meg pix how important is size?? (Page 2): I use Photoshop and shoot raw mostly so want as much control as possible. The more pixels there are to work with the better.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

I use Photoshop and shoot raw mostly so want as much control as possible. The more pixels there are to work with the better.

mineart

Couple of things here to consider:

What is your target media? Digital, web, snapshots, posters?

What type of subjects do you typically shoot?

These things can influence how many MP you 'need'. More is not always better. The more megapixels get crammed onto a sensor the smaller the photocell become. yes, you get higher resolution, but each photocell is grabbing light less effectively. So it really is a balancing act.

Overall, i would say do not go less than 12MP these days. if you shoot micro 4/3 16 is fine and there are great deals out there right now. if you shoot Fuji (their x-trans sensors are AMAZING for shooting) 16 is fine, 24 is better. Garden variety DSLRs whatever you buy will be fine.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

If more is always better, then why did Nikon make the D-500 20mp instead of going up from the D-7200s 24mp (or whatever it is?) on the newest flagship DX body? I think it becomes a matter of too many pixels in a given area, actually reducing quality. The reason people love full frame is because it has larger pixels, which means more light gathering ability.

I think that cramming more and more MP onto a DX sensor was more about marketing than it was performance. That being said, I'll stick with my current models instead of using my D-70, because there are other issues involved other than MP. Upgraded focus system, processors, etc.

Just my 2 cents.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Howie1a wrote:

I have used the following all worked good and gave great pictures a, Nikon D 40-50-70-80-100, D 40x-60-200-, and D 3200 as well as a D300 all with 6 to 24 MG pix why do you need to go with a larger Megpx Ken Rockwell say's 6 is enough. What is your thoughts ?? I could be happy with my D 100 with a larger screen Howie1a

I think it depends on quite a few variables.
If one's goal is 4x5 and 5x7 prints on standard photo paper, 6 MP probably is okay.
If one's goal is to let a Client decide what to print on, and how big, 6 MP might not do it.
My Clients print on photo paper, museum paper, cloth, canvas, metal, acrylic, and glass, and at sizes as large as 300 inches x 42 inches. 6 MP ain't gonna get you to 300 inches x 42 inches.
For cloth--shirts, sheets, pillow cases, throw pillows--6 MP is fine.
6 MP for acrylic and glass? Nope.

Ricker Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

I used an old Sony Mavica with 2 MP for years. The hundreds/thousands of shots I took weren't great but many are quite acceptable. I'm glad that I have them today. I haven't blown any up to a large size print but assume that they would be quite grainy. The memories have no grain at all. Clear as a bell.
Best regards, Ricker

Shootist Loc: Wyoming

Not to hijack this thread but the race to more pixels can really give a pixel peeper a high. It isn't so much about the print but about how one can get better and better at PP for its own sake. I met a fellow photographer in Rocky Mt Nat Park. He uses a 200 mm on a full frame camera to take up to several hundred photos. He then stitches them together to get a huge file. It can't be about the print in his case as I suspect that a house size photo would look good at three feet. It has to be about being able to take the technical side of photography to its extreme. I suspect a lot of us enjoy the pursuit of the technical as much as enjoying the actual print. I know that I often do. Is this worth the dollars to get more pixels? I leave this up to you.

Dan De Lion Loc: Montana

CPR wrote:

I use Photoshop and shoot raw mostly so want as much control as possible. The more pixels there are to work with the better.

-----

More pixels results in less dynamic range, lower max ISO, and slower processing. Photographic tech is always give and take. -- 99.9% of current lenses don't even come close to utilizing even half of the res of a 36mp sensor. If you want more data points to work with, just upscale in PS (image size.)

-----

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

Howie1a wrote:

I have used the following all worked good and gave great pictures a, Nikon D 40-50-70-80-100, D 40x-60-200-, and D 3200 as well as a D300 all with 6 to 24 MG pix why do you need to go with a larger Megpx Ken Rockwell say's 6 is enough. What is your thoughts ?? I could be happy with my D 100 with a larger screen Howie1a

Rockwell is essentially right, if you print no more than 11x14 and do all your cropping before you push the button. On the other hand I got some great prints from my D-70 and from my D-90. I like Ken Rockwell and get a ton of good advice from him, but he does have his quirks. Like you don't need to carry a tripod. Shoot Fine Jpeg, not RAW and while he says 6mpxls is enough, he also uses Canon and Nikon's and Fuji's latest 24+ mpxl and praises the extra pixels.

