Canon 5DS
Feb 7, 2015 09:18:58 #
Feb 7, 2015 09:23:10 #
Feb 7, 2015 09:26:04 #
Feb 7, 2015 09:31:12 #
It depends on the individual & what they are shooting. I had a film SLR that I used for important shots when I got my first digital camera. It was a P&S that only had 4 megapixels. I still have snapshots that I took with it & they are very nice. They are nothing record breaking, but they are sharp, colorful & good memories. If a photographer wants to take landscapes with a WA on a tripod & would like a lot of detail, more megapixels would be appreciated. Bab
Feb 7, 2015 09:39:01 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
How many megapixels do you need in a DSLR?
Every pixel you can squeeze into it.
And I am not joking. I am serious about this. Looking at some sample pics at Canon Japan it is easy to see that Canon can deliver those pixels all the way to posters on the wall.
And that also means that a good photographer can actually save money on glass by throwing out the old 5dmiii and buy the 5Ds instead. You can save money on glass and just crop instead. For example you can get just as good or better results by using 400 mm lens on 5Ds than 600 mm lens on the 5dmiii. Only by taking advantage of all the pixels on the sensor and crop instead of adding more expensive glass.
I am sure this new body will be a bestseller in the Canon lineup in 2015 and 2016.
Feb 7, 2015 09:49:22 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
How many megapixels do you need in a DSLR?
If you build it, they will come.
Too many people equate camera quality with MP count.
Feb 7, 2015 10:32:09 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
How many megapixels do you need in a DSLR?
More megapixels of boring, uninspiring photography is still boring, uninspiring photography. Just takes up more space on the hard drive, that's all.
Feb 7, 2015 10:59:58 #
Some say we're at the limit or beyond the glass resolution for 35mm photography. I think it may be a good possibility.
Kmgw9v wrote:
How many megapixels do you need in a DSLR?
Feb 7, 2015 11:06:54 #
rook2c4 wrote:
More megapixels of boring, uninspiring photography is still boring, uninspiring photography. Just takes up more space on the hard drive, that's all.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 7, 2015 11:49:16 #
Mac wrote:
If you build it, they will come.
Too many people equate camera quality with MP count.
Too many people equate camera quality with MP count.
Indeed. There are many more aspects to camera quality
Feb 8, 2015 06:25:01 #
johnst1001a
Loc: West Chester, Ohio
Somewhere on line is picture taken with a gigapixel scientific camera. I can't find it anymore. But in that picture you can zoom in so far that I there was a man walking on the street at least a mile away, and you could see the smoke coming off his cigarette.
Practical, no, fun, yes. I will definitely look into the new Canon. I have the 5d III now, which is great, but some times I do want to zoom in and even even more but can't. I like taking pictures of grand kids running in the back yard, or other moving objects, but don't want to change lenses. I tend to use low f lenses so I can shoot at faster shutter speeds.
As for the ISO limit of 6400, not a factor for me, I have found 6400 is too high, too grainy. I never go above 800.
Practical, no, fun, yes. I will definitely look into the new Canon. I have the 5d III now, which is great, but some times I do want to zoom in and even even more but can't. I like taking pictures of grand kids running in the back yard, or other moving objects, but don't want to change lenses. I tend to use low f lenses so I can shoot at faster shutter speeds.
As for the ISO limit of 6400, not a factor for me, I have found 6400 is too high, too grainy. I never go above 800.
Feb 8, 2015 07:45:35 #
ralphc4176
Loc: Conyers, GA
Depends on your needs and your budget. If you plan to make some blow-ups, get the most megapixels you can afford. If you only print 4 x 6 or similarly sized prints, a mid-range DSLR would be all you need. Examples: Canon T5i or Sony a58. Canon has announced a new model 5D with a 50-megapixel full-frame sensor. Not available for purchase yet. If you have $3K+ to spend on a body and thousands to spend on lenses, that body has, as far as I know, the most megapixels in a sensor in any digital camera of the size of the old 35 mm SLR. But, if you are filthy rich, there's medium format.
Feb 8, 2015 12:04:31 #
I'm a 30+ year advertising photographer and switched to digital when Phaseone came out with it's 10mp back. I'd much rather have the pixel density and all the color and detail info that goes with them. It is important that the image information is of quality(i.e..the chip, internal processor and raw processor produce info that is free of issues) you can always reduce/throw away the extra info, but you can't make it up. (I know...there is interpolation software...I use it when I need it) Is there anyone out there that shot film who wouldn't have used grainless film if had existed and full color fidelity and full dynamic range??
(I'm just waiting to hear from the group of folks who say they LOVE grain/ noise / huge pixels)
(I'm just waiting to hear from the group of folks who say they LOVE grain/ noise / huge pixels)
Feb 8, 2015 13:06:59 #
I agree with you that grain/noise add to atmospheric scenes and that, generally, it is not necessarily a bad thing in images. However, we seem to be driven to eliminate that which, sometimes, makes a great foto. Keep shooting.
rochephoto wrote:
I'm a 30+ year advertising photographer and switch... (show quote)
Feb 8, 2015 19:12:28 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.