that bothers me is that most of the increased image resolution, increased fine detail, gorgeous color at low ISO etc.. is for the most part not visible to a majority of the people who enjoy my pictures given that the number one place they see them are on Facebook, Flickr and via email. Facebook overly and unnecessary compresses the images, forces a relatively small image viewing size (unless you download the "high res" 2MP version) and seems to blur the images as well.

Also even if those who view my images were able to see a proper version, they still would not be able to see any differences between my 24Mp FF A850 and a 4MP DSLR because 90% of all the laptops that they may use to view my images have a resolution that is around 720P (or less) - i.e, less than 1 megapixel!

Even a 1080P display (which btw, is only found on a very tiny segment of Laptops) and is now the highest standard for consumer desktop displays is only 2 megapixels! That is even less resolution than was common a few years ago before the 16:9 "HD" craze started. This silly 16:9 aspect ratio thing for Computer Displays is a pet peeve of mine. I hate it. Because of it laptop resolutions have gone down to common 720P denominator and all the 1920x1200 laptops have disappeared replaced with lower resolution models touting "improved" Full-HD displays.

Anyway, When I viewed some of my 12Megapixel A700 images on a 27" Imac which has a 2560 x 1440 resolution display, I was able to see a lot more detail than I did on my 24" LCD. I was now able to see exactly where I missed focus on a portrait oriented shot. This leads me wanting to see more of my images at a resolution that is adequate given the 24Megapixels of information stored in the files.

Right now the largest resolution displays that are available for consumers are the large and soon becoming extinct 30" LCD monitors with 2560x1600 resolution which appeals to me because of the increased vertical resolution of 1600 pixels which helps when editing/viewing portrait oriented shots. Still 2560x1600 is "only" 4 megapixels! But it will cost you over $1,300!

The IPhone 4 display is only 3.5 inches (diag) but has a resolution of 960-by-640-pixels which is a bit larger than 1/2 of one megapixel. But at 3.5" it results in a very pixel-dense life-like image without visible pixels. The Iphone 4 can be picked up for about $200 on contract.

I intuitively know that much higher resolution computer displays are feasible than what junk is being produced today especially for laptops. I don't know why the panel manufacturers are focusing only on 16:9 720P or 1080P models at all screen sizes. Well I guess I know --- they make more money producing cheaper lower resolution panels that tout "HD" or "Full HD" and selling to soccer moms than they do catering to the smaller market of those of us who view and edit large images and need more than 720P (laptops) or 1080P (Desktop) resolutions.

I think the mobile market and also Apple will change all this. First of all, there are now 4" class mobile phones with 720P resolution and the 10" class tablets will eventually have to move beyond the 720P range resolution that they are all currently stuck at in order to compete against the smaller form factors. Samsung has also just shown a 10" class tablet display with quad wide xga resolution - that is roughly 2560×1600. See http://www.mobilemag.com/2011/10/28/samsung-reveals-its-2560x1600-wqxga-tablet-display/



I think Apple will again force the industry and their competition to innovate by releasing a 4K resolution TV which will amount to about 8 megapixel resolution. That TV will be able to scale up 1080P content and also stream high quality photos from your iCloud photostream. It would also double as a digital photo frame when not being used for television.

I really hope to see all these things come to pass because it is obvious that the future of consumer digital imaging is not in making 4x6 or 8x10 prints. It will be in enjoying the high quality, high resolution pictures digitally on a display. People just are not making prints as often as they used to and in the future they may not even be making any at all. It is much easier, faster and cheaper to to email a high quality image to someone for their enjoyment digitally than it is to print an A3/A4 print and fedex it.

I look forward to the day in the future,perhaps ten years from now, when I can finally view my 2008 24Megapixel camera's entire image on a 30" flat digital photo display at 1:1 or close to it.

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

I'd guess the point is that there ARE some who will print large, or use that resolution advantage for cropping, and therefore they make the camera capable of meeting the needs of the few, while appealing to the many who don't need it but just like having big important stats. Nothing wrong with that...how many people have a top of the line smartphone and 4G connectivity and never stream high graphical content on it? How many have a computer with 250GB harddrive and 8GB of RAM and the most taxing thing they do on it is check Outlook and play solitaire? How many people have a car with more than 300HP yet never travel faster than 65MPH? Dual range oven and rarely ever cook? Digital watch with 25 specialized functions, yet they only use it to see the time?

All of those things are not necessary for a vast majority of owners. But there are some who do stream high video content, who do heavy graphical editing, who drive at high speeds or accelerate quickly, who do cook full gourmet multicourse meals, who do dig into their watch's compass and altimeter and timer. So these things are available to everyone - the rare few who actually need it, and the rest who simply want it but really will never take advantage of it.

