Meapixel count-quality-personal needs (Page 4): Bravo!

Haden123

Pfadfinder wrote:

Don't be like that. You know full well he means composition. Respond in Norwegian and see how well you do.

Bravo!

AzYooper Loc: Sun Lakes AZ (Almost Phoenix)

When you are shooting birds, or more specifically birds in flight, is impossible to "compose" the shot or get closer or fill the frame. So cropping is going to be necessary in many instances and those large megapixels are then pure gold. Then your friends at Topaz will help you blow them back up to a full OOC pixel count.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

AzYooper wrote:

When you are shooting birds, or more specifically birds in flight, is impossible to "compose" the shot or get closer or fill the frame. So cropping is going to be necessary in many instances and those large megapixels are then pure gold. Then your friends at Topaz will help you blow them back up to a full OOC pixel count.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Once again, you don’t know what you don’t know. And what YOU don’t know is the experience of others. Maybe you’ve done some stellar professional work in your time, but it’s apparent that it’s been in a limited domain, because you show a real lack of understanding about things others shoot. Actually after reading your previous two posts I’m questioning your claims about your work.

Sure, I coin a word and you misunderstood and add in inflammatory words...

In simpler terms... more megapixels are great if you need to crop or print really large, but most will never realize the benefit of the added data and actually end up with a lot extra storage needed and slower processing.

Lesser cameras in the real world can do perfectly well because of the smaller than realized requirements needed for things like internet or a monitor viewing.

Think about it... you only need 6 megapixels for most internet uses and can print fairly large at only 12. Billboards can be printed at 2 based on viewing distance.

By "Composure" as a meaning in the camera world; composing yourself and the image together and the idea of utilizing focal lengths with your limited mega pixels. "Compure" as in a symphony for imaging...

Forethought can yield professional results and outproduce any 50 megapixel snapshots that are conveniently cropping to 20 or less at times.

PS: If you want proof of my credentials and current magazine projects, please private message me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The greatest things in digital photography are the pixels.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

SuperflyTNT wrote:

And you can have perfect composition in camera and still improve through cropping if the aspect ratio of your sensor isn’t the best aspect ratio for the subject.

Have you ever stitched 6 images vertically (portrait) with a 90m or 139mm TS lens (shifted and tilted) to get the wide angle foreground to distant look of a 24mm (perspective), but without any of the distortion?

How about the resultant 60 megapixels and double the sensor size of medium format, at i/3 the cost...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You don't create great images while admiring all the pixels your camera is missing.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

imagextrordinair wrote:

Have you ever stitched 6 images vertically (portrait) with a 90m or 139mm TS lens (shifted and tilted) to get the wide angle foreground to distant look of a 24mm (perspective), but without any of the distortion?

How about the resultant 60 megapixels and double the sensor size of medium format, at i/3 the cost...

Once again you missed the point. Yes I know how to stitch images. I’m talking about cropping for aspect ratio. I’m a believer that the subject dictates the crop. I don’t stick to standard aspect ratios if I think the image is better served by a non-standard crop.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Successful photographers do the one thing the unsuccessful are unwilling to do: they always buy the camera with the most pixels.

Hip Coyote

imagextrordinair wrote:

It is true there are ways to gain flexibility in your photo editing, like for cropping.

More mega pixels may be less expensive than purchasing multiple focal lengths and perhaps wiser monetarily, but for too many I believe it is also a form of laziness. Relying on a sensor stuffed with small but plentiful pixels to reduce legwork or composure skills is more picture taking than producing a quality image.

For me I prefer composure and avoid cropping as much as possible. I take my time and use skills that have developed over time to get the image I see when I compose from the start.

Simple math will tell you what you need to know when choosing pixel density. An example is 20 megapixel sensors will print images to 21.9x 14.6, and 100 mpxls will print to 49x 32.6. that's what they say but there is more...

The truth is that your lens also plays a big part in the outcome. I print regularly to 60 inches wide at 50 mega pixels using a TSE lens. I recently printed at that resolution with detail so fine you can see people holding their cell phone in the deepest part of a landscape image nearly two mile away.

Pixel density is less important than pixel quality, spacing and pitch. 9 times out of ten most are reducing the size of their image for social media plus never print large. You could do well with 10 megapixels if you do not crop or print big.

The result and use of your image is all that maters, so understanding pixel overkill is possible, plus the fact that you can achieve more with composure and good glass might be something more important to think about.

any image edited under two-feet wide means a 20 mega pixel sensor will be more than enough. Additionally a tilt shift lens can turn your 20 mega pixels into 50 in under a minute, an option mostly ignored.

One of the best learning methods to consider is to use only one fixed focal length each day for a week and force yourself to move forward and back to compose regardless of look vs focal length.

Understanding composure, practice, a good lenses and avoiding being a picture taker will be much more valuable than purchasing a 100 megapixel camera body that will most likely slow down your computer... and eventually be reduced to 6 mega pixels for things like magazine or social media needs...

The horse is not quite dead yet i will assume...

It is true there are ways to gain flexibility in y... (show quote)

Welcome to the UHH. I see that this is your third posting...all on pixel count. Maybe expand your interests or perhaps this is just coincidence? Consider attaching a link to your photo website if you have one.

You will soon see, unfortunately, some sad sack hogs can take the most benign topics and allow them to devolve into insults over...zoom lenses or pixel counts, camera brands or filters. Makes for a great start of the day!

On to your comment. I shoot micro 4/3 gear and am limited to 20 mgs. I typically shoot street / travel stuff mostly. I have no interest, what so ever, to go somewhere specifically to take - make photographs. For me, its boring.

