If you pack more pixels into a given area five things happen :
- noise goes up - that's just plain old physics
- the file sizes go up - that's maths.
- bigger files = slower cameras and more storage. That's computer science.
- the level of real detail rarely increases, because physics doesn't work that way beyond a certain point - there are diminishing returns. Physics of light.
- the image doesn't get better because it's got more pixels. That's composition and emotional content which decides that.
• I've seen some pretty
compelling arguments that smaller pixels does not mean more noise... as long as you compare apples to apples and not 100% pixel level views, which is not how anyone will be enjoying the OP's prints.
Anyone looking for more megapixles is certainly someone obsessed with pixel level detail. It's
exactly the reason the OP gave ( viewing at 100% on these silly extreme res screens ).
And if teh OP accepts that the image as a whole is all that matters then the OP doesn't need all this resolution in the first place, because all he wants it for is to fill the screen at 1:! pixel ratios.
The one with more pixels will likely have less noise when printed at the same size, or downscaled to the same size as the 'fat pixel' version.
Which is drivel.
At best there will be no significant difference, but the mathematics and physics don't get that - they suggest more noise at low level results in more noise at a higher level.
Put simplistically averaging more but noisier data gets you a noisier average, not a better one.
But even if we accept your argument, it's all predicated on the assumption that the person seeking the higher pixel count won;t pixel peep. And as I've said it's
exactly what the OP wants to do.
• File size is irrelevant in 2014. You can fit 2000 full-res RAW files on a $50 card.
Processing it does not work that way.
Transferring the data does not work that way.
Downloading it from the cloud does not work that way.
It ALL gets slower when the files get bigger.
It's not the card that's the issue, although it's worth remembering that only the most expensive cameras tend to have fast internal and external data buses to handle fast data transfers, so the more pixels you pop in, the slower it gets.
And note that noisy images don't compress well. So you get bigger files from noisier smaller pixels as well.
And he's not shooting action photography where he needs maximum FPS.
That's not the issue. You're not thinking about complete workflow.
However, I don't actually know the OP ( or others ) don't want to shoot at high frame rates.
• The level of detail doesn't increase? My understanding is that many lenses outresolve what a typical 20 megapixel sensor can capture.
DXO's chart seems to be saying that many lenses are projecting 24, 26, even 30 megapixels of detail. Put one of these lenses on, say, a d4s and then on a d800E, and shoot the same scene with comparable settings and processing. Will the level of detail not be better on the d800E?
Remember that lens tests are done in labs.
Your core assumption ( lens out-resolves sensor ) is not true. You need a combination of exceptional glass and superb technique to get the extra detail we;re talking about.
And you can't even get that at outside of specific apertures and not generally across the frame.
I've no idea why people obsess over this detail anyway. You compose and frame for image as a whole and then you worry about pixels you can't make out with the naked eye.
As for the D4 vs. D800E, I think the fact that pros were happy when Nikon did not go crazy with megapizels speaks for itself. Very few people really need those extra pixels. Amateurs are wild for them, but they're next to useless ( or worse than useless ) to most pros, if truth be told.
• "Better gear won't make you a better photographer" is kind of a tiresome argument that contributes nothing to the discussion.
It focuses photography where it should be : on images as a whole and not on irrelevant pixels.
Nobody said it would. But better gear certainly gives you more opportunities to make a great photo.
No it doesn't. Unless it comes with a travel pass and an ID that gets you places you can't get otherwise.
If my sensor can't capture the dynamic range in a scene, no amount of photographic skill will fix that.
And adding more pixels won;t increase dynamic range. So you can stop there.
So potentially great shots (that are well composed and stir the emotions) are lost because I had to pack up my camera and go home... because my gear couldn't do justice to the scene in front of me.
And because you've no idea how to shoot with the right technique to overcome these issues.
