Do I need that many mega pixels? (Page 6): When you look through a lens with your eye you see the max resolving power of the lens. When the sensor sees it the sensor converts the image...

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

When you look through a lens with your eye you see the max resolving power of the lens. When the sensor sees it the sensor converts the image to digital. Long before the resolving power of a lens distorts a shot the image will be distorted by the sensor always the most. A lens does not and never will see the image as digital. Only the sensor and the electronics see the image as digital. There are better lenses made by reputable companies than made by the cheaper lens manufacturers. If your lens focus is off then you have a lens problem.

blackest Loc: Ireland

davyboy wrote:

Hey S.S. Did you Star in Star Wars movie? Come back to us good buddie. We need you here on earth!
20 years from now...really 😏😏🙃

I don't know if playing the part of an Ewok counts as being a star ...

tropics68 Loc: Georgia

MikeMc wrote:

I won’t be printing large images, mostly veiwing via hi def monitor.

The link below is to an image taken with a Canon 5DS both SOOC and down sampled using PS export save for web. I think you will see that when the two are looked at side by side, at the same size, any differences are indistinguishable to the naked eye. Of course the SOOC image can be blown up much larger without IQ loss but you cannot put that full size image on any monitor screen that I know of. I am not recommending anything just demonstrating that a whole lot of megapixels does not necessarily translate into better images except in the case of printing large images. The Sony A7s only has 12 megapixels and takes great shots.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/s9vdjx4bnixpga1/AACq4vvKcJztkWMwkO35Blmqa?dl=0

(Use COPY IMAGE)

I tried to upload the images but one is very large and all my attempts failed.

Angmo

MikeMc wrote:

Thanks, beautiful picture! I'm not a professional ... (show quote)

Thanks. Camera is a Nikon D300, Old Nikon journalist lens 37-70 f2.8.

Settings were around 1/200 f6. Main light is a 17” Elinchrom Beauty Dish on an Elinchrom ELC 1000 Strobe. Two gridded 1x5 foot striplight soft boxes either side to rear, 3x5 foot gridded softbox to left. Gridded hair light above. These lights where ever so carefully lit to not over power the desired look. All strobes set by hand held flash meter via Wi-Fi.

Background by KateBackground. Amazing stuff out of China.

I use Elinchrom Strobes exclusively indoors and out & on location.

I’ll be getting the Nikon D850 or newer model in that family and upgrading to all new lenses as my old ones will fall apart at that extreme megapixel count.

I use Medium Format cameras when the shoot requires. What I use all depend on what the shoot demands. —> Never by my opinion of consumer driven marketing fluff like pixel count.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

More pixels really matter if theyâre âfreeâ, there are far more important aspects to camera use. This is printed 11x17 taken with either a Fuji S1 pro (3.25/6.2 mpix) or a Coolpix 5000 (5 mpix) please don’t criticize the photo I’m no pro but the print appears to have no noise, and infinite detail from 12 inches away.
Ya know, they make al kinds of cameras cuz there’s all kinds of photographers. Now, there’s my first post, thank you all

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

MikeMc wrote:

Debating between a Sony a7iii or a7Rii or a7Riii. ... (show quote)

I gave up reading this thread when the arguing started on page one. I would suggest if you are into far away wildlife, more mp's can mean better results when cropping. I've noticed a huge difference here going from 10 to 24mp. You could always download some sample images from the cameras you're interested in and see what you can do with those. It really all depends what you'll do with the extra mp's. Good luck deciding.

chaman

davyboy wrote:

I to love the photos of Regis but sometimes I think it looks like almost to much detail it almost looks like I don’t know could that be?

Because sometimes he oversharpens his images, IMO.

leftj Loc: Texas

Flickwet wrote:

More pixels really matter if theyâre âfreeâ, there are far more important aspects to camera use. This is printed 11x17 taken with either a Fuji S1 pro (3.25/6.2 mpix) or a Coolpix 5000 (5 mpix) please don’t criticize the photo I’m no pro but the print appears to have no noise, and infinite detail from 12 inches away.
Ya know, they make al kinds of cameras cuz there’s all kinds of photographers. Now, there’s my first post, thank you all

Well I, for one like your post. It's a great pic and makes a good point.

roadsideron Loc: Apache Junction, AZ

I was printing out 24 by 36 prints from my Canon 7D mark ii and they look amazing, no quality loss whatsoever and they are from 20 megapixel files. I just printed 16 by 20 prints of my twirl art from 24 megapixel files and I get one word responses from people who see them which is, "beautiful".

Angmo

The best camera is always the one you have...

Angmo

Flickwet wrote:

More pixels really matter if theyâre âfreeâ, there are far more important aspects to camera use. This is printed 11x17 taken with either a Fuji S1 pro (3.25/6.2 mpix) or a Coolpix 5000 (5 mpix) please don’t criticize the photo I’m no pro but the print appears to have no noise, and infinite detail from 12 inches away.
Ya know, they make al kinds of cameras cuz there’s all kinds of photographers. Now, there’s my first post, thank you all

Noise. You need to edit for Luma noise, red and blue channels. Nikons and Canons are distinctly different in red and blue channels.

You can take a 3 megapixel camera and get the same results if you know how to eliminate noise and recover detail in the shadows.

The above photo is very nice.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

We also need to be thinking of how many pixels are in the final print. Not just the mpx of a camera. Even if we have a shot at 600 mpx before interpolation by the printer and then the printer is still probably maxing at 300 dpi. So a 24 mpx shot gets turned down to around 300 dpi unless your printer can print more than that. Any thoughts on this?

Carusoswi

I personally cannot understand why responders argue over such a simple question. I just don't get it. State your position, agree or disagree with others if you wish, and, I suppose, argue if you cannot resist, but, for me, it is an unhelpful turn-off. Unless you are elbowing your way to make a living, photography should be about enjoyment. For certain, this and other web sites should be about the joy of learning what one can about all aspects of photography.
My 2 cents.
Caruso

Bill_de Loc: US

drklrd wrote:

We also need to be thinking of how many pixels are in the final print. Not just the mpx of a camera. Even if we have a shot at 600 mpx before interpolation by the printer and then the printer is still probably maxing at 300 dpi. So a 24 mpx shot gets turned down to around 300 dpi unless your printer can print more than that. Any thoughts on this?

You are confusing PPI and DPI

My printer will print 2880 DPI, but my input is usually between 100 - 300 PPI

D = dots
P = pixels

--

leftj Loc: Texas

Carusoswi wrote:

I personally cannot understand why responders argue over such a simple question. I just don't get it. State your position, agree or disagree with others if you wish, and, I suppose, argue if you cannot resist, but, for me, it is an unhelpful turn-off. Unless you are elbowing your way to make a living, photography should be about enjoyment. For certain, this and other web sites should be about the joy of learning what one can about all aspects of photography.
My 2 cents.
Caruso

Michael rowed the boat ashore