Reading mode: Light Dark

this is why 20MP is not enough

Go to last post
If 20mp is not enough, there are lots of options.

You can shoot High Res.
You can stitch.

Or, you can buy a high MP camera body…there are a lot of options. I have a Z7 II (and Z6 II), along with 7 Z mount lenses and 9 F mount lenses. I can get lots of MP from that system.

But I shoot Olympus 75% of the time, and Panasonic (for video) 10% of the time. When I get my OM-1, I expect my Olympus percentage to go up.

Cameras are toys or tools, either way if they don’t do what you want in the way that you want, replace them. Life is too short to just complain; especially in the face of evidence that it won’t get you what you want.
 
Last edited:
Jonas Palm said:
Raist3d said:
Funny Valentine said:
Here take a look at how a 20MP photo looks like on a 16-inch 3456 x 2234 resolution display

full screen
full screen

at 1:1 pixel
at 1:1 pixel

11823c9919d64d2ca73afef5b7ce9583.jpg.png

You get the point right ? just a little zooming and you quickly go below the native resolution of the monitor. On a 4K screen it's even worse.
Click to expand...
4k is 8MP. So you are zooming in. You can say this about a wide range of cameras. Who exactly is looking at pictures "zooming in" all the time like that going beyond reasonable DPI.

IF you want cropping that's another thing. If you are doing mega big prints that's another. I am not sure I understand your point based on zooming in on a monitor.

-
Click to expand...
The point of zooming in is to see more of something interesting!
Click to expand...
Well sure - it I ask what specifically is the use case because the zoom may be enough or not
Jonas Palm said:
Typical example - you see a group picture of the teachers at your old school, and you look for your old math teacher. Is he still around? What does he look like these days? Only the people are spread out 20m wide and a face is less than 20 cm wide. Maybe that’s enough pixels to recognize his face after these years? But to really see what he looks like?
Click to expand...
the uou may need to get a Fuji Mf 100mp or Sony 60Mp
Jonas Palm said:
Or a shot of a flower bed, where one of the flowers has this weird insect that you are more curious about than the flowers, actually. Or a shot from a Calgary pub, but where you would like to be able to read just what they serve, and if it might be something that you could get hold of locally.

I zoom in all the time, and so does everyone I know. My elderly parents, my colleagues, my kids….I’d say very few people these days exclusively view images on devices that do not let them enlarge relevant/interesting parts.
Click to expand...
again what’s the use case exactly If you want to see some details better zooming inn a 4k monitor (let alone a phone!) will yield good results but if you want to read the menu on the wall from that restaurant in the corner of the shot then you need a Mf 100mp ;-)

Which is why I ask specifically what’s the use case here
Jonas Palm said:
For most of us, there is no fixed output resolution anymore. The concept belongs in the previous century.
Click to expand...
Wow what? Speak for yourself most of us seems to me are using 8-12 megapixel shots, from a cellphone camera and find their zooming fine

--
Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - Apparently Selwyn Duke and not George Orwell
 
More pixel is always better without doubt.

But for those who don't need to crop often, won't print larger than it can support, more pixel might do no more good.

The following might actually have something else:
Funny Valentine said:
Here take a look at how a 20MP photo looks like on a 16-inch 3456 x 2234 resolution display

full screen
full screen

at 1:1 pixel
at 1:1 pixel
Click to expand...
There is focus problem indeed, nothing related to sharpness on pixel examination as long as not enlarge too much (1:1 has no enlargement). Likely the DoF is your issue here.
Funny Valentine said:
11823c9919d64d2ca73afef5b7ce9583.jpg.png

You get the point right ? just a little zooming and you quickly go below the native resolution of the monitor.
Click to expand...
I take 1:1 as part of the basic requirements for a keeper. I never find any difference on sharpness of my 12Mp or 16Mp output, so for the lower resolution image from my older cameras.

To examine an image at 1:1, can just tell how good the image should be. It can uncover the weakest of these images which might be covered up by a downsize view only.
Funny Valentine said:
On a 4K screen it's even worse.
Click to expand...
4K is just 8Mp, for a 20Mp image, on a fit to screen viewing, we might find the weakest easier surely (40% view on 4K monitor vs 10% view on a 1080 monitor), but under the 60% downsizing it could still effectively hide up the weakest.

If on 100% view, we are actually looking at the original pixel level of the image, how could it look worse if it has been focused perfectly?

You might find some difference on a 50" vs 24" monitor/TV, but is the quality of the monitor to show the image at pixel level, not the quality of the image itself.

You might find a good focused image, look at 1:1 to see would you have the same conclusion.
Funny Valentine said:
--
...
Click to expand...
--
Albert
** Please forgive my typo error.
** Please feel free to download my image and edit it as you like :-) **
 
Last edited:
Funny Valentine said:
Gary from Seattle said:
Funny Valentine said:
the point is you can barely zoom with a 20mp file.
Click to expand...
Again, another one with a need for a photography class. There is this thing called composition "Put simply, composition is how the elements of a photo are arranged. A composition can me made up of many different elements, or only a few. It's how the artist puts those things within a frame that help a photograph become more or less interesting to the viewer."
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about composition. The point is 20 mp is way too close to the native resolution of most computers/ipads and smartphones. And for web publishing where people zoom into pictures it's just not enough.
Click to expand...
Most common display for web publishing is 1920x1080 followed by 1366x768. Mobile and tablet resolutions will be much less than that.

source: https://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/worldwide

They provide plenty of room for zooming an image.

In most cases, our high resolution displays are going to be scaled to give a similar view and make the UI usable…
 
It's not enough for me either.

I make 30ft x 20ft posters out of every photo I take. It's a good thing my cell phone has a 108 mega pixel camera.
 
Last edited:
Do you know what was great about film days?
We never argued about the sharpness, megapixels, crop factors.
We cared about the composition, lighting, subject matter, contrast, cropping capability was secondary, shoot 2&1/4 or4/5 for that!
We cared about what moved us in that two dimension representation of what we presented post development of that piece of film that our little or big photo tools enabled us to show the rest of the world, that were the sum of our vision.
The image was what it was all about.
 
Last edited:
This is 5K iMac

5822040812ec404db640e832e25bcef6.jpg

20 mp does not fill the screen, if you use the Retina display the way it is meant to be used.



(Wish I'd shot this at f/8 but it was -10F and windy.)
 
Last edited:
Go back 14 years ago on the Olympus forum and there was a user who had his photos published as billboard ads even showed photos of the billboards. 5mp e1
 
What's the problem?
 
Funny Valentine said:
the point is you can barely zoom with a 20mp file.
Click to expand...
Funny you keep on and on on the same thing. A few days ago , I already told you in the comment section up front you do not « get it «
and now you just have a bunch of people telling you the same thing 😜🤣

Harold

--
FOLLOW me on IG @ledaylightstudio.
thedemandingtraveler.org
www.haroldglit.com
IG :thedemandingtraveler
 
Last edited:
BackToNature1 said:
Gary from Seattle said:
BackToNature1 said:
mikero said:
20mp is ample. You need to improve your photographic technique.

Mike
Click to expand...
That's really a lame response.
Click to expand...
Well he would blow you away as a wildlife photographer. The big advantage Olympus has with their best long wildlife lenses are lens sharpness and stabilization. I know all I have to do is bump off lens stabilization with the 300 + MC-14, and my image quality goes way down. You can have all the pixels in the world but if an image is not sharply focused and stabilized the image resolution is not worth a lick.
Click to expand...
An you know this how?
Click to expand...
Are you not intelligent to understand that I know by experience as I said in my post see above, knave. By the way, I looked at your portfolio.....
BackToNature1 said:
Yet another Lame response.
Click to expand...
Yes, yours is a very lame response.
BackToNature1 said:
Everyone already knows You can have all the pixels in the world but if an image is not sharply focused and stabilized the image resolution is not worth a lick. Were do you folks really come from. Mars. Give me some more the Sky is Blue Comments.
Click to expand...
Go back to your favorite forum, troll.
 
Last edited:
BackToNature1 said:
Gary from Seattle said:
Funny Valentine said:
Gary from Seattle said:
Funny Valentine said:
the point is you can barely zoom with a 20mp file.
Click to expand...
Again, another one with a need for a photography class. There is this thing called composition "Put simply, composition is how the elements of a photo are arranged. A composition can me made up of many different elements, or only a few. It's how the artist puts those things within a frame that help a photograph become more or less interesting to the viewer."
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about composition. The point is 20 mp is way too close to the native resolution of most computers/ipads and smartphones. And for web publishing where people zoom into pictures it's just not enough.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about your "thoughts". I compose carefully and most here do as well. One (you may not) chooses a lens and distance that is right for the subject or you just move closer. Do you use a zoom lens? Do you even know what a macro lens can do?

The subject leaves here are about 5mm. How large was your flower?
The subject leaves here are about 5mm. How large was your flower?
Click to expand...
Gary, what is with all the cheap insults to folks. Stick to the topic matter.
Click to expand...
Ding ding ding So, whatever your name is, you don't think composition matters as the funny guy said? That, by the way, was the subject.
 
BackToNature1 said:
When the statement can be seen as all encompassing, there lies some issues. But some of the responses are just plain wrong. If folks can see the times when 20MP is hardly enough, then they aren't on Planet Earth. I crop a ton, sometimes in an huge way.

7b78ddd72cbf4296a1bf7e6172f3603c.jpg

60dcedccc7cf4920a81fccec40fd4b94.jpg

You can only get so much focal length. These samples are just an rough sample of what I see in the real world. Getting the critical focus is hard enough, but if I had gotten it, more MP would have been wonderful for my objective, identifying the specific bird type with more certainty .
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between identifying a bird and photography. If I shot as you did here, I would grade this if it were my image at most 1*, on a 5* scale, and that only because it may be valuable for identification. Photographically, this is in the waste bin. I judge my images as harshly, but this is not exactly a harsh grading.
 
Last edited:
BackToNature1 said:
Bassam Guy said:
BackToNature1 said:
When the statement can be seen as all encompassing, there lies some issues. But some of the responses are just plain wrong. If folks can see the times when 20MP is hardly enough, then they aren't on Planet Earth. I crop a ton, sometimes in an huge way.

You can only get so much focal length. These samples are just an rough sample of what I see in the real world. Getting the critical focus is hard enough, but if I had gotten it, more MP would have been wonderful for my objective, identifying the specific bird type with more certainty .
Click to expand...
That is a good example of a situation where more MP are needed.

Rather than MFT @146mm, you'd do better with a higher pixeled FF camera @300mm or, perhaps, MFT @300mm. Compare prices.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many folks notice, but the camera exif data is flawed? I was using the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 with an 25-400mm f/2.8-4 (35mm Equivalent). I was at 400mm max. I don't like clear zoom because I like to shoot raw. One could barely see the woodpecker in the first shot. But when zoomed in, clearly we both agree about the MP.

I already have an Sony a6600 along with an Sony a7ii. I use my Bridge Cameras to judge distance as I am looking into MFTs as an lighter weight option for my avid birding hobby. But I don't know why it shows @146mm in the exif data. So I have been waiting for the release of the two new MFTs cameras before investing in expensive long lens an or any new gear. I don't think Sony cares about cropped Sensors anymore.
Click to expand...
I would agree with you on waiting. Lenses and cameras are expensive and it was only reluctantly that I bought the EM-1X and 300 F4. The 300 was an easier decision, and like many here I bought the EM-1X on the expectation that there would be a few upgrades in the AI eye focusing especially on BIF. But I think OMD/Olympus already realized that the EM-1X was limited by the number of focus points and the internal electronics. Hence the OM-1. Though early adaptation looks good, it will be a while before we can directly see just how good this body is. And it may even take a couple of software upgrades.

I bought for the long term though, and many of the Olympus specific functions made the EM-1X a good long term choice.
 
Last edited:
alcelc said:
Funny Valentine said:
the point is you can barely zoom with a 20mp file.
Click to expand...
No matter how high resolution will be, when we enlarge the image more, the poorer will be the quality.
Click to expand...
Exactly .... the higher the mega pixels, the more obvious flaws will be ... everything including wind movement will affect image quality. High megapixels is much less forgiving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
OM-1 II jpgs cropped compared to Raw
Replies
7
Views
81
Danielvr
Danielvr
DavidMillier
Comparison between 44x33mm 50MP Fuji GFX and m4/3 - prints
Replies
0
Views
158
DavidMillier
DavidMillier
J
4k content full screen on a 5k monitor
Replies
8
Views
486
New Wrycuda
N
Satyaa
Does print size depend on sensor size, or just pixel count?
2
Replies
23
Views
702
olyflyer
olyflyer
B
G85: zoom levels via HDMI output
Replies
2
Views
18
alcelc
alcelc

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