About Megapixels
Dec 3, 2014 06:57:22 #
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
Bragging rights. That's why I got myself a Bugatti Veyron. Well, not really, but I can dream.
I remember a headline on the cover of a photo mag years ago, "One Megapixel Camera!" A few years from now, we'll be sneering at puny little 50 Mp cameras.
Dec 3, 2014 07:09:03 #
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
It depends on how big your are enlarging, or tight your are cropping. (short answer). In addition, my D7100 (which is 24mp) takes much better photos than my wife's D70s 6 Mp but how much of that is the difference in other sensor improvements, sensitivity, processor and the other things that are on newer cameras?.. When you purchase a new camera the additional megapixels is just a part of the package.
Dec 3, 2014 07:15:46 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
It's a GAME. Possibly need more megapixels for cropping. The race has been on for quite some time
Dec 3, 2014 07:16:08 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
It's a GAME. Possibly need more megapixels for cropping. The race has been on for quite some time
Dec 3, 2014 07:18:07 #
drmarty wrote:
Great shot!
Thank you! This was one of about 30 occupied nests in a heron rookery in Bedford NY. 1500-1800 ft was the "working" distance :)
Dec 3, 2014 07:18:44 #
michealj wrote:
Now that's a good one :lol: :lol: :thumbup: Mike J.
No laughing matter - of course they are!
Dec 3, 2014 07:20:21 #
Peekayoh wrote:
One of the few sensible posts in this thread. :thumbup:
Mind you, I've come to realise that there is little sense in many of the things claimed in Forums. Apparently, you only need 6Mpix for a 24x36 print and recently a Canon user claimed that DR didn't matter because of HDR. I dare say someone somewhere is claiming the earth to be flat.
Mind you, I've come to realise that there is little sense in many of the things claimed in Forums. Apparently, you only need 6Mpix for a 24x36 print and recently a Canon user claimed that DR didn't matter because of HDR. I dare say someone somewhere is claiming the earth to be flat.
You had to know this was coming:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Dec 3, 2014 07:26:04 #
One of the best pictures I ever took was in 2003 with a 2mp Olympus Point and Shoot. Have blown it up to 8x10 without too much problem. Recently took some glorious outdoor shots with my Canon 16mp T2i which I have blown up to stunning 13x19 size. Recently bought a 70D with a 20.2mp rating and other upgrades. I wouldn't go back but each resolution has turned out great shots. Now if I should upgrade some humongous mp rating, maybe I could blow it up to 6 foot high by 10 foot wide and sell it for $4.3 mil . . . .
Dec 3, 2014 07:29:03 #
Apaflo wrote:
I have a 24in wide carriage Epson printer the prints at 360 PPI. A 30x24 inch print is 93 MP (10,800 x 8640). Rest assured that I often crop to as little as 1/4 the original area of an image, and would love to have a camera that allowed me to get 360 PPI out of that!
Hence it is going to be a long time before I'm not excited by a new model that has more pixels.
Hence it is going to be a long time before I'm not excited by a new model that has more pixels.
This is an old argument not to be resurrected - but no one in the printing industry will support the notion that you need 93mp image resolution to print 30x24 - no one. I looked and could not find a single printer that said less than 360 resolution will result in inferior prints.
Unless you are a pixelpeeping dilettante that brings a loupe to a gallery to examine fine image detail, at the risk of being shown the door for getting to close to the artwork.
That is just more unsupported silliness. No one really appreciates a 30x24 at 18" viewing distance - most (other than photographers with severe OCD) will step back to "take it all in" for larger images, thus minimizing the need for high resolution, or move in closer for small prints, increasing the need for high resolution. As I have said in a previous post - I, along with other photographers who "get it" have had work printed to 24x36 from a D100 or D70, and I have a couple that were printed to 40x60 and sold in a gallery years ago - with no complaints about resolution or image quality.
Floyd, get with the program, dude, and stop putting out your "uniuqe" perspective that flaunts an entire industry's long held standards and practices.
Dec 3, 2014 07:29:27 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
I have taken some great pcitures with my Nikon D40, a 6 megapixel camera.
Dec 3, 2014 07:39:45 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I have taken some great pcitures with my Nikon D40, a 6 megapixel camera.
Of course, and you've probably made some great large prints as well.
Dec 3, 2014 07:42:35 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Bragging rights. That's why I got myself a Bugatti Veyron. Well, not really, but I can dream.
I remember a headline on the cover of a photo mag years ago, "One Megapixel Camera!" A few years from now, we'll be sneering at puny little 50 Mp cameras.
I remember a headline on the cover of a photo mag years ago, "One Megapixel Camera!" A few years from now, we'll be sneering at puny little 50 Mp cameras.
Jerry, you can park your Veyron next to my 1962 Ferrari 250 GTO (in my dreams as well - besides I would never fit in it) :)
Dec 3, 2014 08:01:21 #
Is'nt it more the processor in the camera than the megapixels? I always thought anything over 5 would give you a decent photo.
I hope that's not what I'm paying for, megapixels.
I hope that's not what I'm paying for, megapixels.
Dec 3, 2014 08:04:26 #
Mac wrote:
Do you really need more than 15-20 MPs? If so, what for?
I remember thinking, "Why would I ever want more than 2 megapixels".
Dec 3, 2014 08:08:17 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Usual question that will not solve anything as the only sane answer: "To print larger capture" was dismissed out of hand with a stupid answer.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.