WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

My cataract surgery on one eye was yesterday, recovering today. The cost of the upgraded lenses, in my eyes, has put a hold on my new camera body purchase. ( Please excuse any strange keyboard or spelling messups. Working with altered vision today.)
This led me back into the rabbit hole of why I want a new body (cause I'm not 18 anymore?).

I shoot mostly wildlife and of that mostly birds.very often from a moving platform, a boat.

From what I have been reading high pixel cameras are more sensitive to camera movement. This got me wondering about the 90d I have been lusting after. At 32 megapixels its equal to a full frame at 51 megapixels. I'm also trying to avoid more high iso noise. For wildlife, for me, speed is king.

This got me looking over the older 1D offerings with H size sensors.

I crop often, ok almost always, and sometime big crops.
So I'm wondering about pixel density and print image size. But the normal thoughts of 300 dpi for high quality printing a 16.1. Mp image (canon 1D 1V H. Sensor) would print a max image of 4896 x 3264 or 16.3"x10.8" but. We also know that for larger printing 300 dpi may not be necessary. Cropped at 50% would be 8x5. Of for web but not so good to print?

So I guess the question is, at what point does "blowing up" an image does an image begin to soften due to pixelation?

Along the same line.
I had a thought the other day when PS wanted to Rastorize (sp?) an image because of something I tried to do. (Still learning)
When an image is rastorized isn't that like the digital equivelant of a "line type" image? Would restorizing help to preserve detail if an image is being enlarged?

Thanks
Bill

LEWHITE7747 Loc: 33773

Bill , I have an 80d and a 5DSR. I like the crop sensor for my wildlife images. The 5DSR I find hard to use for wildlife and the low light sensitivity is lacking..If you are moving I would suggest the new Canon mirrorless camera's They have IBIS and Lens stabilization. 8 stops with the new RF lens. An adapter is available for your old EF lens. The new R6 has animal eye detection with great tracking. I would seriously try these new mirrorless. My friend has the new R6 and he traded his 1DX. Love's it.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Bill, over the last year, I've regularly photographed using an 18-year-old, 16.6MP sensor. I've also made 20x20 prints from some of the images.
--Bob

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You crop almost always and often substantially -- in that case more pixels are your friend.

If you want less noise get the newest tech and otherwise get the biggest size sensor you can afford.

You don't need 300 ppi for high quality printing with today's print technologies. I try not to drop below 240 ppi but will not hesitate to drop to 200 to get the print size I want.

Rasterize means converting to pixels at a fixed size. For example you use the text tool in a PS image and initially it is not a raster element. If you change the print size the text will scale with no loss of quality -- no pixelization. Once rasterized it becomes pixel fixed to that size.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Bill, it depends on what you want to do with your images.

As discussed in this resizing presentation, you don't need more than 2048 pixels on the wide side of an image to create highly detailed images that fill most computer monitors at a 1:1 pixel level detail. A "4K" TV is actually only 3,840 pixels wide. Your EOS T3i delivers 18MP, at 5184×3456, more than enough to 'fill' a 4K screen, even after some modest cropping.

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

All EOS 1-series models are the apex of Canon's camera bodies. Their shutters are rated to 400,000. They feature ergonomics tuned to the needs of professional photographers of all types of shooting. They feature Canon's cutting edge technology as existed at the time of their release and the greatest extent of weather sealing and durability.

Until the 1DX models, Canon had two parallel 1D models, a full-frame line and a 1.3 crop model. In the details of a white paper from the 1DXIII release, Canon identified the 20MP (ish) resolution fills the professional's need for images that print to a 2-page magazine spread with the pixel resolution needed for 300 ppi - pixels per inch. If you think of photojournalism as not involving (not allowing) extension processing, the images from these cameras are 'publishing ready'. And of course, they can be used to print to larger sizes at lower ppi ratios.

With higher pixel resolution cameras you can use shorter / cheaper lenses. If you don't have a corporate backing, who among us can head out to the woods or the sidelines with a $6000 camera and $10,000 600mm lens? Those more pixels also allow for that highly detailed 300ppi printing at extremely large sizes, the same detail of a 12x18in 2-page magazine then can be printed as 20x30in prints or even to life-size wall coverings.

The pixels you need are based on what you want to do with the images. More pixels just give more options in printing and / or cropping. And, pixels from the camera are always better than pixels manufactured later from software.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

I’m confused...how is A 32 megapixel crop frame equal to a full frame at 51 megapixels. Unless you are talking about the lens and not the megapixels

Anyway my eyes were done 5 years ago. I got the multi focal lenses and am glad I spent the extra. It is good seeing near and far with no glasses. I’m lucky my right eye is 20/20 and left is 20/25. It took about a year for my eyes to get to this point. Aura around light at night is mostly gone. Now no more glasses pushed up against a viewfinder...

My wife had hers done before Christmas and also got the multi focal lenses. She is happy with hers too

Good luck with the second eye. It is a pain having the 2 different visions. I took the left lens out of my glasses so I could drive. It helped a little.

Chuck

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The number of pixels you need depends on how big you want to make the image. If you want to make an 8x10 inch print to be viewed from a comfortable distance you can assume that you will need about 300 pixels per inch. That works out to (8x300)x(12x300)=8.64 MP.

The good news is that you can also print that image at 16x24 inches so long as you view it from twice the distance. You will only need 150 pixels per inch so (16x150)x(24x150)=8.64MP.

That's if you don't crop the image. If you crop the image by 50% in each direction you are left with only 25% of the original image and that means that you will need to start with 4x8.64=34.56 MP.

With different focal lengths we can avoid or minimize cropping the image.

Multiple prime lenses or a zoom lens is better than upgrading to an expensive camera with a really high megapixel rating. But this is going to require that you be more careful framing the image in the camera.

Strodav Loc: Houston, Tx

Let me go to PS rasterize first. When you create something in PS like text or a shape it is a series of vectors in a separate layer. When you rasterize, the vectors are converted to pixels and can be merged with other rasterized layers.

I think of resolution this way. Detail is a property of the subject you plan to shoot. Some subjects lack fine detail, others have an abundance of it. The way to capture fine detail is to have a lens that it sharp enough to get the fine detail to the camera's sensor and enough pixels on the sensor to resolve the fine detail. Of course this assumes a good technique, in focus, no shake, good exposure, DOF, ... Distance from subject is a key variable in putting more sensor pixels on an area of your subject. The ability of the camera and lens to capture fine detail is commonly called sharpness. If you capture fine detail in your image, you can show it on a display / print that is capable of showing the fine detail. If you did not capture the fine detail in the image, you can never bring it back. The issue is whether or not you should spend money on a camera and lens that can capture fine detail if you are only going to display them on lower resolution output devices like computer monitors or 4K TVs that are not capable of showing fine detail, but heavy cropping, and subjects that only cover a small portion of your viewfinder needing resizing are important considerations in this discussion.

I use a 20.9mp D500 DX (1.5 crop factor) for wildlife / birding because of the high sensor pixel density, crop factor, and 10fps shutter speed and I know I will need to crop because it's rare that I can fill the frame with the subject. I use a 45.7mp D850 FX body for everything else where I can fill the frame with the subject because I can put a lot of pixels on the subject. In fact, the D500 has a 7% higher pixel density than my D850 in DX mode. So, I'm always asking myself is can I capture the detail of the subject with my chosen camera and lens. I don't worry so much about the print / display size / resolution as that is constantly changing.

Big Yankee Fan

I had the surgery you had awhile back. To say the results are 'amazing' doesn't do them justice. A revelation really, having been severely nearsighted and wearing glasses since 2nd grade and am now in my 60's sans glasses except over the counter readers and prescriptions for driving at night. I would suggest as follows: 1) wait before making any major photography purchase until your 2nd eye is done 2) perhaps even wait until after the laser 'cleanup' surgery they sometimes do 6mth-1 year after the first surgeries. This is a relatively minor in office procedure that reduces the cloudiness that sometimes occurs. I'm waiting to do this until after pandemic runs its course 3) then wait to see if doc recommends the prescriptions for driving at night and whether to use for night photography. Good luck.

bleirer

I believe it is all about the number of pixels on the subject. When you compare cameras with different pixel counts you have to compare how each image would look AFTER any resampling and cropping to make the images equal size. If comparing crop camera to full frame with different pixels counts and you would have to crop the full frame it is still the same idea but take into account how many pixels are lost with the crop.

So yes a high pixel count camera might be more sensitive to camera movement but if you downsample the higher pixel count full frame image to be equal to the lower pixel count full frame image, you will get a better image out of the higher pixel count camera. But if you compare full frame camera to crop camera and you have to crop the full frame then downsample there will be a point where it evens out in quality.

Older video from Steve Perry but it addresses part of your question. https://backcountrygallery.com/cropping-full-frame-vs-shooting-a-crop-camera/

Pros and cons of high vs low megapixels https://photographylife.com/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-low-vs-high-resolution-cameras

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Thanks Bob.
I was hoping you would offer some thoughts

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

Hi Chuck
A 90d is a cropped sensor To bump it up to the same size as a full frame ,35mm, you multiply it by 1.6.. So the pixel density of a 90d is equal to a full frame sensor or 51 mg, or close to it..

bleirer

But also with the smaller pixels you get somewhat worse diffraction and poorer low light performance and more noise, but could still be worth the trade off for the extra reach especially shooting in good light.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

I thought the 1.6 was for the lens. Not pixels. My bad

Chuck

WDCash Loc: Milford, Delaware, USA

It applies to both.
Because the cropped sensor starts smaller (this applies to 4/3 sensors -phone sensors as well but the ma5h changes too) it magnifies more to come to the same viewing size.
For pixels, if you have a 20 mg full framee and a 20 mg cropped sensor, the pixels must be smaller and more densely packed on the smaller cropped sensor.