why 16mp sensor is enough..for everyday used

[gary0319]

its true, the marketing people are better at capturing buyers than cameras are capturing photographs. However you can't buy success, that would be a best seller!

Kind of like the folks that make fishing lures.......should actually be called “fisherman” lures. I know I have bit many times on these lures.

Olympus decided 12mp was all that was needed 10 years ago, 16 mp is more than enough.

 

[MyReality]

Good explanation . What you are saying is that how many pixels you need is a function of viewing distance, which has been true for a long time. If you crop mostly in camera like I do, than you can get buy with 10 or 12 pixels.

 

[bobn2]

16mp is plenty.

why is 16mp 'plenty', but 12mp was not?

Maybe because the 16 MPx sensors are better technologically than the 12 MPx sensors?

There is something in that, particularly with respect to FT sensors. The 12MP FT sensors were Panasonic, when Panasonic wasn't quite on a par with Sony. Olympus introduced 16MP using a Sony sensor, which used Sony's column ADC, giving it its extended DR at low ISOs. Panasonic had developed its own column ADC and abandoned the original mu-Maicovicon architecture, which gave good efficiency but was noisy, and the Panasonic sensor used in the original E-M1 and the 16MP Panasonic cameras was in most respects at the same level of performance as Sony, only really lacking in saturation capacity against the Sonys, so at least in FT and mFT, there really was a technology step between 12 and 16MP.

 

[spike29]

I use a g80 and if i want a new camera it needs to be better then what i own now.

So if the 15,8Mp is replaced by a 19,8Mp in the g90 i like the fact i can crop in more with the same resloution but if the penalty is less dr or more noise or faster drained battery or...

The total package needs to be a step up otherwize i am happy as it is.

Like g90 video 4k crops , what is logic because it has less sensor surface to need to reach 4k amount of pixels. But is the g80 worth to be replaced by the g90?

For me it's too much money for replacement. For others maybe not.

Biggest issue of larger amount of resolution is filessize and all your stuff needs to be bigger also, sd card, faster bufferingspeed of camera, storage space pc, faster cpu.

For what? Better cropping? Buying a longer focalrange is stil cheaper.

Not much a 100-300mmii is cheaper and the 100-400mm not.

I am sattisfied with my g80's 15,8Mp and when the time comes it needs to be replaced and they offer 32Mp fine IF the overal iq and usability is also improved. I rather have a 16Mp sensor which give clean 6400 iso files then a noisy 3200 32Mp.

 

[spike29]

[No message]

 

[Henry Richardson]

Here is what is crystal clear: For people who want 30, 40, 50, 100, etc. megapixels then m4/3 was a really horrible choice for them. They should get current FF or MF. I can't tell you how many times in my life I have met people who are miserable because they made awful life choices. It usually is because they have very little self-awareness of what they really want so they choose badly and then are unhappy. If you want to look at your photos on a 4K or 8K monitor and zoom into 100% or 200% or 400% to see tiny details then m4/3 was a really stupid choice. Duh. There are other choices out there though. Go forth and find happiness!

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[OLY23]

How dare you make such a common sense and logical observation?

Off to the de-education camp with the likes of you!

 

[DLGW]

I'm using the original EM -1, so 16 mpx as well.

Printing at home, 13x19 inches is the largest I can do - never an issues.

I've found that prints from a single image are fine at 18x24 inches as well (which is 45 cm x 61 cm for reference). At this size, with a properly captured and processed image I can't see any loss of detail, even up close.

24x36 inches (60x90 cm) prints are pretty good - but you can start to see a bit of softness *if you are looking for it*. Oh, and if I've put my reading glasses on to inspect it closely.

For larger landscape images I tend to shoot multi-row panoramics images - all by hand. I'm not the most disciplined - I probably shoot more than I need to, but 2 or 3 rows high by 3-6 images across and you suddenly have a tremendous amount of resolution.

Using that technique, I've got stunning 20" x 60" shots (50 cm by 150 cm). I can start to see what people want very high resolution cameras - the potential ability to print very large images from a single capture with very fine detail even when very closely examining the image.

Overall though, the larger the image, the further away you are generally standing from it.

To some degree, I wonder if the the level of detail in super high resolution images is only really appreciated by the photographer/printer them selves and mostly lost of the audience. (ok, and photographers like us peering at the final print to see just how detailed it is/or isn't.)

All that being said, I'd still like a bit more resolution - but given currently technology and costs, I'm not willing to give up a lot for it - in size, weight, usability, and financial cost. If someone gave me two Oly/Panny prototype bodies that shot 60 mp as cleanly as my EM-1 does - I'd happily use them.