Ricker Loc: Salt Lake City, Utah

Dan De Lion wrote:

-----

More pixels results in less dynamic range, lower max ISO, and slower processing. Photographic tech is always give and take. -- 99.9% of current lenses don't even come close to utilizing even half of the res of a 36mp sensor. If you want more data points to work with, just upscale in PS (image size.)

-----

I completely agee....for that reason I purchased a Nikon 610 instead of a Nikon 800/810.
Best regards, Ricker

Bigbeartom44

It is interesting that up until maybe 3 or 4 years ago the top of the line Nikon pro camera had about 13MP. I had a friend who was a professional and was the also the personal photographer for Playboy and he had a 24 x 36 print in his studio that was taken with his 35MM Nikon and it was tack sharp. I asked what was his trick, he said he always used a tripod. I am convinced that MP aren't the answer.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Depends - For the most part, I agree with KR on this topic. I still can get some great images from my 6.3MP Canon Digital Rebel.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

MichaelH wrote:

I am thinking Ken Rockwell made that comment quite a few years ago and would be hard pressed to find a camera he would recommend today that has only 6mp.

That is certainly true. My Pentax K-100 is 6MP (now converted for Infrared only use). It has a CCD Sensor as well!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Howie1a wrote:

I have used the following all worked good and gave great pictures a, Nikon D 40-50-70-80-100, D 40x-60-200-, and D 3200 as well as a D300 all with 6 to 24 MG pix why do you need to go with a larger Megpx Ken Rockwell say's 6 is enough. What is your thoughts ?? I could be happy with my D 100 with a larger screen Howie1a

24 MP is large for a APS-C Sensor, A 36 MP FF Sensor actually has less pixel density. But yes, 6 to 16 MP would be obsolete today but still could produce a fine print. Most of use would be happy with a 6 MP up to a 8x10" print. But many UHH'er print 12x18" and really need a lot more than Rockwell's 6 MP. It also depends on the specific cameras Processor, like a computer they are not all alike. Whence the difference between a Professional 16 MP camera and a Hobbyist 24 MP (I'm talking generalities, not any specific models or times).

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Gene51 wrote:

This is one of the few times I agree with KR. He is absolutely correct. I've printed images from a Nikon 70S, a 6.1 mp camera, to 40x60, and sold them, with zero complaints about loss of resolution

The rationale is easy to understand. You've been to a multiplex theater. The Sony 4K screening rooms are about as good as it gets, other than IMax. Your typical screen could be from 40 ft to 60 ft wide. The 4K standard for resolution is 8.8 mp. You don't need a lot of pixels to print big - that is a myth. In fact, your ppi requirement diminishes as the print size gets bigger, because a larger print (or projected image) implies a greater viewing distance, and your eyes can only resolve so much detail, and that diminishes as the viewing distance increases.

You must have seen the iPhone 5 and 6 billboards around town which displayed an image taken with the phone to billboard size. There was no software magic used to do that. It was pure physiology. Our vision can't see minute details at a distance of 30 ft or greater. But there is a great impression of sharpness. A 40x60 image requires 32 ppi for the appearance of acceptable sharpness. The 6 mp camera, if you use an image uncropped, will give you 75 ppi at that print size, about 2.5X more resolution than is actually needed. So for the obsessive photographers in the crowd who insist on taking out their loupes and examining the dot pattern on a print, 6 mp may not be up to their standards, but certainly you have more than you need.

This site explains how this all works, and provides the mathematical formulas to figure it out, or a quick calculator if you don't want to do the math:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

The primary benefit of having more pixels, provided you lenses are sharp, is to be able to crop more without too much loss of image quality.

So, without a doubt, Mr. Rockwell is 100% on target. You don't need more mp to print larger, you need enough, which is 6mp, and some good technique and sharp lenses.

Hope this makes sense to you and answers your questions. Most follow the herd and buy into the notion that you need more mp for bigger images. You don't.

This is one of the few times I agree with KR. He i... (show quote)

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

Shootist wrote:

Not to hijack this thread but the race to more pix... (show quote)

I guess they never learned about the law of diminishing returns. They will spend 4 times as much to get a 5% technical improvement. One might question the intelligence of such.