Anyone NOT want more MP..

Peter (B) · May 23, 2003

Bill Gates said that 256k was all you would EVER need.

For me personally I will replace my D60 once there is a FF ± 20MP ± 8 fps camera with less noise at ISO 3200 then my D60 has at ISO 400. Build quality should be comparable to the 1 series.

GR said:
But, no one would ever consider 64k now to be enough memory for a
computer. In the future the cameras we currently use will be
considered ancient and archaic. The only thing certain in life is
change. Embrace it.

--
In the beginning there was nothing, and then even that exploded.
If you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Stanley Allen · May 23, 2003

For example, when Canon comes out with a digital version of the Rebel G, the price might be $450-$550, the sensor might be 3.2 mp, and the iso range might top out at 400. The A70 has these limitations.

Canon and Nikon survive by producing multiple levels of crippled products to appeal to different market segments. Each of them probably have maps of future digital SLRs at different price/feature points to match their current range of film SLRs.

Joe B. said:
in upcoming Canon SLRs? After going from a D30 to a 10D, I don't
think I can deal with anything higher than 6mp.

Stanley

Stanley Allen · May 23, 2003

Mishkin said:
You can print an impressive 13x19" at 150dpi with 6MP.
You can print a stunning 26x38" at the same 150dpi with 25MP.

You would be stunned if you saw the 24x36" print that jumbogiant made from my 3.5 MP image.

I can only imagine what they could do with 6.3 MP.

Stanley

Mike Fulton · May 23, 2003

Dave Knadler said:
...for what I do. Give me more dynamic range, higher ISOs and less
noise. I don't need more pixels.

The question wasn't about trading off dynamic range, ISO speed, or noise, for pixels. If those other things aren't an issue, then how many pixels do you want?

As with any other form of digital capture, if you really want to get the maximum image quality, you've got to super sample the image. That means that the sample rate has to be more than double the frequency of what you're capturing.

Anything less, and you're not getting the best image available.

With the 14N or 1Ds, we're at the point now where we're getting about 70% of the resolution that a good lens can produce. It's important to keep in mind, however, that the better it gets, the harder it becomes to detect improvements. You can see the difference between 2mp and 3mp easier than you can between 10mp and 15mp.

Mike

Zsolt Steve Kigyossy · May 23, 2003

I would love to know, how to prove this empirically.

The trends:

First series EOS L zooms (20-35L, 28-80L and 80-200L) have not been replaced because the following set of zooms was sharper, more contrasty, better build or have less distortion. They have been replaced, because the 20mm was simply not wide enough, USM was introduced, they wanted flat 2,8 speed and converter compatibility (and better looking lenses )

People who bought the 1Ds replacing their second series L zooms as well (or feeling more confident with primes). The new 16-35L and 24-70L are sharper lenses then their predecessors and the 1Ds shows.

I am not worried about the present, but in 2-3 years 2-10 times higher res imaging chips shall be affordable (plus affordable computing power), but lens technology (save new coatings) generally have not improved in the last 50 years.

IMHO for more 'quality' pixels, we will have to spend more not only on new body and more powerful PCs, drives, but on new lenses as well!

Peace,
Zsolt

Mishkin said:
Zsolt Steve Kigyossy said:

The 1Ds made it
obvious, that we have reached the resolution limits of standard
35mm lenses (L zooms certainly).

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to prove this statement?

davve · May 23, 2003

Hello

I feel that it is important to have clean high ISO for high pixel dslrs. The general rule of shutter speed for handholding is directly related to the number of pixels and the focal length. It used to be just focal length, not anymore. If only ISO 3200 has a noise level similar to a D60 ISO 400...

Robert P Miller said:
I have been noticing more unusable pictures to my eye as my MP
increased due to what seems like camera shake. I started with
consumer 2MP and worked up to the 10D.
The other night I took some pictures of a fire truck at twilight
both with my 24-70 Canon and 75-300 Canon IS. Nothing scientific. I
was not testing anything, but ended up taking almost the same shot
with both lenses on my 10D. The IS shots were clear while the 24-70
seemed OOF and soft. I think the IS helped reduce camera shake most
other things being equal.