However, to replace all my current gear (and my wife's) with the latest and greatest Sony gear, at a cost of 15-20 thousand dollars and nearly double the travel weight? No, I'm not doing that.

I'd rather spend that money going to Antarctica - and so I am.

 

[Doug Janis]

Prints that large need good glass.

If you edit a lot and crop, more data is superior. 16MP with good glass is adequate, but just.

20-24MP would give more editing and cropping headroom.

 

[Skeeterbytes]

Addending my earlier comments, if I'm going to be shooting I want to make the best files reasonably possible. A decade ago that meant one thing, today it means something very different. I don't consider this a command to go search the state of the art's cutting-bleeding edge, system-jumping in the process, but rather a mindset that has me adapting to this natural progression of the technology and harvest better images as my reward.

Seeing what those musty four-thirds lenses can do with a modern 20MP camera is revelatory. And if budgets are a concern, then be happy with using something a little older than the very latest, but it seems silly to pretend that meaningful tech has been frozen in amber since some arbitrary point in time. If there's one thing we know about digital photography, it is the gear (especially the cameras) will continue to improve.

At some time not so far off, I'll be stowing my current perfectly good cameras for some natural next step. I'm okay with that, and probably a little excited to see what that next step presents us.

The lenses will likewise be happy with the jump.

Cheers,

Rick

 

[George1958]

Frankly I see no reason to confuse matters by discussion want and need.

The marketing folk are great at making buyers need something which is a want. So buying something you don’t need is a stupid choice.

Equally dismissing M4/3 on the basis of MP count is stupid idea. This is clear enough when you start looking at the output from people who know how to get the best from their equipment and know about photography.

 

[ennemkay]

Frankly I see no reason to confuse matters by discussion want and need.

The marketing folk are great at making buyers need something which is a want. So buying something you don’t need is a stupid choice.

Equally dismissing M4/3 on the basis of MP count is stupid idea. This is clear enough when you start looking at the output from people who know how to get the best from their equipment and know about photography.

Exactly. It's not about what's good enough it's really about what's available, because most people here including the op are going to upgrade to something better eventually.

 

[George1958]

Thats a valid position but for me the issue of what and why something is better is contentious.

I tend to view better in terms of results. Most of the upgrades I have made have not made a proportional impact on my results verses costs.

Every time I go on Flickr Explore I am always impressed by the quality of some of the images shot on Nikon D700 or Canon 5Dmkii alongside more recent FF mirrorless. Without looking at the data you would never know which was which.

It makes sense, because the perception of a better camera is not visible in the final image. It is rooted spec lists and notional ideas why a given metric is superior over another. However better photography is the very thing that is not included in the upgrades. I think that good reason to question the assumption that the latest camera is a better camera if we are talking results.

Of course the user experience is different. If that makes people happy, well its their money.

 

[Zack Brainiac]

You go to a big box warehouse store and you can't buy one small box of anything, so you buy the case of 24 "just in case" maybe some day you need them all. Plus they are cheaper per box, right? Even though you spend 10x more than you would have at a normal store.

Then a year later you end up throwing 20 of them out.

Kind of like MP. Just in case you might use need 50Mp you might as well pay that 3 thousand or so. Then you go and buy a larger hard drive and larger memory card and faster PC. So you can post pictures on social media for friends and family to view on their phones and that occasional 8x10 print.

 

[Gnine]

What do u think? DO i need more mp?

Cheers

Tan

Want, and need, are two very very different things

 

[Henry Richardson]

How dare you make such a common sense and logical observation?

Off to the de-education camp with the likes of you!

I am always amused and sort of flabbergasted that so many people are unable to look at themselves, their wants, and values and figure out which camera is right for them. So many here choose poorly because they didn't know much about themselves. Then complain that the camera they chose isn't some other camera that they could have chosen. And then on top of that they can at any time get that other camera, but instead live in misery with a camera that doesn't suit them.

If you crave lots more megapixels why in the world did you knowingly buy a camera that didn't have as many as you want? And then prolong your misery by not getting the camera that does have the number of megapixel you want?

 

[knickerhawk]

How dare you make such a common sense and logical observation?

Off to the de-education camp with the likes of you!

I am always amused and sort of flabbergasted that so many people are unable to look at themselves, their wants, and values and figure out which camera is right for them. So many here choose poorly because they didn't know much about themselves. Then complain that the camera they chose isn't some other camera that they could have chosen. And then on top of that they can at any time get that other camera, but instead live in misery with a camera that doesn't suit them.

If you crave lots more megapixels why in the world did you knowingly buy a camera that didn't have as many as you want? And then prolong your misery by not getting the camera that does have the number of megapixel you want?

Many don't buy individual cameras. They buy a system. That's what I did when I switched to mFT. What I didn't fully appreciate is how far behind other systems mFT would lag when it comes to sensor development (primarily with respect to mp but in other regards as well). It's ok to bemoan that lag and it's not always practical to jump from format to format.

 

[Tommi K1]

hi again.

Some time ago i reviewed my gx80/85 after 1year of used. Today i just hang my big print 40x60cm and 6pieces 30x45cm up in my wall.

While that 60x40 is not a "big", it is more commonly the limitation for most as people who likes art, they have multiple art on their walls and smaller sizes are anyways more used than huge ones.

I just surprising how good it look in big print. And I know I can make it bigger if I love too. Why? because I just send files with 3mp to the lab for 40x60cm prints..It's looks stunning in my opinion.

3Mpix is often enough for that size.

......

I use CEWE in europa,,and every print its looks like what you see in your PC/MAC is what your see in the prints..I developed my prints in my 8years old IMac,, no calibrated since I bought it.

I don't know about CEWE, but many of those services performs even a new compression and processing to save the bandwidth. So your 3Mpix original might have even gone through new compression.

What do u think? DO i need more mp?

No.

Too many people think they need more Mpix. The critical level of Mpix race already was done in 4-5 Mpix level. The 8 Mpix was like a "WOW!" and 10 Mpix it was just icing on the cake.

For most people (80% on the market) anything larger than 8 Mpix is really a marketing thing. They just are victims of that. As most are not making a 100x75 cm prints etc with very fine details that requires looking.

There are moments when I am happy that I use 16/20 Mpix, sometimes I wish I would have again the 36Mpix, but using a 12 mpix will wake-up from the snowball effect.

As when a 12 Mpix is not enough, I can blame myself that why I didn't "zoom in", the same thing as it was with a 36Mpix cameras. And if I would use a 50 Mpix cameras, I would still go through that same thing "Why I did not frame on that?".

 

[Zack Brainiac]

hi again.

Some time ago i reviewed my gx80/85 after 1year of used. Today i just hang my big print 40x60cm and 6pieces 30x45cm up in my wall.

While that 60x40 is not a "big", it is more commonly the limitation for most as people who likes art, they have multiple art on their walls and smaller sizes are anyways more used than huge ones.

I agree,

Its all about viewing distance. Any photo that looks OK as an 8x10 inch picture, will also look fine on a billboard.

I have a 140 inch projector screen and from most seats in my theater room it is very difficult to see the difference between HD and 4K. Even up scaled DVDs look good usually.

I just surprising how good it look in big print. And I know I can make it bigger if I love too. Why? because I just send files with 3mp to the lab for 40x60cm prints..It's looks stunning in my opinion.

3Mpix is often enough for that size.

......

I use CEWE in europa,,and every print its looks like what you see in your PC/MAC is what your see in the prints..I developed my prints in my 8years old IMac,, no calibrated since I bought it.

I don't know about CEWE, but many of those services performs even a new compression and processing to save the bandwidth. So your 3Mpix original might have even gone through new compression.

What do u think? DO i need more mp?

No.

Too many people think they need more Mpix. The critical level of Mpix race already was done in 4-5 Mpix level. The 8 Mpix was like a "WOW!" and 10 Mpix it was just icing on the cake.

For most people (80% on the market) anything larger than 8 Mpix is really a marketing thing. They just are victims of that. As most are not making a 100x75 cm prints etc with very fine details that requires looking.

There are moments when I am happy that I use 16/20 Mpix, sometimes I wish I would have again the 36Mpix, but using a 12 mpix will wake-up from the snowball effect.

As when a 12 Mpix is not enough, I can blame myself that why I didn't "zoom in", the same thing as it was with a 36Mpix cameras. And if I would use a 50 Mpix cameras, I would still go through that same thing "Why I did not frame on that?".

 

[Smallpox]

hi again.

Some time ago i reviewed my gx80/85 after 1year of used. Today i just hang my big print 40x60cm and 6pieces 30x45cm up in my wall.

I just surprising how good it look in big print. And I know I can make it bigger if I love too. Why? because I just send files with 3mp to the lab for 40x60cm prints..It's looks stunning in my opinion.

What I discovered is 16mp sensor is enough for me,,but if you a person who loved to crop a lots , more mp sensor is better..the most important quality from a print is find a good lab to make it.

I use CEWE in europa,,and every print its looks like what you see in your PC/MAC is what your see in the prints..I developed my prints in my 8years old IMac,, no calibrated since I bought it.

What do u think? DO i need more mp?

Cheers

Tan

Being into art and exhibitions, you can see huge detailed prints being sold for €€€€€€€€ in galleries. And they sure ain't 16mp!

This is a forum for serious photographers, right?

--
Only drummers can travel in time