Reading mode: Light Dark

MP Mega Pixels vs ...., What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
Gerry Winterbourne said:
En Trance said:
IMO, Resolution or MP Rating, is the single most important aspect of Digital Photography.
Click to expand...
Well, as it's your opinion that's fine, and you're welcome to it ...
Gerry Winterbourne said:
It is well beyond any logical reason that I can insert as a counter.
Click to expand...
... but there are lots of factors in digital photography - or, indeed, in photography in general - that are just as important. To understand the truth of that, just consider a high-MP camera that has poor performance in for example:

Dynamic range: if the sensor can show only (say) 4EV of DR much of the value of all those MP is lost. [And note that your response elsewhere in the thread that "DR is a problem for makers to solve" is irrelevant to how important it is. When digital cameras had only 1MP increased MP count was a problem for makers to solve.]

Colour range. No use having lots of MPs if the camera is blind to half the visible spectrum.

Colour fidelity. No use having lots of MPs that can cover the visible spectrum if the colours are wrong.

Lens resolution. No use having a high-resolution sensor if the lens projects mush onto it.

The only logical way of looking at these things is that a good camera needs the right balance between all of the factors, with none of them being pre-eminent.
Click to expand...
 
knickerhawk said:
En Trance said:
IMOP, Resolution or MP Rating, is the single most important aspect of Digital Photography. It is well beyond any logical reason that I can insert as a counter. Our photographs are composed of the discrete pixels. I am reminded of that in every case when I am editing pictures. When we blow up an image to edit blemishes, we are looking directly at pixels of color that our cameras have created to represent the light that passes through the lens. I see the limit of current technology every single day. Most of my Models have lips, LOL. I have greater ability to edit when I have more pixels representing the same light as having fewer pixels. I am splitting hairs and I am doing it with pixels, always.

With that, the sensor is positively the HEART of our Digital Cameras. I am so sick of all of the FanBoy Supporters of inferior technology, which repulses me. Are people so naïve that adults can't see that the MP Opponents are merely attempting to provide cover for their favorite manufacturer's sub-standard sensor design? Yes the MP war is ON, and it is to the benefit of the Industry. Sure the race to produce sensors with greater pixel density has many obstacles and may in fact negatively impact other aspects of camera design. But those challenges are squarely for the manufacturers. I would like to reap the benefits of there efforts in lieu of hiding in the shadows of their incompetence. So give me more, and more MP!

The FanBoys love to stitch a Tale of Lens Resolving Power, a created design factor, as if it is somehow relevant. Get this, "Sensors receive light after the Lens". The lens has no idea which sensor is digitizing its very passive output. You seriously have the cart before the horse. No matter the output of any lens, it is preferable to digitize it with 10MP than 5MP (I know they will attack this) any and every day. Yes give me 500 pixels on a blemish instead of 250 pixels and I will thank you with a camera purchase. This is true no matter how low the DPI of your FAX Machines and Dot Matrix Printers that you use to submit your work to magazines, LOL.

Peek at this:

PUNDA!

Playing around, stitching together a panorama of a famous view from Otrobanda. 4MP! My dividing line was on the extreme right edge of the pink building. I needed smaller pixels. (More Density)
Playing around, stitching together a panorama of a famous view from Otrobanda. 4MP! My dividing line was on the extreme right edge of the pink building. I needed smaller pixels. (More Density)
Click to expand...
Are you seriously contending that smaller pixels would have made the stitch work better? If so, I'd say that what you need is more processing skills, not more megapixels.
Click to expand...
I used a vacation pic shot with a 4MP sensor shot across st Anna's bay with a low res setting to show you the scarce number of pixels that make up one of the buildings, say 20 pixels give or take. What I am saying is that with 40 pixels, I could have more choices while stitching. Use your imagination and interpolate to 40MP.
 
No, it is the lens... Alongside with other things. Its the sum of all and there is no real most important part. It depends on subject, situation, photography style and more. You can have beatiful images with 6mp camera and high quality lens. But it would look bad, if you have crap lens nd 24mp. Then the sensor can just save 24mp of crap vs 6mp of beatiful mp.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.
 
AlphaTikal said:
No, it is the lens... Alongside with other things. Its the sum of all and there is no real most important part. It depends on subject, situation, photography style and more. You can have beatiful images with 6mp camera and high quality lens. But it would look bad, if you have crap lens nd 24mp. Then the sensor can just save 24mp of crap vs 6mp of beatiful mp.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.
Click to expand...
Sorry kind Sir, but lenses are the clearly Non-Digital part of our cameras. Once again I suggest that you turn your argument around and argue which camera provides the best image from the absolutely poorest lens that the Devil ever made. The fact that the better camera gives better images for poor lenses and heavenly lenses, goes directly away from your argument. To put it another way, lenses are passive input devices and cameras are converters and output devices. Don't fall into the lens resolving power trap. It is falsehood!
 
Last edited:
En Trance said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
En Trance said:
IMO, Resolution or MP Rating, is the single most important aspect of Digital Photography.
Click to expand...
Well, as it's your opinion that's fine, and you're welcome to it ...
En Trance said:
It is well beyond any logical reason that I can insert as a counter.
Click to expand...
... but there are lots of factors in digital photography - or, indeed, in photography in general - that are just as important. To understand the truth of that, just consider a high-MP camera that has poor performance in for example:

Dynamic range: if the sensor can show only (say) 4EV of DR much of the value of all those MP is lost. [And note that your response elsewhere in the thread that "DR is a problem for makers to solve" is irrelevant to how important it is. When digital cameras had only 1MP increased MP count was a problem for makers to solve.]

Colour range. No use having lots of MPs if the camera is blind to half the visible spectrum.

Colour fidelity. No use having lots of MPs that can cover the visible spectrum if the colours are wrong.

Lens resolution. No use having a high-resolution sensor if the lens projects mush onto it.

The only logical way of looking at these things is that a good camera needs the right balance between all of the factors, with none of them being pre-eminent.
Click to expand...
Turn that argument around to one where the shortcomings that you have listed are solved by a manufacturer that is eager to please you, instead of one eager to deceive you.
Click to expand...
My argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the motivation or morals of any manufacturer. It considers nothing more or less than the importance of a number of factors, each of which can mar photographs if not sufficient.

If you think any of this is affected by the motivation of a manufacturer you are dreaming. The most evil, deceitful manufacturer in the world might produce an excellent camera; the most benevolent might produce a technological failure.
En Trance said:
You might get on to some splendid shooting!
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, I have taken care to ensure that my equipment is balanced and I do plenty of splendid shooting ...

... which, in case you are tempted to raise the point, is no less splendid because I choose not to use the rather weak DPR method of putting my photos on line.
 
That is your opinion. Turn your argument this way: "Don't trap into mp trap. It is wrong." Resolution is not the most important aspect of camera. Look at Sonys A7r with 36mp without AA filter and the A7s, with only 12mp. Both have different strenght. One have better results at low iso and the other in high iso. Also for higher mp count it is needed to work very careful.

MP count is not the most single important thing of camera.

Why lower mp count helps: For some people the buffer and speed of camera at sport shootings is more important. Others enjoy the low light ability of lower mp from same generation nd sensor size.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.
 
En Trance said:
knickerhawk said:
En Trance said:
IMOP, Resolution or MP Rating, is the single most important aspect of Digital Photography. It is well beyond any logical reason that I can insert as a counter. Our photographs are composed of the discrete pixels. I am reminded of that in every case when I am editing pictures. When we blow up an image to edit blemishes, we are looking directly at pixels of color that our cameras have created to represent the light that passes through the lens. I see the limit of current technology every single day. Most of my Models have lips, LOL. I have greater ability to edit when I have more pixels representing the same light as having fewer pixels. I am splitting hairs and I am doing it with pixels, always.

With that, the sensor is positively the HEART of our Digital Cameras. I am so sick of all of the FanBoy Supporters of inferior technology, which repulses me. Are people so naïve that adults can't see that the MP Opponents are merely attempting to provide cover for their favorite manufacturer's sub-standard sensor design? Yes the MP war is ON, and it is to the benefit of the Industry. Sure the race to produce sensors with greater pixel density has many obstacles and may in fact negatively impact other aspects of camera design. But those challenges are squarely for the manufacturers. I would like to reap the benefits of there efforts in lieu of hiding in the shadows of their incompetence. So give me more, and more MP!

The FanBoys love to stitch a Tale of Lens Resolving Power, a created design factor, as if it is somehow relevant. Get this, "Sensors receive light after the Lens". The lens has no idea which sensor is digitizing its very passive output. You seriously have the cart before the horse. No matter the output of any lens, it is preferable to digitize it with 10MP than 5MP (I know they will attack this) any and every day. Yes give me 500 pixels on a blemish instead of 250 pixels and I will thank you with a camera purchase. This is true no matter how low the DPI of your FAX Machines and Dot Matrix Printers that you use to submit your work to magazines, LOL.

Peek at this:

PUNDA!

Playing around, stitching together a panorama of a famous view from Otrobanda. 4MP! My dividing line was on the extreme right edge of the pink building. I needed smaller pixels. (More Density)
Playing around, stitching together a panorama of a famous view from Otrobanda. 4MP! My dividing line was on the extreme right edge of the pink building. I needed smaller pixels. (More Density)
Click to expand...
Are you seriously contending that smaller pixels would have made the stitch work better? If so, I'd say that what you need is more processing skills, not more megapixels.
Click to expand...
I used a vacation pic shot with a 4MP sensor shot across st Anna's bay with a low res setting to show you the scarce number of pixels that make up one of the buildings, say 20 pixels give or take. What I am saying is that with 40 pixels, I could have more choices while stitching. Use your imagination and interpolate to 40MP.
Click to expand...
First of all, the pink building is roughly 60x90 pixels or about 5400 pixels in total. Secondly, what difference would more pixels make with respect to "choices" about stitching? The problem with your stitch is the obvious difference in the color of the water that makes the border obvious. This has nothing to do with the number of pixels being stitched. You could have been stitching a couple of D810 images and it would still look crappy if the color is off like it is here. What you've actually demonstrated rather nicely is that putting a camera with more pixels in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing isn't going to result in better pictures.
 
Last edited:
Content.
 
En Trance said:
I agree with you and have great respect of your response. Thank you! But I am betting that a great deal of your satisfaction should be credited to your ability and techniques developed with the lowly 1D.
Click to expand...
Thanks :) The 1D wasn't my first camera so some skills were developed on lower bodies, but that's beside the point...
En Trance said:
It is almost embarrassing that the Latest Rebel has better MP Rating than the $SixMillionDollar 1D. Or was that $8Mil?
Click to expand...
It is if you consider mp as the only relevant measure. On the other side, if the action is too fast or if the weather is too harsh or if you prefer FF sensors or if you don't like tunnel-like viewfinders or ... If you cannot take the photo properly because of such factors, then no amount of additional mp will make up for it. And therefore I won't feel particularly embarrassed. The 1D X wasn't the highest-mp Canon body when I bought it and I do not regret my choice one bit.

In the same guise no amount of mp will make up for a photo being uninspiring. Having said so, I agree that all else being equal, the more mp the better
 
roby17269 said:
En Trance said:
I agree with you and have great respect of your response. Thank you! But I am betting that a great deal of your satisfaction should be credited to your ability and techniques developed with the lowly 1D.
Click to expand...
Thanks :) The 1D wasn't my first camera so some skills were developed on lower bodies, but that's beside the point...
roby17269 said:
It is almost embarrassing that the Latest Rebel has better MP Rating than the $SixMillionDollar 1D. Or was that $8Mil?
Click to expand...
It is if you consider mp as the only relevant measure. On the other side, if the action is too fast or if the weather is too harsh or if you prefer FF sensors or if you don't like tunnel-like viewfinders or ... If you cannot take the photo properly because of such factors, then no amount of additional mp will make up for it. And therefore I won't feel particularly embarrassed. The 1D X wasn't the highest-mp Canon body when I bought it and I do not regret my choice one bit.

In the same guise no amount of mp will make up for a photo being uninspiring. Having said so, I agree that all else being equal, the more mp the better
Click to expand...
 
Gerry Winterbourne said:
En Trance said:
Gerry Winterbourne said:
En Trance said:
IMO, Resolution or MP Rating, is the single most important aspect of Digital Photography.
Click to expand...
Well, as it's your opinion that's fine, and you're welcome to it ...
Gerry Winterbourne said:
It is well beyond any logical reason that I can insert as a counter.
Click to expand...
... but there are lots of factors in digital photography - or, indeed, in photography in general - that are just as important. To understand the truth of that, just consider a high-MP camera that has poor performance in for example:

Dynamic range: if the sensor can show only (say) 4EV of DR much of the value of all those MP is lost. [And note that your response elsewhere in the thread that "DR is a problem for makers to solve" is irrelevant to how important it is. When digital cameras had only 1MP increased MP count was a problem for makers to solve.]

Colour range. No use having lots of MPs if the camera is blind to half the visible spectrum.

Colour fidelity. No use having lots of MPs that can cover the visible spectrum if the colours are wrong.

Lens resolution. No use having a high-resolution sensor if the lens projects mush onto it.

The only logical way of looking at these things is that a good camera needs the right balance between all of the factors, with none of them being pre-eminent.
Click to expand...
Turn that argument around to one where the shortcomings that you have listed are solved by a manufacturer that is eager to please you, instead of one eager to deceive you.
Click to expand...
My argument has nothing whatsoever to do with the motivation or morals of any manufacturer. It considers nothing more or less than the importance of a number of factors, each of which can mar photographs if not sufficient.

If you think any of this is affected by the motivation of a manufacturer you are dreaming. The most evil, deceitful manufacturer in the world might produce an excellent camera; the most benevolent might produce a technological failure.
Gerry Winterbourne said:
You might get on to some splendid shooting!
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, I have taken care to ensure that my equipment is balanced and I do plenty of splendid shooting ...

... which, in case you are tempted to raise the point, is no less splendid because I choose not to use the rather weak DPR method of putting my photos on line.
Click to expand...
 
AlphaTikal said:
That is your opinion. Turn your argument this way: "Don't trap into mp trap. It is wrong." Resolution is not the most important aspect of camera. Look at Sonys A7r with 36mp without AA filter and the A7s, with only 12mp. Both have different strenght. One have better results at low iso and the other in high iso. Also for higher mp count it is needed to work very careful.

MP count is not the most single important thing of camera.

Why lower mp count helps: For some people the buffer and speed of camera at sport shootings is more important. Others enjoy the low light ability of lower mp from same generation nd sensor size.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.
Click to expand...
No, for some manufacturers and equipment, the buffer has not been sufficiently designed for the high MP count.

If you continue to let the manufacturer get away with incompetent design, then that is where you will be. That is why you see Canon trying to sell you a new and improved mirror slow slapping mechanism. It is because you have not refused to buy a mirror in the year 2015!
 
You seemed to have just said that a blurry, low quality lenses will look better with a 100MP sensor than a 10MP one.

I don't think English or Science are your primary languages.
 
J A C S said:
En Trance said:
IMOP, Resolution or MP Rating, is the single most important aspect of Digital Photography.
Click to expand...
IMO, mp count is the least important aspect. It is still important, though.

15950765313_682af1033f_h.jpg
Click to expand...
Very nice picture. Beautiful place and people. My favorite actually. But I think the point of the pic is, "My pic is better than your pic" and the reason is what? I took the oldest, lowest resolution pic that I had, shot 5 years ago with a pocket 4MP cybershot, on the lowest resolution setting, to get very low pixel count. If you think that MP Count is Least important, then I am sure that you have personal reasons for that
 
tko said:
You seemed to have just said that a blurry, low quality lenses will look better with a 100MP sensor than a 10MP one.

I don't think English or Science are your primary languages.

--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak
Click to expand...
Whatever the lens input, the 100MP sensor will represent it better than the 10MP sensor. Hope that helps you move your argument along.
 
Last edited:
En Trance said:
J A C S said:
En Trance said:
IMOP, Resolution or MP Rating, is the single most important aspect of Digital Photography.
Click to expand...
IMO, mp count is the least important aspect. It is still important, though.

15950765313_682af1033f_h.jpg
Click to expand...
Very nice picture. Beautiful place and people. My favorite actually. But I think the point of the pic is, "My pic is better than your pic" and the reason is what? I took the oldest, lowest resolution pic that I had, shot 5 years ago with a pocket 4MP cybershot, on the lowest resolution setting, to get very low pixel count. If you think that MP Count is Least important, then I am sure that you have personal reasons for that
Click to expand...
here is one of the source images for my stitched panorama with meta data. unfortunately, I was not into photography in 2010 when I traveled to Curacao 20 times. Didn't start shooting til the Summer of 2011.

0ac7c050e2734135bbf696ade86bb73f.jpg

It is 0.307MP
 
Last edited:
You just said it yourself. Mp count does not help, if other specs are lacking. So why is mp the most important and not the buffer or other spec for a given job? You see, all specs are forming an image and are important. Not onöy that single one you picked up randomly.
 
Thats not true. If you shoot high iso with Sony A7s, you get better image quality than normal A7. Also lower mp count helps to operate and shoot faster on bursts.
--
· http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackhole_eater/
· (All photos are creative common licensed. Check them out.)
· English is not my native language.
 
En Trance said:
here is one of the source images for my stitched panorama with meta data. unfortunately, I was not into photography in 2010 when I traveled to Curacao 20 times. Didn't start shooting til the Summer of 2011.
Click to expand...
That 3.5 years of experience certainly makes you quite the authority.

--

...Bob, NYC
www.flickr.com

Bobo Hodls

Explore Bobo Hodls’s 5,812 photos on Flickr!
www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top