Of course I used a larger aperture with the 24-70, so a softer
image was likely. I am still not thrilled with the 24-70 though.
Focus seems off more than it should be. I just do not want to start
taking pictures of rulers quite yet. But it may come to
that...................
I am now always trying to use higher shutter speeds than I was used
to using with my Contax film cameras. The results get better the
higher the shutter speed. Thankfully the higher ISOs are usable in
the 10D. My default without a tripod is getting to be ISO 400 and
often 800. Several posters feel the 10D's noise at 800 is equal to
the E-20's at ISO 80. Having come from the E-20, I can agree.
I have also read several threads on pixel size and density. These
variables do seem to play some part in the perception of camera
shake. I also think now that we can blow images up by hundreds of %
easily on our PCs, we are looking for and are able to notice these
things more than in the smaller prints many of us were handed in
our film days.
Best,
Robert

beluga · May 23, 2003

Think of it this way. The more mega pixel, the higher magnification. So, if you upgrade from 6 mp to 10 mp, that's a 30% increment in equivalent zooming. So, your 200 mm lens will effectively become 300 mm...

Alashi · May 23, 2003

In a few years, it will be immaterial. You'll have the equivalent of a hundred or more MP's and massive new storage to make this fact trivial. Then, we will all concentrate on our photography again, and the newest 'toy' factor will wane. Lenses will also have to improve dramatically, as will the computer's processing power (for us PS users).

It's a fun road though, isn't it?!

Alashi

PS: WIll my 1Ds still have a dust problem???

Joe B. said:
in upcoming Canon SLRs? After going from a D30 to a 10D, I don't
think I can deal with anything higher than 6mp. And honestly, I
think 6 may be a bit overkill.

I dont really care about being able to cut and crop afterward as I
aim to do most of my composition thru the viewfinder.. These giant
files are slow to work with and huge in size.

I see the future just bringing higher and higher resolutions..
Many are predicting 8mp for the next camera.. What am I gonna do
with 8mp.. 10.. 15.. 20 MP in consumer cams by 2005? I think 4-6
MP is the sweet spot. Cant see the use of anything higher (ok
maybe for pros and magazines, etc.. before you flame)..

--
Joe B.
http://www.pbase.com/joebar

Graf · May 23, 2003

picnet said:
Blown highlights ? what are those?

-Mike.

Joe B. said:

in upcoming Canon SLRs? After going from a D30 to a 10D, I don't
think I can deal with anything higher than 6mp. And honestly, I
think 6 may be a bit overkill.

I dont really care about being able to cut and crop afterward as I
aim to do most of my composition thru the viewfinder.. These giant
files are slow to work with and huge in size.

I see the future just bringing higher and higher resolutions..
Many are predicting 8mp for the next camera.. What am I gonna do
with 8mp.. 10.. 15.. 20 MP in consumer cams by 2005? I think 4-6
MP is the sweet spot. Cant see the use of anything higher (ok
maybe for pros and magazines, etc.. before you flame)..

--
Joe B.
http://www.pbase.com/joebar

Click to expand...

--
WBR,
Graf

Mike Fulton · May 24, 2003

Peter Holness said:
Mishkin said:

for 1/1/2010, with a text, "So you said in 2003 you don't want more
MP... feeling silly now?"

Click to expand...

Well, if you're still using Outlook in 2010 then I guess the number
of pixels in your images is the least of your worries....

Pete

Obviously your remark was made (at least somewhat) tongue in cheek, but let's look at this idea seriously for a moment.

Like many others, I started using Outlook in 1995 when Office 95 came out. That was almost 8 years ago. Since then we've gone through Office 98, 2000, and now we're on Office XP, with a new upgrade expected soon. It's 2003 and 2010 is just 6-1/2 years away.

Or put another way, it's 2 or 3 upgrades from now.

Certainly, there are some users who will find alternatives. There's probably a lot of potential in the various Open Source clones of MS Office that it's reasonable to think that they might grab some converts who are looking to save money, or who just don't like Microsoft.

But I'll bet you a dollar that most people using Outlook today will still be using it in 2010, unless they've switched to a platform where it's not available.

Or, unless there's some big paradigm shift caused by some big breakthrough in artificial intelligence. Something like that could have a huge impact on a program like Outlook, so there would easily be room for new players to come in and grab a lot of market share.

