About Megapixels
Dec 3, 2014 08:23:08 #
Gene51 wrote:
Thank you! This was one of about 30 occupied nests in a heron rookery in Bedford NY. 1500-1800 ft was the "working" distance :)
Bedford! I have friends in Bedford.
Dec 3, 2014 08:23:52 #
Depends on what you are photographing, how big will you print it and more importantly the quality of the camera and lens. Most of the time my 8mp Canon 30d takes higher quality photos than my 16mp point and shoot but sometimes what I get with an iPad Air is pretty good too. If there is the choice and I can get a high quality camera and lens with more MPs I will get better results, larger, clearer prints, sharper photos, less noise etc. of course spend more money
Dec 3, 2014 08:27:41 #
I still say you're paying for the better processors. That's what is making the images sharper. :D
Dec 3, 2014 08:54:19 #
Clif
Loc: Central Ca.
Is bigger really better? or just a bragging point. is it really better or is it just a different one. Is a black one better than a white one?
Dec 3, 2014 09:36:48 #
SharpShooter wrote:
Bigger boobs always were better...some things never change.Ebbote, it's Muscle Cars that screwed up the entire Baby Boomer generation.
We were taught that bigger was better. Be it motors or boobs! :lol:
Us old guys are just plain screwed up!!!
SS
We were taught that bigger was better. Be it motors or boobs! :lol:
Us old guys are just plain screwed up!!!
SS
Dec 3, 2014 09:43:57 #
cjkorb wrote:
OK, so I guess that makes the 1V3 a better camera than the D4.
Yes, you are right about that. For many people it is a better camera, because they can afford it. For those who can afford the D4 or D4s it is a better camera in some terms. But still the 1V3 is better for those who need lighter and more compact camera than the D4 or those who need faster fps than the D4 can deliver.
Dec 3, 2014 09:54:12 #
tradio wrote:
What about the massive cropping ability?
How much do you have to crop to see the difference between 16MP and 36MP?
Dec 3, 2014 09:59:40 #
Erik_H wrote:
I believe that you will get better results from the full frame sensor because, while having the same MP's the individual photosites are larger.
I have both the D7000 and the Df, Both are 16.2 mp, and I get better shots with the Df.
I have both the D7000 and the Df, Both are 16.2 mp, and I get better shots with the Df.
That brings up another question or other questions.
How small can the photosites get before that starts being a problem? And how many can fit on a cropped sensor and a full frame sensor before you reach that point? And will there eventually be a need to move to a medium format camera just to get more MPs?
Dec 3, 2014 10:02:47 #
Gene51 wrote:
Big assumption that you can do your part when you ... (show quote)
Wow!!! Super capture.
Dec 3, 2014 10:03:23 #
Mac wrote:
I'll be out shooting a Christmas Boat Parade with my Df and 24-120mm Saturday night.
And I'll be there too, with my D7100/18-105. But to answer your original question, I think the most important justification for high pixel count is cropping. The more I have, the more I can eliminate and still maintain a sharp, detailed image. That's important for those of us who can not afford super telephoto lenses.
See you Saturday night.
Dec 3, 2014 10:05:26 #
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.
That could be, but will the sneering be because camera manufacturers have sold us on the need for 50MP or because we really need that much?
Dec 3, 2014 10:08:40 #
paulrph1
Loc: Washington, Utah
My OPINION is probably little difference to the average user. But that depends upon your market and how large you want the picture to go. If you want billboard size photographs, you may see problems with 12 mega pixels. But for a 16x20 that would be perfectly fine. Now the question is dx vs ff. My next camera will be full frame, 24 mgp. That should be enough for my needs.
Dec 3, 2014 10:12:59 #
jjbrenner
Loc: San Angelo, TX
Gene51 wrote:
Big assumption that you can do your part when you ... (show quote)
Gene 51--much appreciation for your simple and easily-understood comments on this MP business. The two example images really helped, proving once again that, a picture really is "worth a thousand words." Thank you.
Dec 3, 2014 10:13:19 #
MW wrote:
"Need" is a tricky word but setting that aside I think MP are more important for some purposes than others. For instance landscapes that are likely to be printed very large would benefit. Subjects with primarily smooth surfaces and planes lacking detail not so much. MPix can even be detrimental when high God is needed.
Please explain your last sentence.
Dec 3, 2014 10:23:53 #
DaveHam wrote:
That is an interesting question. If you look at th... (show quote)
Good answer.
I wonder how large the print has to be before you can see the difference between 16MP and 36MP.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.