Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Mega Pixels
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Apr 20, 2015 14:12:14   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
Reinaldokool wrote:
If you want to enlarge more than 11x14 AND you want to crop heavily, the greater pixel depth does help. I have made great 20X30 prints from my old D90 at 12 mpxls. My D7000 also does so, but I have the leeway of cropping much more. My Sony a6000 with 24mpxl has not been put to that test yet, but I see no reason it would not continue the trend. Of course, I often do 11x14 and 16x20 prints and with Perfect Resize I can get amazing prints from all of them, but I prefer to crop before shooting as much as possible.

It is also true that sensors have improved and even thought the individual pixel size may be smaller with more pixels, the characteristics have not deteriorated, as someone else here has suggested. In fact, the newer sensors have more than overcome that tendency.

Years ago, I attended a Nikon display where they had a big 4 foot x 6 foot (or about that) landscape print as a booth display. The camera was 6 mpxls. Of course they used some very fancy enhancement software to make that happen, but you would never have known that. The best we ordinary folk can do now is Perfect Resize and some of its competitors. But I would not hesitate to try making a 30x50 inch print from the a6000. (I would hold my breath to try it with the D90)
If you want to enlarge more than 11x14 AND you wan... (show quote)


Please look at this site - apparently you are a little bit fuzzy on pixel requirements for print sizes - and frankly perfect resize et al are not really necessary, and they will not add anything that wouldn't be added by the RIP that is used at the print lab if you ask them to make a giant print.

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

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 15:44:24   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
Flyextreme wrote:
Which is what I do a lot. I would not want to be without my Mega MPs for "my type" of photography (primarily marco) in particular.

I will share my non technical experience.

My 7100 has a slightly higher pixel density than my 800e, which in some ways should make the 7100 capable of higher resolution. But, the "slightly" less density (larger pixels) if you will) of the seem to be more robust/capable...

I find advantages to each and still can't decide which is more capable to render shots that hold up to heavy cropping.

I'm leaning more towards the 800e because it just seems more forgiving if I don't have my setting just right.

Then again................:|

Images on my flickr page are done with D3200, D7100 and D800e. Many would not be possible without heavy cropping, which would not be possible without massive MPs. :wink:
Which is what I do a lot. I would not want to be w... (show quote)


But of course that is kind of an apples to oranges comparison, or actually DX to FX in this case. But still an interesting comparison as you have both. Have you tried it with the same lens?

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 15:46:15   #
ldef Loc: Chicago
 
burkphoto wrote:
ABSOLUTELY true. Those new 50MP Canons will have issues with diffraction starting at what most of us consider to be a medium aperture... by f/7.1! So if you need more depth of field than you can get at that, or a larger aperture, you will have to accept some degree of diffraction. I'm sure that by f/32, images from those cameras are useless mush. That was true with the 50D and 7D!

As I said in an earlier post, life is full of little trade-offs.


Sorry, now I'm lost. Greater diffraction at larger aperture because of the greater pixel count??

Reply
 
 
Apr 20, 2015 15:52:53   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 


That is cool! And does not involve magic, Kligons or Romulans. Love it! :thumbup:

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 15:58:45   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
ldef wrote:
Sorry, now I'm lost. Greater diffraction at larger aperture because of the greater pixel count??


Correct. As the pixel density increases, the diffraction begins at larger openings. The ability to record fine detail is lower with a 12 mp camera compared to a 36 mp camera, so even though diffraction is there at F5.6 or F7.1, you won't see it on a 12 mp camera because the camera could not record the fine detail that would be softened by diffraction. But when you use a 36 mp camera the detail "can" be recorded, and subsequently softened by diffraction. I have not tried this as I no longer have a D700, I would propose that at F11 on a D700 would look like F11 on a D800 where the image has been downsampled to 12 mp.

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 16:09:47   #
wattsimages
 
As a general rule I always recommend a lens upgrade before a body upgrade. Also if you upgrade to full frame lenses, that will allow you to upgrade to a full frame body in the future.

As for the D3100-v-D3300, yes technology has improved, and you will have the ability to make a nicer image. However you're not always going to see a big improvement. What you will see are larger files, that will put more strain on your computer, And take up more space on your hard drive.

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 16:10:48   #
HallowedHill Loc: Chattanooga, TN
 
jerryc41 wrote:
Just be sure you don't get your wife in the habit of always looking for something better. :D


Oh that's not the problem. As long as she is always looking she isn't buying! :-D It when they stop and purchased that's the problem! :shock:

Reply
 
 
Apr 20, 2015 16:16:29   #
HallowedHill Loc: Chattanooga, TN
 
Here is a site that I often provide that explains in detail and without hype the relationship between print size, ppi needed and the human vision's ability to resolve really fine detail:

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

And this is from a different site, one which I often pull from, that has a different point of view:

https://photographylife.com/how-much-resolution-do-you-really-need

I tend to agree less with the latter than the former.[/quote]

I've been meaning to thank you for the photokaboom site for a while now. Wonderful information there.

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 16:32:03   #
Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.
 
lamiaceae wrote:
But of course that is kind of an apples to oranges comparison, or actually DX to FX in this case. But still an interesting comparison as you have both. Have you tried it with the same lens?

Not exactly. I was only comparing pixel density/size. Simular to the 50MP FF being about the same density as a 24MP DX.

And yes, I use the same lenses on both.

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 17:27:51   #
Nikonista Loc: England
 
Bill Houghton wrote:
I have a older Nikon D40X - 10mp. I keep my wide angle lens on that. I takes a great photo I just don't like cropping it because the image quality drops off to quickly. And I won't give it up because of photo it takes.


I agree - my current 24mp camera can take awesome shots as far as IQ is concerned, but my trusty 10mp body produces shots which are to all intents identical. Certainly the pictures are no worse.

On last week's visit to your area, my best shots in the Plaza came from the small sensor and it was only the large sensor's extensive ISO range that produced a great set of the Staircase.

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 17:45:36   #
dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA
 
jrbissell wrote:
Also when I am shooting faces I may not want that fine sharp detail but when shooting birds at a distance I need all the detail I can get in order to crop down and keep the sharpness etc. Then I need mpxls and low iso and fast shutter etc. Different goals. That's probably why my d200 with 10mpxs is real good at weddings and closer distances-s well lit times-with photos enlarged to 8x10 or so.


It's good to hear that somebody is still using d200 professionally and is happy with the results.

Reply
 
 
Apr 20, 2015 18:26:18   #
ikaush Loc: Medford, MA
 
joer wrote:
Enlarging is not the a practical advantage since very few people do it routinely. What most people over look or don't fathom is the ability to crop.

Just about any image can be improved by cropping. Also it extends the focal length of all your lenses if you want.

With 36 MP you can easily extend you 200mm lens to 400mm through cropping and still have a 9MP equivalent sensor which is more than enough to do just about anything. 24MP sensor will give 6MP equivalent image in the aforementioned scenario.
Enlarging is not the a practical advantage since v... (show quote)


:thumbup:

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 20:00:16   #
bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
 
niard wrote:
Hello I'm new to the forum. Except for using more memory, should the purchase of a DSLR with 24.2MP over 14.2MP have any bearing on the final photograph? I have a D3100 and looking at D3300. I have been believing that you would only want to use more MP's if you want to enlarge big.


I have the Sony A7R (36 MPixels), A7 II (24 MPixels) and A7S (12 MPixels) and rate them as follows:

- A7R: high resolution, great for aggressive cropping or small targets where I really need the resolution. Great for larger print sizes.

- A7 II: great general purpose camera for daytime usage. Good mid-range resolution.

- A7S: great low light performer, at least partially due to the size of the photosites. I've turned out 8x10 prints and they look pretty nice! It is also a great video performer.

All of them use roughly the same vintage of sensor technology so if I compare them all at say 12 MPixel, the noise levels are quite similar. If I simply do 100% crops, the A7S wins out. The A7R is probably in 2nd place. And the A7 II, surprising, is in (a very close) third place; whereas, based on photosite size it should be in the middle of the pack?

Don't know if this helped in your decision process? Just my approach...

bwa

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 20:09:52   #
Oly Guy
 
Here is a few shots taken with a 520 olympus camera which is 10 mpxl. The shot was cropped and printed at 8x10 - My d3200 24Mpxl would be sharper -but the color and softness -I think-lend themselves to what many want in weddings-not a super sharp look. Just thought it might show the 10mpxl and it's processor are still usable.

Reply
Apr 20, 2015 20:36:34   #
lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode
 
jrbissell wrote:
Here is a few shots taken with a 520 olympus camera which is 10 mpxl. The shot was cropped and printed at 8x10 - My d3200 24Mpxl would be sharper -but the color and softness -I think-lend themselves to what many want in weddings-not a super sharp look. Just thought it might show the 10mpxl and it's processor are still usable.


You may have cropped it a little bit too far ..... :wink: :)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
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
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.