Mike

Yakuza! · May 24, 2003

A 2.2 GHZ AMD is MUCH slower than a Dual 1GHZ G4 (for Photoshop, film, etc.). The G4's altivec engine processes data in 128-bit chunks (unlike you're 32-bit chunk AMD). Also, the G4 uses vector processing, which processes multiple pixels at a time (like 3, 5, 7, etc). Your AMD processes your files ONE pixel at a time. And, as I mentioned before, the IBM 970 comes out this July. It BLOWS away the G4, and all other desktop CPU's for that matter. It's also 64-bit (as opposed to all current desktop systems which are 32-bit). And, the frontside bus is 900MHZ. Yeah, that's right, 900 freakin MHZ.

The frontside bus on my year-and-a-half old G4 is a measely 133MHZ. Your AMD is 266 (right?). The P4 has a 400MHZ FSB, but the P4 does not efficiently use that. The 970 is the god of chips. If you're interested in CPU architecture, visit ARStechnica, and read all about it.

Without a doubt, AMD's are the best priced systems out there. For $250 you can get a complete 2500XP system. But for pros, there is no comparison to the PowerMac. Heads will really turn at MacWorld this July.

-Andrew

Derekasaurus Rex said:
I have a 2.2GHz AMD box with a gig of memory and 333MHz FSB. Hardly
state of the art, but no slouch either. It still takes several
minutes (!) to apply advanced noise reducation (via Neat Image) to
one of those "joke" 18mb files. And even basic RAW conversion takes
a few seconds per file, 10+ seconds if I do anything really fancy
like filtering or noise reduction. Sure, I have a few hundred
gigabytes of storage (FireWire and USB2) to move those files around
like they are nothing, but actually doing non-trivial work on even
6mp (18mb) files is still time consuming.

Yakuza! said:

...you need a faster computer. You can put together a 2.4GHZ
package with 768MB of DDR ram for well under $500. I was lucky, and
given a Dual 1GHZ G4 from a friend. It is blazingly fast. I can
toss 1500MB files around like they are nothing. An 18.1 MB file is
a joke. My standard size file is no less than 150MB. And for those
who want a truly fast machine, Apple will release the 970 this
summer!!! But, for those on an extreme budget, nothing beats AMD.

-Andrew

Click to expand...

Andrew McCoy · May 24, 2003

Beth,

How's Maine? I was a little disapointed when you said you were moving. I loved you pictures of Pittsburgh and was looking forward to meeting you someday. But, I understand the idea of wanting to go home to New England. I will be very happy to be back home in Western Pa soon. We will be closing on a house in Slippery Rock in middle of June. One tidbit, I got my D10 with 28-70L last week. Boy am I going to have a learning curve.

Drew(oly 3040 from NE Pa)

Beth said:
Beth

Chris Fichera said:

Hi Joe,

I went from a D30 to the D60 to the 1D. People thought I was crazy
taking a step back in mp. But I shoot 95% Sports and Auto Action.
So I needed the AF and speed of the 1D more than the mp. Plus I
like the 1.3x better than the 1.6x of the D30/D60/10D.

So for me...the 1D is just what I need. 4.1mp is enough for me to
print up to 20x30. Eventhough I have only printed 13x19. And I
was totally impressed. So was the parents of the athlete that I
photographed.

So, I don't think I would jump...even if the next camera was a 1D
with 8-11mp. Like you said the files are huge. The D60 files were
huge...I can't even imaging a 11mp.

Well, that is my 2 cents worth.

--
Peace,

Chris
Equipment list in profile.

Click to expand...

--
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

a person · May 24, 2003

Nothing wrong with the ability to shoot large if you want, but unless you want to buy the Kodak beast, you can only shoot RAW at full resolution. I wouldn't mind having an 11 or 16 MP camera, if I could shoot RAW at 8 fps at 4MP if I so choose. Plus more DR and better noise improvement. That would be one killer camera. But until then the 1D suits my needs well.

-Ken

--
http://www.kennethturley.com
http://www.pbase.com/mistereman

Paul Stimac · May 24, 2003

I want more ....

Joe B. said:
in upcoming Canon SLRs? After going from a D30 to a 10D, I don't
think I can deal with anything higher than 6mp. And honestly, I
think 6 may be a bit overkill.

