Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
PART 2: How many megapixels do we need? ... This is the 3-megapixel illustration.
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
Dec 15, 2017 10:21:06   #
peterg Loc: Santa Rosa, CA
 
Largobob wrote:
I still use an old D200 (10 MP) and have sharp images at 24" x 36". Have no need to print larger.
Similar. 24"x26" Metallic print taken with Nikon D80, 10.5mp. Even pixel peepers like it. However, I take wildlife pics and often have to do severe cropping. I want all the megapixels that I can afford.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 10:23:37   #
kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA
 
MrBob wrote:
Most folks don't print more than 4x6 much less 16x20 or 40 x60. Most images captured by the masses end up on Facebook and we all know where they originate from ( non real cameras ) ? So basically unless you are a peeping tom, Pro who prints for clients, or just a real enthusiast who likes to go big there is no reason to go much larger than 10 or 12 Mp.


True, but even the cheapest, most basic pocket point-and-shoot is going to be 16 or 20 MP. I’m fairly certain that there are no currently produced cameras that are less than 10 or 12 MP.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 10:34:55   #
russelray Loc: La Mesa CA
 
For me it's not the quality of the picture but what I do with the picture in Photoshop, Landscape Pro, Nik, Topaz, Impresso Pro, etc. I've discovered that the great supermajority of my Clients want big, and the bigger the better as long as they can afford it (they can!) and have room to display it. My largest picture sale so far was 119"x34". I sell a lot of stuff that is 60"x40", mostly flowers, animals, sunsets, and sunrises. So if my printers (Fine Art America, Costco, Michael's) print at 100 dpi/ppi, there's a big difference to me between a camera that takes 10 MP pictures and one that takes 30 MP pictures.

Reply
 
 
Dec 15, 2017 10:35:07   #
peterg Loc: Santa Rosa, CA
 
kb6kgx wrote:
True, but even the cheapest, most basic pocket point-and-shoot is going to be 16 or 20 MP. I’m fairly certain that there are no currently produced cameras that are less than 10 or 12 MP.
Even my iPhone 6s+ takes 12+MP pics.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 11:47:10   #
John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN
 
It seems to me that the only way to answer the question is to snap the exact same scene with a low megapixal camera and a high megapixel camera and make a detailed comparison. Both snaps would need to be at equal other factors (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, white balance, and other image quality settings) to avoid obfustation.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 11:57:18   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
HallowedHill wrote:
Exactly.

In 2006 I bought a Nikon D50 which was 6 MP. used it until this past summer when I replaced it with an Olympus OM D E-Mark 1 II. With the D50 I never printed over 8x10 and it was way more than sufficient. Now that I am semi-retired I want to do more, but likely will not print beyond @ 20 x24. Unless you pixel peep the human eye will never know thee deficiencies. Can you recover more in post? Sure, but there are ways to get waht you want otherwise by various exposures. Unless you are a pro or VERY sophisticated enthusiast most of us, includint me, have way more camera than we need.

But battling GAS is so much fun.
Exactly. br br In 2006 I bought a Nikon D50 which... (show quote)


Your camera produces 80mp raw files in the Hi Res mode. You can print way bigger than any D850 or A7rIII can.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 12:56:30   #
theoldman
 
I need megapixels because I am a lazy photographer and consistently need to crop. If lazy and crop don’t say it all…..I don’t compose a shot as carefully as I could, and so I do it in Photoshop. That means I need megapixels (and low noise).

I am not a bad photographer! I don’t need counseling ( :) ) I know what I am doing, and don’t plan to change. Most important, my work pleases me and gets as much praise as I want (need?).

So I might add to the discussion, how many megapixels you need depends in part on your photography process and perhaps your ego. So I buy as many as I need. :)

Please excuse my intended humor.

Reply
 
 
Dec 15, 2017 13:07:22   #
WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA
 
Rich1939 wrote:
Those are nice photos but since they are stand alone with out comparable images taken at the same time with a 24 or 36 MP camera they can't help a person make an informed decision. A side by side comparison at 100% crop from 2 different cameras of the same scene would be more useful.
As for me when a sensor has the same number of photo sites as a fine grain film I will think it's getting close to optimum.



So what number of pixels = that of fine grain film?

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 13:57:20   #
m43rebel
 
Thanks for your comments. They are helpful, as they reflect your experiences. Happy Holidays !!!

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 14:06:40   #
fotoman150
 
rmalarz wrote:
Try taking any one of these images and have it printed at 16x20 or larger.
--Bob


I used to blow my 4 mp images up to 24x30 by having the lab res up the images. They were beautiful. They said their software could do a better job of resizing than photoshop.

I still have an 8 mp camera that I use for backup for weddings. I can get a decent 11x14 out of those images and I have made 24x30s out of them again by letting the lab doctor them up. They look great! Brides very pleased.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 14:08:54   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
tdekany wrote:
Your camera produces 80mp raw files in the Hi Res mode. You can print way bigger than any D850 or A7rIII can.


You don't need that many pixels to print big. But if you have sharp lenses, you sure can crop the hell out of an 80mp image.

If you don't believe me, take a newspaper page, tape it to a wall, and slowly step away from the page - and see at what distance you can no longer see the newsprint. Same applies to fine detail in a photograph.

Or look at this comparison:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-501318-1.html

Reply
 
 
Dec 15, 2017 14:17:22   #
fotoman150
 
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again.

In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?

My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.

So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.

Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.

.

Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.

.
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (show quote)


My understanding is that if you have a high res camera and print in small sizes you throw away more pixels. Printing can only show so much detail. High res is for larger prints and helps when cropping.

Eventually they will stop with the megapixel race. I used to shoot all jpeg years ago because I couldn't afford large cards and disk drives.

Now memory and storage is cheap. So I shoot RAW 99% and don't care how many I take.

My first digital camera back in 2001 was an Olympus E-10. 4mp. I thought I was in heaven. I gave the camera and flash and bag to a friend and he really appreciated it.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 14:17:36   #
Jesu S
 
How many megapixels do we need?

Allow me to answer your question with another. How much money do we need? Clearly we don't need billions of dollars to lead fulfilling lives, but most people would rather have more, than less. I think it's the same with megapixels.

BTW - I love your photo of St George's Chapel in Windsor Castle, which, of course, is in Windsor, not London.

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 14:17:48   #
jackinkc Loc: Kansas City
 
This calls to mind the question about which is better, film or digital. I say DIGITAL.

Necessary “quality” is a two-sided issue: WANT and NEED. One needs as much quality as required for any given task. Want, for me, means this: I always shoot in RAW, using as many megapixels as I can get.

m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again.

In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?

My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.

So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.

Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.

.Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.

.
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (show quote)

Reply
Dec 15, 2017 14:20:42   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Gene51 wrote:
You don't need that many pixels to print big. But if you have sharp lenses, you sure can crop the hell out of an 80mp image.

If you don't believe me, take a newspaper page, tape it to a wall, and slowly step away from the page - and see at what distance you can no longer see the newsprint. Same applies to fine detail in a photograph.

Or look at this comparison:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-501318-1.html


Gene, couldn’t you print bigger with 80mp than 36/45?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.