Too much mega?
Jul 24, 2017 11:43:17 #
Is more always better? Aren't we Americans prone to super size too often in search of the good life? How many huge lens, big cameras, full frame sensors, huge raw files produced by tons of megapixels do the great majority of photographers (pro and otherwise) really need to produce excellent photographs for publication online and in prints smaller than billboards? The Fuji X-T2 micro four thirds would seem a great choice for the vast majority of photographers, combining terrific quality and value. An even better choice for combined value and quality with fewer megapixels but with features covering a greater range of photographic situations would be the Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II and its versatile pro quality 12-100mm lens. What do you think?
Jul 24, 2017 11:46:27 #
Talking strictly about Megapixels I would say the more the better. I am one whose camera has a whopping 16MP.
Jul 24, 2017 11:56:05 #
One small correction -- Fuji X-series cameras do not use "4/3" or "micro 4/3" sensors (tho you can adapt 4/3 and MFT lenses from Oly and Pany and use them on a Fuji body). Fuji uses its own proprietary mount which it calls "X-mount". Fuji sensors are APS-C just like Nikon DX or Canon EF-S, but in a mirrorless camera. The crop factor for Fuji sensors is 1.5x (again like Nikon DX APS-C cameras). The crop factor for Canon's APS-C sensors and EF-S lenses is 1.6x. The crop factor for MFT sensors is 2x, not 1.5x. /Ralph
Jul 24, 2017 12:09:23 #
I believe I totally missed the point the OP is trying to make, if any.
What difference does it make if I have a 30 megapixel and a 50 megapixel camera?
I'm pretty sure there's no finite limit to the available number of megapixels for all of us to share.
The more megapixels, the better the image resolution. The better the resolution, the more realistic the image.
I personally don't see a problem with that.
Beside, what does any of this have to do with super sizing. It's not like you go into the local camera store and order a camera and have them super size the image sensor like it was an order of French Fries.
What difference does it make if I have a 30 megapixel and a 50 megapixel camera?
I'm pretty sure there's no finite limit to the available number of megapixels for all of us to share.
The more megapixels, the better the image resolution. The better the resolution, the more realistic the image.
I personally don't see a problem with that.
Beside, what does any of this have to do with super sizing. It's not like you go into the local camera store and order a camera and have them super size the image sensor like it was an order of French Fries.
Jul 24, 2017 12:11:42 #
For me, FX is the only way to go. Couple that with 36MP and it's even better. My ultimate goal is making prints, the smallest 12x18. That's why I prefer my D800e. For my other prints, 16x20 to 32x40, I prefer my 4x5. It's not a matter of "super size", as you put it. It's a matter of using the proper tools for the job. It's tough driving a railroad spike with a tack hammer.
--Bob
The vast majority don't utilize the capabilities of the cameras they use, but are always looking for the next upgrade.
--Bob
The vast majority don't utilize the capabilities of the cameras they use, but are always looking for the next upgrade.
grizrev wrote:
Is more always better? Aren't we Americans prone ... (show quote)
Jul 24, 2017 12:18:00 #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
For a given size of sensor, more pixels tends to reduce ability to detect/record color variations {shading}, and that affects "realism" also. More pixels tends to increase noise added to the image, and reduce range of ISO settings, both of which affect useability of the system.I believe I totally missed the point the OP is trying to make, if any.
What difference does it make if I have a 30 megapixel and a 50 megapixel camera?
I'm pretty sure there's no finite limit to the available number of megapixels for all of us to share.
The more megapixels, the better the image resolution. The better the resolution, the more realistic the image.
What difference does it make if I have a 30 megapixel and a 50 megapixel camera?
I'm pretty sure there's no finite limit to the available number of megapixels for all of us to share.
The more megapixels, the better the image resolution. The better the resolution, the more realistic the image.
Jul 24, 2017 12:29:23 #
Retired fat guy with a camera
Loc: Colorado
The point was, we are led to believe, through advertising , bigger is better. More is what you need.
There a a bazillion sites on the net, that deal with mega pixels. I just googled how many m.p.'s do you need to print a 8x10, the answer was 7.2. When I was looking for a camera, I read and then read some more. One of the few things I remember is, It is not always how many. The size of the pixels is also important. The more you cram onto a sensor, the size decreases. There maybe the perfect combination of the 2, but that is something you need to look up for yourself.
There a a bazillion sites on the net, that deal with mega pixels. I just googled how many m.p.'s do you need to print a 8x10, the answer was 7.2. When I was looking for a camera, I read and then read some more. One of the few things I remember is, It is not always how many. The size of the pixels is also important. The more you cram onto a sensor, the size decreases. There maybe the perfect combination of the 2, but that is something you need to look up for yourself.
Jul 24, 2017 12:33:56 #
rjaywallace wrote:
One small correction -- Fuji X-series cameras do ... (show quote)
It seems it IS a MFT sensor, mirrorless camera.
As for the more, the merrier: It sure helps if you crop!
Jul 24, 2017 12:37:29 #
PHRubin wrote:
It seems it IS a MFT sensor, mirrorless camera.
As for the more, the merrier: It sure helps if you crop!
As for the more, the merrier: It sure helps if you crop!
Fuji X series do not have MFT sensor.
Jul 24, 2017 12:40:40 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Fuji X series do not have MFT sensor.
Yeah. I don't know why that misinformation continues to crop up. Pun intended....
Jul 24, 2017 12:44:24 #
Too funny, BebuLamar! You are right -- 16 megapixels are plenty! We don't need to supersize when we go to our local camera stores because most cameras are already supersized beyond 16 megapixels and, as rehess observes, sometimes counterproductive as a result! I think the Olympus M5 Mark II raw files, with post processing in the hands of a professional, could produce prints that would stand up very well to any produced by a D800e, at least in the eyes of most viewers.
Jul 24, 2017 12:54:11 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
Yeah. I don't know why that misinformation continues to crop up. Pun intended....
I am convinced I saw it listed as MFT, but it isn't. I stand corrected.
Jul 24, 2017 13:28:51 #
My first computer(TRS1000A) had 256K memory and a double disk, single side 180K storage - no hard drive (5MB of hard drive was 12 inches in diameter at the time)
My current computer has 12GB memory and 1 terra byte of storage (~4 million times the storage in my original)
My first digital camera was a 2.1MP Kodak, while my current T6i is 24MB.
In film days, on a single storage device, I could get 36 frames of data - 37, or 38 if I loaded carefully; today, I can hold over 2000 frames of data on a single storage device.
When I bought my Kodak 2.1MP camera, I had 4 times the sensor of the Hubble Wide Field Camera and 8 times the sensor of the Palomar Telescope. Today I still have 2-4 times the sensor of the Hubble WFC3.
But, then again, the Ford 1931 Model A had a 40 HP engine and the new Dodge Demon this year is over 800 HP - do we need it? No. Do we want it? Yes.
God has promised to fill all of our needs, it is our wants that form and sustain the evil that is our world today!
My current computer has 12GB memory and 1 terra byte of storage (~4 million times the storage in my original)
My first digital camera was a 2.1MP Kodak, while my current T6i is 24MB.
In film days, on a single storage device, I could get 36 frames of data - 37, or 38 if I loaded carefully; today, I can hold over 2000 frames of data on a single storage device.
When I bought my Kodak 2.1MP camera, I had 4 times the sensor of the Hubble Wide Field Camera and 8 times the sensor of the Palomar Telescope. Today I still have 2-4 times the sensor of the Hubble WFC3.
But, then again, the Ford 1931 Model A had a 40 HP engine and the new Dodge Demon this year is over 800 HP - do we need it? No. Do we want it? Yes.
God has promised to fill all of our needs, it is our wants that form and sustain the evil that is our world today!
Jul 24, 2017 13:49:39 #
Could we stick to the essential question and not digress into which cameras have or do not have micro four thirds cropped sensors? The question is how much do we really need in a camera to get all the quality and performance that can reasonably be perceived and utilized by most people? I believe the cameras I have referenced are as far as we need to go and the most we need spend -- there aren't many roads where you can demonstrate, much less utilize, Dodge Demon performance. There are many cars that can give you all the performance thrills you can possibly realize at very reasonable prices. Actually, it is amazing what an iPhone camera can do in terms of online publishing and most common prints in the right hands (have you seen iPhone Photography School? Google it!)
Jul 24, 2017 13:59:52 #
To me, it's an how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin thing. I recently had a photograph favorably reviewed on a YouTube channel that was taken with a crappy Canon Power Shot G3 with like 20 Mp to its name. It is the eye behind the viewfinder that makes all the differenc
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.