I dont really care about being able to cut and crop afterward as I
aim to do most of my composition thru the viewfinder.. These giant
files are slow to work with and huge in size.

I see the future just bringing higher and higher resolutions..
Many are predicting 8mp for the next camera.. What am I gonna do
with 8mp.. 10.. 15.. 20 MP in consumer cams by 2005? I think 4-6
MP is the sweet spot. Cant see the use of anything higher (ok
maybe for pros and magazines, etc.. before you flame)..

--
Joe B.
http://www.pbase.com/joebar

Derekasaurus Rex · May 24, 2003

Sure, my AMD setup is slower than a dual G4. But not enough to make processing 16-bit, 6 megapixel files trivial. Even if a dual G4 was 10x faster than my box, it would still take 12 seconds (it takes 120+ seconds now!) to run a Neat Image noise reduction, or 2+ seconds to RAW convert. Not exactly instant. And I'm pretty sure the G4 isn't 10x faster.

Plus, I don't just use Photoshop. Some of my other software tools don't take advantage of muliple processors and architecture features that would make them run faster.

My point is only this: dealing with 6mp files can be less than a breeze, even with the best hardware available. And most digital shooters don't have the best hardware available. My wallet is only so deep. I will probably upgrade my 6mp DSLR before I upgrade my PC, and I don't look forward to dealing with the larger files.

Yakuza! said:
The frontside bus on my year-and-a-half old G4 is a measely 133MHZ.
Your AMD is 266 (right?). The P4 has a 400MHZ FSB, but the P4 does
not efficiently use that. The 970 is the god of chips. If you're
interested in CPU architecture, visit ARStechnica, and read all
about it.

Without a doubt, AMD's are the best priced systems out there. For
$250 you can get a complete 2500XP system. But for pros, there is
no comparison to the PowerMac. Heads will really turn at MacWorld
this July.

-Andrew

Derekasaurus Rex said:

I have a 2.2GHz AMD box with a gig of memory and 333MHz FSB. Hardly
state of the art, but no slouch either. It still takes several
minutes (!) to apply advanced noise reducation (via Neat Image) to
one of those "joke" 18mb files. And even basic RAW conversion takes
a few seconds per file, 10+ seconds if I do anything really fancy
like filtering or noise reduction. Sure, I have a few hundred
gigabytes of storage (FireWire and USB2) to move those files around
like they are nothing, but actually doing non-trivial work on even
6mp (18mb) files is still time consuming.

Yakuza! said:

...you need a faster computer. You can put together a 2.4GHZ
package with 768MB of DDR ram for well under $500. I was lucky, and
given a Dual 1GHZ G4 from a friend. It is blazingly fast. I can
toss 1500MB files around like they are nothing. An 18.1 MB file is
a joke. My standard size file is no less than 150MB. And for those
who want a truly fast machine, Apple will release the 970 this
summer!!! But, for those on an extreme budget, nothing beats AMD.

-Andrew

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Troponin · May 24, 2003

I don't want to be accused of being a dinosaur--- holding back evolution.

Joe B. said:
in upcoming Canon SLRs? After going from a D30 to a 10D, I don't
think I can deal with anything higher than 6mp. And honestly, I
think 6 may be a bit overkill.

I dont really care about being able to cut and crop afterward as I
aim to do most of my composition thru the viewfinder.. These giant
files are slow to work with and huge in size.

I see the future just bringing higher and higher resolutions..
Many are predicting 8mp for the next camera.. What am I gonna do
with 8mp.. 10.. 15.. 20 MP in consumer cams by 2005? I think 4-6
MP is the sweet spot. Cant see the use of anything higher (ok
maybe for pros and magazines, etc.. before you flame)..

--
Joe B.
http://www.pbase.com/joebar

--
Troponin (Trop)

Search

Anyone NOT want more MP..

Peter (B)

Forum Enthusiast

Stanley Allen

Well-known member

Stanley Allen

Well-known member

Mike Fulton

Senior Member

Zsolt Steve Kigyossy

New member

davve

Leading Member

beluga

Forum Enthusiast

Alashi

Leading Member

Graf

Member

Mike Fulton

Senior Member

Yakuza!

Well-known member

Andrew McCoy

Active member

a person

Senior Member

Paul Stimac

Well-known member

Derekasaurus Rex

Veteran Member

Troponin

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts