-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
More mpix does not automatically mean more resolution.
- Thread starter chironNYC
- Start date
Shaun Bell
Senior Member
Sweet spot? I thought it was 12mp? Oh, that was so a couple of years ago. You really think Nikon (and Canon) aren't putting a high MP sensor in their pro bodies? You're going to look pretty silly when it rolls out. There's going to be some form of a D4x, just wait for it. Why would Nikon sell a body at 3K to pros if they can guilt them into buying a 9K body instead. They did it before, they'll do it again. Not all praise for Nikon, but it is what it is. That being said, everything else in the original post is pretty much garbage. Smearing? Really? I guess we should go back to 1mp cameras so we can shoot really slow shutter speeds.
--
http://www.paphotographics.com
--
http://www.paphotographics.com
studio311
Leading Member
Chiron.... thank you for removing any shred of doubt I continued to harbor that you were not a severely misinformed and a mindless fanboy. You make VivaLasVegas, Taikonaut, etc look positively sane. Congrats!
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
It was clearly stated by Chuck Westfall that in order to get the highest fps, it was necessary to limit MPs. The target for the 1D series is always the best AF and frames per second. Traditionally, since the 1Ds split, these cameras have not had the highest MP count in the Canonlineup. At the announcement, any blather about MPs was marketing spin designed to blunt the customers' concerns about MPs since the line was being consolidated and the model with the the high MPs was basically being retired.
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
It is obvious that there are clueless non-professionals and clueless professionals in this forum. There are also knowledgeable folks, professionals and non, on both sides of this debate. Your comments show a disturbing level of ignorance for the intelligence of the audience you are attempting to address.
Bear in mind, the typical non-professional purchasing equipment at this level are professionals in other fields or successful enough to be able to purchase such equipment whose average income as a group far out-strip the average professional photographer's income as a group. These people are generally well educated and can read technical papers and learn proper technique and develop the necessary skills. IOW, you ain't pulling the wool over too many eyes.
Also, bear in mind that once the 1D X is released, you will be shooting with the amateur camera and some boorish pro will be hammering you. Remember, you are never at the top of the food chain in photography unless possibly you are shooting with the Hubble Telescope.
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, photography never for sale, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
bobn2
Forum Pro
Funny you should say that. The last time I took the Hubble Telescope to a shoot, the model said it was too intimidating and walked out
.--
Bob
Rick Knepper
Forum Pro
Whew!!
Are you saying that the 22 MP vs 36 MP comparison has perhaps fallen victim to the laws of diminishing returns as the OP seems to think? I am just curious as to your personal and visual evidence for forming that opinion.
My only experince with photography gear is with the 35mm format and maybe it is just the format itself that renders fine details a bit mushy regardless of the final size of the images or print. But anything that can help a viewer resolve the wispy limbs and stalks of fine leafed bushes or grasses in the fore to midground of a typical landscape (without focus stacking) is helpful.
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
I haven't printed to paper since 2005 so admittedly I may be a little out of touch with that medium but I do not think so. For my own consumption, I display my images on an NEC 2690 at 1800x1200 pixels. My viewing distance for sustained study of the images ranges from 12 to 18 inches. The additional detail afforded by 21 MP over 12 MP was clearly evident.
Are you saying that the 22 MP vs 36 MP comparison has perhaps fallen victim to the laws of diminishing returns as the OP seems to think? I am just curious as to your personal and visual evidence for forming that opinion.
This is a curious approach that does not deny the additional detail but claims it is insignificant or irrelevant. Can you give an example of what constitutes insignificant detail in terms of landscape photography because most of us pursuing this endeavor seem to have been pursuing the wrong goals then?
My only experince with photography gear is with the 35mm format and maybe it is just the format itself that renders fine details a bit mushy regardless of the final size of the images or print. But anything that can help a viewer resolve the wispy limbs and stalks of fine leafed bushes or grasses in the fore to midground of a typical landscape (without focus stacking) is helpful.
Good one.
--
Rick Knepper, photographer, non-professional, shooting for pleasure, check my profile for gear list and philosophy.
cameraphone is P&S to me.I never mentioned P&S but I was responding to someone who did.Since you mentioned P&S, OP title maybe sometime true among different formats of sensors if he didn't mention D800 and 5D3For example it's not true that a 16mp P&S will have more resolution than a 12.8mp 5D. Does this Nokia 808 has more resolution than D800? LOL.
Really? Can you show some real world photos?
What's the standard of a GREAT photo? I have not seen any cameraphone takes GREAT photos on my standard of great photos.
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
It does, all the time (assuming a "proportional" AA filter and everything else the same).
It is like arguing that if A> B then it is not always true that A+x > B+x.
Human stupiduty frightens me.
chironNYC
Senior Member
Speaking for myself, I am impressed about a meeting with Ansel Adams to get advice about lenses for your new view camera. Sounds like a very nice memory to have.
On the argument--all I am saying is something that is actually non-controversial--more mpix don't always lead to higher resolution because of an enormous variety of factors that can limit the resolution that is actually achieved. This is no more than DPR said in its review of the d800 when they emphasized repeatedly that one needed to go to "inordinate lengths" of technique to achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY could produce. If you don't go to theose "inordinate lengths," you are unlikely to get the resolution, except on a hit-or-miss, lucky, low-percentage basis.
That is really all my post says.
Peter
On the argument--all I am saying is something that is actually non-controversial--more mpix don't always lead to higher resolution because of an enormous variety of factors that can limit the resolution that is actually achieved. This is no more than DPR said in its review of the d800 when they emphasized repeatedly that one needed to go to "inordinate lengths" of technique to achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY could produce. If you don't go to theose "inordinate lengths," you are unlikely to get the resolution, except on a hit-or-miss, lucky, low-percentage basis.
That is really all my post says.
--
Peter
Steve Ives
Senior Member
I just got a nice shot of a heron with my iPhone! (Lots of herons here in The Netherlands).
Steve
Steve
chironNYC wrote:
all I am saying is something that is actually non-controversial--more mpix don't always lead to higher resolution because of an enormous variety of factors that can limit the resolution that is actually achieved.
If that was all you were saying, then you’re right, it would not have
been controversial, it would have been stating the obvious. What you
also said was that:
"In such situations, the 5d3 will usually produce more actual
resolution in the final image and much more photographic flexibility
in getting the image you want in the first place."
And this is reason you are being dismissed - because it is physically
and mathematically impossible for the 5D3 to produce “more actual
resolution”.
All things being equal, 36 > 22 is true under all circumstances, even
if the difference are small. The worst case scenario is that the final
result will produce something that looks identical.
This is no more than DPR said in its review of the d800 when they emphasized repeatedly that one needed to go to "inordinate lengths" of technique to achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY could produce.
Your problem is that you're reading your extrapolating what DPR stated
in their conclusion. The fact you are so desperate to dismiss is that
one does not have to "achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY
could produce" to out resolve the 5D3. It will happen no matter what.
The other fact you repeatedly overlook is that the same "inordinate
lengths" are necessary to extract the best from the 5D3 – which is why
landscape photographers like Fred Miranda go to these "inordinate
lengths" to produce their images regardless of what camera they use.
What you're trying to convince others to accept is that unless the
D800 is shot on a tripod with MLU etc, then it won't out resolve the
5D3. No one is buying it because it’s false. That is why all 30+
responders to this thread are disagreeing with you – it’s not because
they are all Nikon trolls.
If you don't go to theose "inordinate lengths," you are unlikely to
get the resolution, except on a hit-or-miss, lucky, low-percentage
basis.
Again, the same is true for the 5D3. It is a physical certainty that
unless you go to those "inordinate lengths" with a 5D3, it will not
produce the best possible image the 5D3 sensor can resolve, and even
then, it will still be less than what the D800 can produce under the
same conditions.
No matter how many ways you try to spin it, under the same shooting
conditions, with comparable lenses, comparable technique, the D800
will ALWAYS produce more resolution than the 5D3. That's simply a
fact.
The sooner you come to terms with it, the better off you’ll be, and
the more time you’ll have to take photographs.
all I am saying is something that is actually non-controversial--more mpix don't always lead to higher resolution because of an enormous variety of factors that can limit the resolution that is actually achieved.
If that was all you were saying, then you’re right, it would not have
been controversial, it would have been stating the obvious. What you
also said was that:
"In such situations, the 5d3 will usually produce more actual
resolution in the final image and much more photographic flexibility
in getting the image you want in the first place."
And this is reason you are being dismissed - because it is physically
and mathematically impossible for the 5D3 to produce “more actual
resolution”.
All things being equal, 36 > 22 is true under all circumstances, even
if the difference are small. The worst case scenario is that the final
result will produce something that looks identical.
This is no more than DPR said in its review of the d800 when they emphasized repeatedly that one needed to go to "inordinate lengths" of technique to achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY could produce.
Your problem is that you're reading your extrapolating what DPR stated
in their conclusion. The fact you are so desperate to dismiss is that
one does not have to "achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY
could produce" to out resolve the 5D3. It will happen no matter what.
The other fact you repeatedly overlook is that the same "inordinate
lengths" are necessary to extract the best from the 5D3 – which is why
landscape photographers like Fred Miranda go to these "inordinate
lengths" to produce their images regardless of what camera they use.
What you're trying to convince others to accept is that unless the
D800 is shot on a tripod with MLU etc, then it won't out resolve the
5D3. No one is buying it because it’s false. That is why all 30+
responders to this thread are disagreeing with you – it’s not because
they are all Nikon trolls.
If you don't go to theose "inordinate lengths," you are unlikely to
get the resolution, except on a hit-or-miss, lucky, low-percentage
basis.
Again, the same is true for the 5D3. It is a physical certainty that
unless you go to those "inordinate lengths" with a 5D3, it will not
produce the best possible image the 5D3 sensor can resolve, and even
then, it will still be less than what the D800 can produce under the
same conditions.
No matter how many ways you try to spin it, under the same shooting
conditions, with comparable lenses, comparable technique, the D800
will ALWAYS produce more resolution than the 5D3. That's simply a
fact.
The sooner you come to terms with it, the better off you’ll be, and
the more time you’ll have to take photographs.
Peter you don't own a 5DIII and you don't own a D800.
The D800 outresolves the 5DIII. You need good technique to see it, but it's there. If you know what you're doing the D800 can deliver more detail and deal with crops better. Yes, to get the best from either camera you need very good technique. It's true, you're not saying anything new, but you're desperate to devalue what Nikon has done. It also delivers more detail at higher ISO's and gives more room for PP. Nothing new there either. If you don't need that extra bit of detail and DR, don't buy it.
Why is this so tough for you to accept?
S.
If that was all you were saying, then you’re right, it would not have
been controversial, it would have been stating the obvious. What you
also said was that:
"In such situations, the 5d3 will usually produce more actual
resolution in the final image and much more photographic flexibility
in getting the image you want in the first place."
And this is reason you are being dismissed - because it is physically
and mathematically impossible for the 5D3 to produce “more actual
resolution”.
All things being equal, 36 > 22 is true under all circumstances, even
if the difference are small. The worst case scenario is that the final
result will produce something that looks identical.
Your problem is that you're extrapolating what DPR stated
in their conclusion. The fact you are so desperate to dismiss is that
one does not have to "achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY
could produce" to out resolve the 5D3. It will happen no matter what.
The other fact you repeatedly overlook is that the same "inordinate
lengths" are necessary to extract the best from the 5D3 – which is why
landscape photographers like Fred Miranda go to these "inordinate
lengths" to produce their images regardless of what camera they use.
What you're trying to convince others to accept is that unless the
D800 is shot on a tripod with MLU etc, then it won't out resolve the
5D3. No one is buying it because it’s false. That is why all 30+
responders to this thread are disagreeing with you – it’s not because
they are all Nikon trolls.
get the resolution, except on a hit-or-miss, lucky, low-percentage
basis.
Again, the same is true for the 5D3. It is a physical certainty that
unless you go to those "inordinate lengths" with a 5D3, it will not
produce the best possible image the 5D3 sensor can resolve, and even
then, it will still be less than what the D800 can produce under the
same conditions.
No matter how many ways you try to spin it, under the same shooting
conditions, with comparable lenses, comparable technique, the D800
will ALWAYS produce more resolution than the 5D3. That's simply a
fact.
The sooner you come to terms with it, the better off you’ll be, and
the more time you’ll have to take photographs.
one needed to go to "inordinate lengths" of technique to achieve the resolution that the d800 POTENTIALLY could produce.> > >
Same as my 5DIII. I used identical technique with BOTH cameras and saw the D800's potential on many shots and many more shots where we cropped.
Why is this so hard for you to accept?
S.
Same as my 5DIII. I used identical technique with BOTH cameras and saw the D800's potential on many shots and many more shots where we cropped.
Why is this so hard for you to accept?
S.
It is a mistery isn't it SharoN?
Your conclusions are again reflected in these tests. No "inordinate lengths" of technique were used AFAIK.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=41524468
Yep.
no, no, no.
You cannot "lose" any shots to motion blur with a high megapixel camera that wouldn't have also been lost if using a low megapixel camera.
More megapixels does not automatically translate into more resolution, but it doesn't translate into less resolution either! you'll always do at least as well as the low MP camera, and sometimes much better.
10mp 1D3 from about 35 meters away under noon harsh contrasty light, cropped a bit of more than 50%.
or from 18mp 60D
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
or from 18mp 60D
--
http://qianp2k.zenfolio.com/
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum