PART 2: How many megapixels do we need? ... This is the 3-megapixel illustration.
Dec 14, 2017 22:37:09 #
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.
.
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.
.
A sunny landscape ... Edinborough, Scotland over a Castle canon.
(Download)
A rainy day ... mainstreet of Glasgow, Scotland.
(Download)
A misty day ... Mother Swan and her babies at Beaumaris Castle in norwest Wales.
(Download)
An interior ... the Windsor Castle Abbey in London.
(Download)
Dec 14, 2017 22:55:53 #
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (show quote)
2007 was a special year for me also. In 2003 I had sent some slides to a pro and they were scanned, producing 6mp images. After comparing scans to slides, I decided that 6mp would give me the detail I'd been receiving from film. Black Friday 2007 I purchased two cameras to enter the digital world - a 8mp Canon Rebel and a 7mp Canon Elph. Each of them gave me good pictures and limited ability to crop. Even 10 years later, I think 5mp is plenty adequate and any beyond 6mp is "gravy".
Dec 14, 2017 23:07:41 #
bobsisk
Loc: Chandler, Arizona
My first digital was a Fugi 3 1/2 mp. I gave it to one of my granddaughters when I bought the D5100 that I have now. I haven't heard any complaints from her about it. And honestly, I can't tell much difference between the 3 1/2 mp photos and the 16 mp photos. I suppose it could be because I deal mainly with 4x6 size photos. If they were all 8x10 or larger I'm reasonably sure the pixels @ 3 1/2 would show, but since that camera is in Montana and I'm in Arizona I doubt if I'll be seeing it soon.
Dec 14, 2017 23:09:35 #
If not mistaken, more pixels result in capturing more exposure information. Later, in the photo-editing software, the photographer will then have more latitude in processing the photograph.
I sense this subject may garner a lot of opinion.
I sense this subject may garner a lot of opinion.
Dec 14, 2017 23:17:46 #
Posting them here at the size used really tells us nothing since 3MP is more than enough to look good. And as you mentioned, printing as 4x6 could be done with 1MP. Looks like for your purpose a 3MP camera is all you need. Probably not a good idea to go for a 40x60.
Dec 14, 2017 23:18:57 #
[quote=m43rebel]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.
OK, to view on a computer, low number of MP are fine but to print (which some of us still do) the low MPs don't cut it.
Here's one of my early digital photos taken 13OCT2004 at Namotu Island, Fiji. EXIF data: camera Sony DSC-U60, 1632 x 1224
mp, ISO 100, 5 mm, 1/1600 sec. This is less than 2 MP and will only print well to 4 x 6 inches!
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.
OK, to view on a computer, low number of MP are fine but to print (which some of us still do) the low MPs don't cut it.
Here's one of my early digital photos taken 13OCT2004 at Namotu Island, Fiji. EXIF data: camera Sony DSC-U60, 1632 x 1224
mp, ISO 100, 5 mm, 1/1600 sec. This is less than 2 MP and will only print well to 4 x 6 inches!
Dec 14, 2017 23:30:22 #
Try taking any one of these images and have it printed at 16x20 or larger.
--Bob
--Bob
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (show quote)
Dec 15, 2017 06:27:50 #
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (show quote)
I still use an old D200 (10 MP) and have sharp images at 24" x 36". Have no need to print larger.
Dec 15, 2017 06:40:23 #
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.
Dec 15, 2017 07:17:10 #
In 2003 I used a Fuji 3 m.p
Camera "interpolated" to 6 m.p.
Most of my photos were going to a local newspaper but quite a few to glossy national music publications.
I have a few hanging on my wall that are 10 x 14. They are quite good cosidering ..
The newsprint and magazine photos were good for that time...I use 20- 24 m
P. now and that is more than adequate
Camera "interpolated" to 6 m.p.
Most of my photos were going to a local newspaper but quite a few to glossy national music publications.
I have a few hanging on my wall that are 10 x 14. They are quite good cosidering ..
The newsprint and magazine photos were good for that time...I use 20- 24 m
P. now and that is more than adequate
Dec 15, 2017 07:18:50 #
Lowrider
Loc: Kennesaw, GA
I agree. makes no sense.
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.
Dec 15, 2017 07:26:15 #
Dec 15, 2017 07:41:23 #
In my opinion, pixel count matters only when extreme cropping or enlargement is involved. I can't see a significant difference in a 5 x 7 print from a full 3 MP vs a 12 MP image. The quality difference shows up either when you crop a great deal and then print your 5 x 7 or if you enlarge considerably (say to poster size).
Dec 15, 2017 07:49:08 #
CaptainC wrote:
Posting them here at the size used really tells us nothing since 3MP is more than enough to look good. And as you mentioned, printing as 4x6 could be done with 1MP. Looks like for your purpose a 3MP camera is all you need. Probably not a good idea to go for a 40x60.
I guess this is an example of size counts. Size of the print, that is. ( I just couldn't resist)
Dec 15, 2017 07:59:54 #
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (show quote)
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.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.