About Megapixels
Dec 2, 2014 14:34:35 #
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
Dec 2, 2014 14:46:20 #
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
Well, because that's the way the camera came? ;)
I'm not sure Mac, but coming from the 1990's with digital, and the struggles of those dayz, I'll take too many over going backards back to them.
That said, even though my camera is capable of 24+, I don't know that I have seen it really use the total.
I'm too busy trying to figure out my folkus.
Way back when, red was the file boggeler. Seemed that pictures with a greater amount of red in them were much larger. And web wise, they were slow to transfer.
Now, most seem to zip right along.
But to my brain, having a few thousand 36.5 MP pictures could sure plug up a hard drive.
But I might be wrong. I was once before... :lol:
Dec 2, 2014 14:50:12 #
Not really, just a good selling point. Just like the cars of
yesteryear with ever increasing engine size, now these little
rice burners are just as fast as most of those cars of old.
yesteryear with ever increasing engine size, now these little
rice burners are just as fast as most of those cars of old.
Dec 2, 2014 14:55:29 #
SonnyE wrote:
Well, because that's the way the camera came? ;) b... (show quote)
What I mean is that MPs seem to get higher and higher with each succeeding generation of cameras, and the number of MPs seem to be a major selling point. I have seen people say they want to get a certain because it has xxMPs. Is a 36 MP camera better than a 24 MP camera? Is a 24 MP camera better than a 16MP camera?
Dec 2, 2014 14:56:18 #
ebbote wrote:
Not really, just a good selling point. Just like the cars of
yesteryear with ever increasing engine size, now these little
rice burners are just as fast as most of those cars of old.
yesteryear with ever increasing engine size, now these little
rice burners are just as fast as most of those cars of old.
Show me a 1960's era VW that is as fast as a 1960's era dinosaur.
And coming back from Washington, my 325 CID Chevy walked away from the road toads. :lol:
I grew up watching a 19" B&W TV. But I don't want to go back. ;)
Dec 2, 2014 15:02:49 #
Okay Sonny, I said now, that means today, cars of today will beat most of yesteryears super cars.
SonnyE wrote:
Show me a 1960's era VW that is as fast as a 1960's era dinosaur.
And coming back from Washington, my 325 CID Chevy walked away from the road toads. :lol:
I grew up watching a 19" B&W TV. But I don't want to go back. ;)
And coming back from Washington, my 325 CID Chevy walked away from the road toads. :lol:
I grew up watching a 19" B&W TV. But I don't want to go back. ;)
Dec 2, 2014 15:02:58 #
ebbote wrote:
Not really, just a good selling point. Just like the cars of
yesteryear with ever increasing engine size, now these little
rice burners are just as fast as most of those cars of old.
yesteryear with ever increasing engine size, now these little
rice burners are just as fast as most of those cars of old.
That's what I was thinking. My car is better than yours because mine has a 427 and yours only has a 409.
This is a better camera because it has 36MP and that one only has 24MP.
Dec 2, 2014 15:03:44 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
Printing large art pieces.
Dec 2, 2014 15:04:35 #
Mac wrote:
What I mean is that MPs seem to get higher and higher with each succeeding generation of cameras, and the number of MPs seem to be a major selling point. I have seen people say they want to get a certain because it has xxMPs. Is a 36 MP camera better than a 24 MP camera? Is a 24 MP camera better than a 16MP camera?
Remember when computers were using the numbers game to sell new Boxes-of-Rocks?
Now the processors have seemed to have leveled off, and hard drives are the trump card.
How many ways can a laundry detergent be New and Improved? :lol:
I donno Mac. But I guess they have to do something.
Otherwise we could all be wearing moving blankets like North Korea. :roll:
Dec 2, 2014 15:05:09 #
TheDman wrote:
Printing large art pieces.
How large? A side of a building? A Broadway billboard?
Dec 2, 2014 15:05:20 #
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
Are Canon megapixels better than Nikon megapixels?
Dec 2, 2014 15:06:23 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Mac wrote:
How large? A side of a building? A Broadway billboard?
I have had a couple blown up to cover large walls, however even a 24x36 stretches the limits of 22 megapixels.
Dec 2, 2014 15:06:25 #
ebbote wrote:
Okay Sonny, I said now, that means today, cars of today will beat most of yesteryears super cars.
My 2006 Chevy will drag my boat around. ;)
Dec 2, 2014 15:06:58 #
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
Good question Mac, I just shot a night parade and Christmas tree lighting with the 16.2 mp DF, strictly hand held in a crowd and using 3200 ISO. Doubt if I could have done better with 36 mp. They turned out good enough to send to family and friends that could not make the event.
I am always surprised by things like this since I have a 24 MP camera. I am sure a D810 would have done a remarkable job, but I didn't have one with me :lol:
Phil
Dec 2, 2014 15:06:58 #
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
Good question Mac, I just shot a night parade and Christmas tree lighting with the 16.2 mp DF, strictly hand held in a crowd and using 3200 ISO. Doubt if I could have done better with 36 mp. They turned out good enough to send to family and friends that could not make the event.
I am always surprised by things like this since I have a 24 MP camera. I am sure a D810 would have done a remarkable job, but I didn't have one with me :lol:
Phil
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.