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg

I agree with you, but with remarks.

I recently scanned family archive photos and to my amazement found that most old ones that were printed 80+ years ago showed much better detail compare to photos made in period between WWII and modern times. When exploring these prints I thought that box camera must been used, or 120X120mm at least...

24Mb image gives you plenty room for tight crop when needed.

When you shot now using 24mm FF camera, you maybe storing detail for future generations who will enjoy it in full!

click on O above photo if you want to enjoy full detail of photo.
(my grandmother and great grand father, Odessa, USSR ~ 1920 )

http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com/Other/scans/14896326_LK2xK7#1113899547_SPXgn-X2-LB

--

Person is taking photos, not camera. When photograph is bad, it's because photographer doesn't know how to choose settings optimal to "own preferences". Then blames camera for bad IQ.
This is same as blaming car about arriving to wrong destination.

http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

To me it isn't excess. Pictures are one of those things that you take and keep over the long haul. Especially family pictures. I want high res because even if my devices do not support it today I know they will in the next 10 years. And I would rather all the pictures I take be as forward compatible as possible.

I can't be of much help to you, but I may be able to alleviate one of your frustrations and that is your photo gallery. If Flickr is your main vehicle for displaying your work, you need to get out of there ASAP. It's got to be one of the worst (IMHO) gallery providers out there! Many other galleries do a much better job of presenting your work professionally and how you want it to be seen by others.

My photo gallery of choice happens to be Smugmug. There are several levels of presenting your work and hundreds of customizable features and options. All quality stuff.

A recent pic (last week) from my Smugmug gallery, the 1st. keeper shot from a newly aquired A900.



--
Simplify_balancE_eXclude = photo SEX

http://stv.smugmug.com/

4320P. Your wimpy 24MP images won't fill the screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhdtv

First, if you don't want to upsize, the max print size is not HUGE really. Anyone who prints to put anything on a wall may get near what this is at 300dpi. 6000x4000 pixels at 300 dpi corresponds to 13.3x20. I wouldn't call that huge...

But I admit there is another reason, which is the size and pixel war. I display in a co-op gallery where we take turns working. I can't believe how many people come in with large heavy expensive Canikons that after we start to talk I find out they are completely clueless about cameras and photography. Many people believe that the camera makes the image. I am constantly asked what camera I use.

--
Judy
http://nichollsphoto.com/

If you don't use it don't waste your money...........

I want it and use it and am willing to pay for it.

--
A900 w/Zeiss Glass

I see a 24mp crop sensor as the cheapest way to obtain added effective focal length for wildlife photos. My 70-400g can obtain a effective focal length of 2400mm and still be a 6mp image. I still occasionally shoot my KM7D and it is only a 6mp camera.

You make some real good points. I'm probably typical of what you describe. I bought the A55 as my first dslr because i've always used sony film products and have the AF lenses already.

I've shot a couple thousand pix on it by now and I've never printed one and don't plan to. Everything is emailed, put on a website, facebooked, etc. So I for one definitely don't even need the A55's 16.2.....in fact to post on some websites I have to trim the size down to 32 mb's just to save my memory space....

I think you missed the point of my rant.
Do you often print your pictures?
If so, at what size do you print?
Is that how you share your work?
If not, how do you?

My frustration was that sharing one's work through sites like Facebook or even email does a disservice to one's work because the end-user display devices are of such low resolution/quality.

If there is a better way of sharing one's work, short of owning a gallery I'd like to know.

William Curtindale said:

If you don't use it don't waste your money...........

I want it and use it and am willing to pay for it.

--
A900 w/Zeiss Glass

Click to expand...

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

Cool! I can't wait for these to become common place. I hope I'll be alive then

I do like the thought of the intermediate resolutions becoming affordable though.

I like the sound of Quad Full High Definition (QFHD) (3840×2160) on a 30" LCD monitor or 50" Flat Panel.

I'd like to see the development of thin and flexible high resolution/large color gamut e-ink displays specifically for use as digital photo frames. These do not need a high refresh rate as the will be showing mostly static images. But they will be thin, light and use very little power. And they could be cheap too. It could become the replacement for framing large prints or artwork.You put it in your home , connect it to a small smart box and it will cycle different photos and/or artwork as configured.

Just Having Fun said:

4320P. Your wimpy 24MP images won't fill the screen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhdtv

Click to expand...

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

Actually I also have a Zenfolio account as well. The problem is nobody ever orders prints either there.

Nice picture btw. Love the tones.

Stv said:

I can't be of much help to you, but I may be able to alleviate one of your frustrations and that is your photo gallery. If Flickr is your main vehicle for displaying your work, you need to get out of there ASAP. It's got to be one of the worst (IMHO) gallery providers out there! Many other galleries do a much better job of presenting your work professionally and how you want it to be seen by others.

My photo gallery of choice happens to be Smugmug. There are several levels of presenting your work and hundreds of customizable features and options. All quality stuff.

A recent pic (last week) from my Smugmug gallery, the 1st. keeper shot from a newly aquired A900.



--
Simplify_balancE_eXclude = photo SEX

http://stv.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

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

You are absolutely right about how online viewing is such a mismatch to our image capture devices. This is true even in the best cases, where I as a photographer control the website, or choose to view on an iPad where I can minimize compression degradation of the image.

But with respect to high pixel counts in general, I can tell you as an A900 driver it has given me at least one unexpected benefit: I feel like we've finally beaten the Bayer filter.

For those who aren't familiar: all that most CMOS pieces of silicon can do is capture greyscale information. For most chips to capture color, you have to overlay a red, blue, and green checkerboard plastic pattern, known as a Bayer filter, over front of the chip. Each pixel then only captures red, blue, or green. The camera's software (or external RAW converter) has to decode the checkerboard pattern into a SAME resolution final image.

Of course, this process is inherently problematical - it can't possibly completely faithfully decode a 2x2 pattern of:
(R)(G)
(G)(B)
into
(RGB)(RGB)
(RGB)(RGB)

Therefore images off a Bayer-filter device always have some "Bayer Rot" - due to the decoding process - down at the pixel level. But with a 24 MP capture device, since the pixels are small, that Bayer Rot is very, very small indeed.

The extra pixels allow for more cropping. Good for those who shoot subjects at a distance - sports, birding, wildlife, etc. For myself, a long lens at an air show might not be enough at times. 24mp would allow me to crop more and still maintain good IQ.

yes, you guys are missing a huge point about more megapixels. the ability to crop. when i had my A700... you can't really crop a 12mp image and retain high resolution.

Once I got my 850.. I was cropping everything. You won't believe the detail from a A850/A900 image cropped at 100%

BigBen08 said:

The extra pixels allow for more cropping. Good for those who shoot subjects at a distance - sports, birding, wildlife, etc. For myself, a long lens at an air show might not be enough at times. 24mp would allow me to crop more and still maintain good IQ.

Click to expand...

HopeSpringsEternal said:

Actually I also have a Zenfolio account as well. The problem is nobody ever orders prints either there.

Nice picture btw. Love the tones.

Click to expand...

Thanx for the complliment........... (the temperature is a little too warm now that I see it and since corrected in gallery)

Nobody orders prints, Ha! you are not alone bub... };> )P

Neither am I selling anything, (but they're stealing tons of web stuff). IMHO, in order to sell the goods, I (you/we) have to shoot what other people want to buy. Although selling has never been a priority for me, that is the crux of the matter.

Stv
--
Simplify_balancE_eXclude = photo SEX

http://stv.smugmug.com/

Here's where I've come to on the issue of 24mp. I will hardly ever need or use it, but if I want the extra crop factor, its there.

Also, there is a post by DK on his forum in which he makes the point that the 24mp sensor shot at 6 or 12 mp will produce photos with less noise at higher iso's than a native sensor of those sizes. He posts some example photos from an A77 at iso 3200 showing just how good the noise is at the smaller settings. He does not show comparisons to a smaller native sensor, but if he says it is true, that is good enough for me.

So, I will probably be shooting mostly 12 mp photos when my A64 arrives later this week, maybe even some at 6mp.

Shoot what they want to buy, yes (which is not necessarily what will win awards!). But you also need a venue. Getting into galleries, going to shows, art league venues are some options. The economy is the pits and many people who have made livings at this are in deep trouble and lots of galleries are closing all over the country. I think few people sell much from websites unless they can get themselves "out there" in other ways.

Stv said:

IMHO, in order to sell the goods, I (you/we) have to shoot what other people want to buy. Although selling has never been a priority for me, that is the crux of the matter.

Click to expand...

--
Judy
http://nichollsphoto.com/

HopeSpringsEternal said:

I look forward to the day in the future,perhaps ten years from now, when I can finally view my 2008 24Megapixel camera's entire image on a 30" flat digital photo display at 1:1 or close to it.

Click to expand...

Hmmm . . . but you're eyes won't be good enough to tell it from the image on your current 30" display (if it's a good one).

and the answer to your original question is two-fold:
1. so that you can crop
2. in case you change your mind about printing large

all the best

--
Jono Slack
http://www.slack.co.uk