Therefore, I tend to get what I get. I can try to get closer or re-compose, but often moments are very fleeting. In fact, on occasion judges in our photo club comment on my photos that something else should have been in the frame...usually which did not exist at the time...because the photos were not staged and/or I was on the move. On occasion, I score well and have had photos ranked with merit and have a photo or two ranked as among the top photos of the year...but I certainly do not score like the dedicated (and exceptional) photogs who go out with the sole intent to take photographs. I am like an amateur golfer who pars a hole maybe 10% of the time, which is what keeps us coming back!

As others mentioned, if you are shooting wildlife, sports, kids in motion, then you, of course, want to position yourself in the best possible position, but you may be limited to how close you can get to the subject. Look no further than YouTube for some of the foolish behavior of people at our Yellowstone National Park where people like to take selfies with wild bison and even bears. The zoomed with their feet to get THE shot and it sometimes does not end well. Bison are so strong, they can actually launch people 20 feet up into trees. Who knew?

Pixels do help a lot in cropping. I have, on occasion, shot something then later saw a better shot if the pic were really cropped. I am limited. I can up-size the photo using LR or Topaz, but that does have limitations. So, opportunity lost. Its a hobby, not a vocation.

Different environments have different equipment needs. Traveling, I carry less and less gear because we are at the point of trying to travel with all carry on luggage and I am tired of carrying around gear. In fact, I carry a small Sony (jury is still out on that.) If and when a grand child starts playing sports I will try my m43 gear and if that does not suit me, I will change to something else....maybe full frame. Who knows? I'm not married to any piece of equipment.
If I am fishing for trout, I use trout gear. If I am fishing for large tuna, I use heavy tackle...same with photography. (Very large tuna is way more fun, BTW. )

There is a tech side of this hobby, of course. But I'd rather focus on the art side of the hobby. For me, it is where the improvement comes from continual critique, learning, being mentored, judged, and even a little bit of teaching. Over time, my so called style developed into what it is. I find it fun to be somewhere, see a photo op that no one else sees and make a bit of art. Pixels are an issue, but really a sideshow.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Once again you missed the point. Yes I know how to stitch images. I’m talking about cropping for aspect ratio. I’m a believer that the subject dictates the crop. I don’t stick to standard aspect ratios if I think the image is better served by a non-standard crop.

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

Hip Coyote wrote:

Welcome to the UHH. I see that this is your third posting...all on pixel count. Maybe expand your interests or perhaps this is just coincidence? Consider attaching a link to your photo website if you have one.

You will soon see, unfortunately, some sad sack hogs can take the most benign topics and allow them to devolve into insults over...zoom lenses or pixel counts, camera brands or filters. Makes for a great start of the day!

On to your comment. I shoot micro 4/3 gear and am limited to 20 mgs. I typically shoot street / travel stuff mostly. I have no interest, what so ever, to go somewhere specifically to take - make photographs. For me, its boring.

Therefore, I tend to get what I get. I can try to get closer or re-compose, but often moments are very fleeting. In fact, on occasion judges in our photo club comment on my photos that something else should have been in the frame...usually which did not exist at the time...because the photos were not staged and/or I was on the move. On occasion, I score well and have had photos ranked with merit and have a photo or two ranked as among the top photos of the year...but I certainly do not score like the dedicated (and exceptional) photogs who go out with the sole intent to take photographs. I am like an amateur golfer who pars a hole maybe 10% of the time, which is what keeps us coming back!

As others mentioned, if you are shooting wildlife, sports, kids in motion, then you, of course, want to position yourself in the best possible position, but you may be limited to how close you can get to the subject. Look no further than YouTube for some of the foolish behavior of people at our Yellowstone National Park where people like to take selfies with wild bison and even bears. The zoomed with their feet to get THE shot and it sometimes does not end well. Bison are so strong, they can actually launch people 20 feet up into trees. Who knew?

Pixels do help a lot in cropping. I have, on occasion, shot something then later saw a better shot if the pic were really cropped. I am limited. I can up-size the photo using LR or Topaz, but that does have limitations. So, opportunity lost. Its a hobby, not a vocation.

Different environments have different equipment needs. Traveling, I carry less and less gear because we are at the point of trying to travel with all carry on luggage and I am tired of carrying around gear. In fact, I carry a small Sony (jury is still out on that.) If and when a grand child starts playing sports I will try my m43 gear and if that does not suit me, I will change to something else....maybe full frame. Who knows? I'm not married to any piece of equipment.
If I am fishing for trout, I use trout gear. If I am fishing for large tuna, I use heavy tackle...same with photography. (Very large tuna is way more fun, BTW. )

There is a tech side of this hobby, of course. But I'd rather focus on the art side of the hobby. For me, it is where the improvement comes from continual critique, learning, being mentored, judged, and even a little bit of teaching. Over time, my so called style developed into what it is. I find it fun to be somewhere, see a photo op that no one else sees and make a bit of art. Pixels are an issue, but really a sideshow.

Welcome to the UHH. I see that this is your third... (show quote)

imagextrordinair Loc: Halden, Norway

To all who responded... This was fun. but now that Sony came forward with their global shutter this argument is somewhat meaningless...

Jared Polin also said today the A9 III has 24 mpxls and added " I have shot with 24 for years and that is more than enough".

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

imagextrordinair wrote:

To all who responded... This was fun. but now that Sony came forward with their global shutter this argument is somewhat meaningless...

Jared Polin also said today the A9 III has 24 mpxls and added " I have shot with 24 for years and that is more than enough".

Then sell your Z9, Z8, Z7, a1 etc.
24 mp is plenty now.
Sony has so declared.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

imagextrordinair wrote:

.../... Additionally, a tilt shift lens can turn your 20 mega pixels into 50 in under a minute, an option mostly ignored. .../...

Extend on this, please.