What would more MP mean to you ?

Started Feb 12, 2014 | Discussions
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Perry Kivolowitz
Perry Kivolowitz Regular Member • Posts: 275
Camera would get heavier :(
1

More electrons to lug around.

 Perry Kivolowitz's gear list:Perry Kivolowitz's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II +10 more
Aethon Regular Member • Posts: 316
Re: More Flexibility...

Aethon wrote:

The best post in the thread! Calm, informed and an opinion based on real information.

Thank you.

Disagree. Best post as still Astrophotograper's though "Exactly Resistance is futile!"

Fair point.

sportyaccordy Veteran Member • Posts: 6,765
Re: What would more MP mean to you ?

The ONLY thing I would want more MP for is better low light resolution. There's a connection there. I would still downsize the photo.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Sony Alpha 7 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +2 more
simondo71 New Member • Posts: 22
Re: What would more MP mean to you ?

Yeh well I am one who wants at least 24meg. The x-t1 is a great camera but nothing has changed in resolution. If it were 24 meg it would be my next camera but not at the same 16 meg. My two and a half year old x-pro1 gives me that at the moment.

Thanks

Astrophotographer 10 Senior Member • Posts: 7,792
Re: What would more MP mean to you ?

The problem with that is typically smaller pixels = less low light sensitivity.

If you look at CCD sensors for example, the usual thing is when pixels get smaller the QE (quantum  efficiency - a big word simply meaning sensitivity or efficiency of the sensor turning light into a signal to produce an image) goes down.

One exception I know of is a Sony ExHAD CCD sensor which has very small pixels and very high QE.

So if anyone can do it it would be Sony. It appears Sony provide Fuji with the base sensor at the moment (that could change with the organic sensor) so perhaps in a later model.

The organic sensor has wider dynamic range so perhaps this could be a feature of that sensor when it comes out - too early to know.

Fuji also has a patent for a Xtrans style pixel arrangement posted here recently that would have much better low light performance and that potentially could give you what you asked for.

Greg.

 Astrophotographer 10's gear list:Astrophotographer 10's gear list
Sony Alpha 7R II Fujifilm X-T2 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 Fujifilm 16-55mm F2.8R LM WR +7 more
forpetessake
forpetessake Veteran Member • Posts: 4,892
An old familiar tune

Haven't we heard that before?

  • Nobody needs 4K TVs, the 1080 is more than enough
  • Nobody needs 1080 TVs, the 720 is more than enough
  • Nobody needs 4GHz computers, 1GHz is enough
  • Nobody needs 64-bit processors, 32-bit is enough
  • Nobody needs 32GB memory, the 2GB is enough

And, b.t.w. you are wrong in every one of your assertions.

-- hide signature --

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter -- Winston Churchill

sportyaccordy Veteran Member • Posts: 6,765
Re: What would more MP mean to you ?

Astrophotographer 10 wrote:

The problem with that is typically smaller pixels = less low light sensitivity.

If you look at CCD sensors for example,

I don't think there are any CCD DSLRs or ILCs available.

Fuji also has a patent for a Xtrans style pixel arrangement posted here recently that would have much better low light performance and that potentially could give you what you asked for.

I don't really want to wait around for some theoretical sensor to become reality. I can't find the article now but DxOMark had an article breaking down the mathematical relationship between pixel density and noise... the conclusion was, contrary to popular belief, higher pixel density = less noise = better low light performance. While there are obviously other factors at play that seems to jive with reality. So if that means a 36 MP APS-C CMOS sensor, I'm OK with that. I can always downsample, and my computers are pretty fast so processing the data is no biggie.

 sportyaccordy's gear list:sportyaccordy's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-C3 Sony Alpha 7 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +2 more
wy2lam Veteran Member • Posts: 3,095
YES until a supertele arrives.

Again, it's how it allows me to crop that matters...until a 400mm AF lens arrives I always appreciate additional MPs so a 200mm can temporarily fill the job of a supertele.

 wy2lam's gear list:wy2lam's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Samyang 8mm F2.8 UMC Fisheye Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +5 more
67gtonr Senior Member • Posts: 1,081
Re: What would more MP mean to you ?

It would mean bragging power against people who do not know cameras well.

 67gtonr's gear list:67gtonr's gear list
Canon EOS M Canon EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
57LowRider Senior Member • Posts: 3,818
Re: An old familiar tune

"640 k ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, 1981

 57LowRider's gear list:57LowRider's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS +10 more
osloray
osloray Veteran Member • Posts: 4,736
Re: Absolutely nothing.

historianx wrote:

I agree. I would rather see advances in processor technology than more MPs. But then Im a p/t working pro that doesnt fall into the consumerist trap of more MP means better pictures. After all, doesnt the D4 sport 16MP? 16MP seems to be the perfect number not just for APS-C, but 4/3 as well.

Me, too.

 osloray's gear list:osloray's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 35mm F2 R WR +1 more
webrunner5
webrunner5 Senior Member • Posts: 1,255
Re: Absolutely nothing.

Les Lammers wrote:

I live in Florida and always have a waterproof P&S around One of the best for IQ was a 7mp Pentax. The IQ on these beasts has decreased as the MP increased. Not sure about the sensor size but I think 6MP was optimal.

7 MP Pentax snap below.

7 MP Ricoh snap above.

Your not REALLY serious are you??

 webrunner5's gear list:webrunner5's gear list
Canon EOS-1D Mark III Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G7 Canon EF 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6 III +6 more
nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 6,678
Wrong on everything ?

So, for instance, larger RAWs don't take longer to render than smaller ones ?

I'd love to see you try and prove that

Nick

PS I don't even have a 720P TV - crap in high res is still crap, just slightly better looking

nick_webster
nick_webster OP Veteran Member • Posts: 6,678
Thanks to everyone who replied

Even if it was just to insult me

Unfortunately real life has reared it's ugly head and I'm not going to have the time to reply to people as I would wish,

Nick

PS If lack of originality were a criteria for posting on DPR then the forums would be empty places indeed

Joe Not New Member • Posts: 1
will there be a diffrent ?

Hi There everyone , I´m new to this forum
Even thou ive been reeding it quite often, usuly when Im
up to buy a new camera ( and I just bought an new x-100 from ebay))
Anyway, this thread made me register, because Im one of them.
or rather in me there is one saying " get a full frame with lots of MPs. then you can crop like hell ".................... : )
Yes Im an happy amature that buy cameras , without even know how to handle
one of them :-o........ And of course there is one guy in me , saying, start at least to realy learn one of them before you go ahead, ...guess he´s sensible,
but a bit boaring
I like to fiddle with pictures, mostly and more and more only in lightroom instead of photoshop Guess my aproach to photo and images is more like a painter than to make "perfect photos"...what ever that means...

ahhhh Sorry!..... To make this short. What some of you allready pointed out
The Crop factor ... will there be a HUGE diffrent in details croping out a small area
and blow it up.. between a 16mp on an aps-c and a 36mp on a FF
( ofcourse, on a picture without shakes )
Lenses are expensive , So with a FF with lots of MP and one very good lens
of say 35 mm Would I be able to shoot like a 16MP with lots of lenses ??

Am I totally Stupid ???...........

Anyhow I love this place and all the diffrent forums
and I admire all your knowledge

Perry Kivolowitz
Perry Kivolowitz Regular Member • Posts: 275
Re: An old familiar tune

IIRC it was IBM who commented about 640K. Gates said no one needs multitasking.

 Perry Kivolowitz's gear list:Perry Kivolowitz's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II +10 more
Perry Kivolowitz
Perry Kivolowitz Regular Member • Posts: 275
Re: Wrong on everything ?

nick_webster wrote:

PS I don't even have a 720P TV - crap in high res is still crap, just slightly better looking

Higher definition means you see the cable companies cheating you with compression artifacts and long for the days of standard definition.

 Perry Kivolowitz's gear list:Perry Kivolowitz's gear list
Nikon D7000 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm X-T2 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II +10 more
historianx
historianx Senior Member • Posts: 2,654
Lumix TS3

The Lumix TS3 is Panasonic's environmental camera, I own one and for what it does it does fine. It is a 12mp small-sensored P&S.  It's predecessor, however, sported a 14mp sensor of the same size.  Panasonic downsized the 14 to a 12 because they beleived IQ suffered at 14 due to pixle crowding.  I for one can't tell the difference, but I get the logic of crowding sensors with too many pixels.

 historianx's gear list:historianx's gear list
Sigma dp0 Quattro Fujifilm X-Pro1 Nikon D7100 Nikon D750 Fujifilm X100S +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads