This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
A good read -
Do Megapixels Matter?
http://bangkokphotoschool.com/2014/09/30/do-megapixels-matter-by-jack-kurtz...
In reply to Henry Iddon:
I'd say no even b4 reading the link. How many people blow their photos up to max available size? I'm set at 3M pixels and that still allows me to reframe and select for a 1000 pixel shot which is a typicam max for web publishing.
I'd say no even b4 reading the link. How many people blow their photos up to max available size? I'm set at 3M pixels and that still allows me to reframe and select for a 1000 pixel shot which is a typicam max for web publishing.
In reply to LeeWood:
I think its universally accepted that the more pixels, the better the photo.
My best picture so far is 4118 megapixels
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/zoomtopo/stanage/
I think its universally accepted that the more pixels, the better the photo.
My best picture so far is 4118 megapixels
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/zoomtopo/stanage/
In reply to Henry Iddon:
It is indeed a good read, thanks for posting.
I've heard people say it doesn't matter as long as it looks good on a computer screen, because very few of us make 5-foot high posters from our snaps. But it does matter on a computer screen if you like zooming in a lot to see detail, as I often do with mountain and crag shots.
> A good read -
> Do Megapixels Matter?
It is indeed a good read, thanks for posting.
I've heard people say it doesn't matter as long as it looks good on a computer screen, because very few of us make 5-foot high posters from our snaps. But it does matter on a computer screen if you like zooming in a lot to see detail, as I often do with mountain and crag shots.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
I thought it was well accepted (like the article says) that the MP war-for-the-masses war ended quite a while ago.
16-22 MP seems to be the settled range for most (at the mo).
It now seems a function/form war, hence the rise of Fuji-X and M4/3
With them all battling the Phones of course ...
I thought it was well accepted (like the article says) that the MP war-for-the-masses war ended quite a while ago.
16-22 MP seems to be the settled range for most (at the mo).
It now seems a function/form war, hence the rise of Fuji-X and M4/3
With them all battling the Phones of course ...
In reply to ChrisJD:
I'd like to see a combination of both - A professional camera with a programmable interface. Like the efforts Canon made with its SDK ( and the unofficial CHDK ) but more comprehensive, or simply have one running Android.
> With them all battling the Phones of course ...
I'd like to see a combination of both - A professional camera with a programmable interface. Like the efforts Canon made with its SDK ( and the unofficial CHDK ) but more comprehensive, or simply have one running Android.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Interesting, thanks. It's pretty much the same story as all along, but good to see it updated to include contemporary spec cameras.
For climbing purposes, and something I've done a bit of in terms of photos:
>>"What 36 megapixels does give you is wiggle room. If you’re photographing something that requires a 400mm or 500mm lens, for example, and all you have is a 300mm lens, the extra resolution of your 36MP camera means you can comfortably crop in to a view you would get with that longer lens. If you regularly find yourself in the position of having to significantly crop your images that drastically you should either buy a longer lens or refine your technique."<<
That last sentence is no doubt sound, but not necessarily useful for some of us. Climbers or mountain photographers are often shooting things very far away. It would be great to have a big lens or two i.e. 500m, and a tripod, but it's often not practical.
In my case I often want to zoom right in to a photo of a mountain face at the closest detail I can, and there's a good chance that mountain face was a very long way away. Even a nice sharp 12-16MP loses detail when you crop and zoom to the degree I often want for terrain/route info. I might not bother going for 36MP but for my next camera I won't go below 16MP and probably more around 20.
I've had plenty of pics published from 8-12MP p&s cameras and a 8MP DSLR but I've found for more serious print jobs the publishers always want an image from a 20+MP full-frame if they can. Once you're used to the difference, it's easier to spot, though I think (heresy alert!) in many cases it really doesn't matter much.
Interesting, thanks. It's pretty much the same story as all along, but good to see it updated to include contemporary spec cameras.
For climbing purposes, and something I've done a bit of in terms of photos:
>>"What 36 megapixels does give you is wiggle room. If you’re photographing something that requires a 400mm or 500mm lens, for example, and all you have is a 300mm lens, the extra resolution of your 36MP camera means you can comfortably crop in to a view you would get with that longer lens. If you regularly find yourself in the position of having to significantly crop your images that drastically you should either buy a longer lens or refine your technique."<<
That last sentence is no doubt sound, but not necessarily useful for some of us. Climbers or mountain photographers are often shooting things very far away. It would be great to have a big lens or two i.e. 500m, and a tripod, but it's often not practical.
In my case I often want to zoom right in to a photo of a mountain face at the closest detail I can, and there's a good chance that mountain face was a very long way away. Even a nice sharp 12-16MP loses detail when you crop and zoom to the degree I often want for terrain/route info. I might not bother going for 36MP but for my next camera I won't go below 16MP and probably more around 20.
I've had plenty of pics published from 8-12MP p&s cameras and a 8MP DSLR but I've found for more serious print jobs the publishers always want an image from a 20+MP full-frame if they can. Once you're used to the difference, it's easier to spot, though I think (heresy alert!) in many cases it really doesn't matter much.
Post edited at 09:14
In reply to Henry Iddon:
No, unless resolution is the be all and end all. (I quickly scanned through the linked article)
More important is the brain eye camera interface which promotes good composing and exposure. Ive come to appreciate a cameras composing ability greatly. Ive three cameras which are distinctly different in this regard.
Sigma DP2Merrill Foveon sensor not bayer like all other digital cameras (open to be corrected ), these digital files are the finest ive ever produced from any camera. Finest in resolution but also cleanness and most life like (they have to be witnessed on a PC running the proprietary software before jpg conversion, they really are impressive). But the cameras ability to compose sucks due to its average LCD being the only way to compose.
The Olympus OM-2n 35mm film camera is a joy to use and demonstrates how modern cameras are really lacking in compose ability whilst they concentrate on resolution.
Then the Panasonic DMC-LX7 with EVF let's you get some low down shots with ease. Which an articulating lcd allows, but the eyecup of the viewfinder kicks ass in direct sunlight whereas you would need a hat to shade the lcd. But the resulting artifacts from lens/bayersensor combination are a let down compared with the foveon/sigma combo
So three good cameras that excel in one department and let down in another. Its all about compromise at the end of the day. Always will be.
Im excitedly waiting to pick 8 developed films up tonight from Asda, from my summer holy-bobs. No, megga pixels dont matter.
mh
No, unless resolution is the be all and end all. (I quickly scanned through the linked article)
More important is the brain eye camera interface which promotes good composing and exposure. Ive come to appreciate a cameras composing ability greatly. Ive three cameras which are distinctly different in this regard.
Sigma DP2Merrill Foveon sensor not bayer like all other digital cameras (open to be corrected ), these digital files are the finest ive ever produced from any camera. Finest in resolution but also cleanness and most life like (they have to be witnessed on a PC running the proprietary software before jpg conversion, they really are impressive). But the cameras ability to compose sucks due to its average LCD being the only way to compose.
The Olympus OM-2n 35mm film camera is a joy to use and demonstrates how modern cameras are really lacking in compose ability whilst they concentrate on resolution.
Then the Panasonic DMC-LX7 with EVF let's you get some low down shots with ease. Which an articulating lcd allows, but the eyecup of the viewfinder kicks ass in direct sunlight whereas you would need a hat to shade the lcd. But the resulting artifacts from lens/bayersensor combination are a let down compared with the foveon/sigma combo
So three good cameras that excel in one department and let down in another. Its all about compromise at the end of the day. Always will be.
Im excitedly waiting to pick 8 developed films up tonight from Asda, from my summer holy-bobs. No, megga pixels dont matter.
mh
In reply to planetmarshall:
I'd like something with the form and external controls of the Fuji XT1 with a FF sensor and some proper 1:1 macro lenses and tilt-shifts to go with it. (Not the Nikon DF, had a play with one and didn't like the feel of it though I liked what they tried to do). Doubtless this will appear in not too long a time.
I'm currently deciding on an outfit and the photography forums make for dizzying reading. The most convincing bit of advice I've seen is that the lenses make the system whilst the bodies are temporary.
I'm sure Henry will be familar with this website, but for everyone else, this is one of the best sites I visit for advice and info.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/articles.php
I'd like something with the form and external controls of the Fuji XT1 with a FF sensor and some proper 1:1 macro lenses and tilt-shifts to go with it. (Not the Nikon DF, had a play with one and didn't like the feel of it though I liked what they tried to do). Doubtless this will appear in not too long a time.
I'm currently deciding on an outfit and the photography forums make for dizzying reading. The most convincing bit of advice I've seen is that the lenses make the system whilst the bodies are temporary.
I'm sure Henry will be familar with this website, but for everyone else, this is one of the best sites I visit for advice and info.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/articles.php
In reply to Henry Iddon:
mp + sensor size + processing = gooder picture
mp on its own means nothing and unless the sensor is large enough it can degrade the image by having too many pixels
mp + sensor size + processing = gooder picture
mp on its own means nothing and unless the sensor is large enough it can degrade the image by having too many pixels
In reply to Removed User:
A bit of advice I picked up regarding the above is: Buy into the same system as what your friends have.
> I'm currently deciding on an outfit and the photography forums make for dizzying reading. The most convincing bit of advice I've seen is that the lenses make the system whilst the bodies are temporary.
A bit of advice I picked up regarding the above is: Buy into the same system as what your friends have.
In reply to Henry Iddon:
Balls to megapixels! I've switched to medium format film.
Now it's possibly all about scan resolution.
Balls to megapixels! I've switched to medium format film.
Now it's possibly all about scan resolution.
Post edited at 09:48
In reply to ow arm:
As the article says, the lens is a cruical component too. Unless you have good lenses, a high MP sensor will just enable you to see the limitations in the abiity of your lens to resolve an image.
> mp + sensor size + processing = gooder picture
> mp on its own means nothing and unless the sensor is large enough it can degrade the image by having too many pixels
As the article says, the lens is a cruical component too. Unless you have good lenses, a high MP sensor will just enable you to see the limitations in the abiity of your lens to resolve an image.
In reply to SidharthaDongre:
With medium format film just you have to get it professionally scanned - a desktop job, even quite a good one, costing quite a lot of money, just will not be good enough. Not because of the scan resolution (most of them can be v high definition e.g 2400ppi) but because of the nature of the scanning. Transparencies need to be scanned on a drum scanner (they're also placed in a liquid with same density as the film cell, I think)
> Balls to megapixels! I've switched to medium format film.
> Now it's possibly all about scan resolution.
With medium format film just you have to get it professionally scanned - a desktop job, even quite a good one, costing quite a lot of money, just will not be good enough. Not because of the scan resolution (most of them can be v high definition e.g 2400ppi) but because of the nature of the scanning. Transparencies need to be scanned on a drum scanner (they're also placed in a liquid with same density as the film cell, I think)
In reply to Dan Arkle:
Yea, but what have you ever done on grit?
Excellent pic.
> My best picture so far is 4118 megapixels
Yea, but what have you ever done on grit?
Excellent pic.
Post edited at 22:54
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
You'd be hard pressed to spot the difference between a desktop MF film scanner, and a drum scan, probably only at 'enormous' enlargements.
I think the 'liquid' you refer to is only 'Scan Gel'. It just helps to keep the film flat on the drum or glass surface, and disguise dust and scratches on the tranny. Annoyingly most damage is done to the original by clumsy operators in a hurry to clean up the film after scanning!
> With medium format film just you have to get it professionally scanned - a desktop job, even quite a good one, costing quite a lot of money, just will not be good enough. Not because of the scan resolution (most of them can be v high definition e.g 2400ppi) but because of the nature of the scanning. Transparencies need to be scanned on a drum scanner (they're also placed in a liquid with same density as the film cell, I think)
You'd be hard pressed to spot the difference between a desktop MF film scanner, and a drum scan, probably only at 'enormous' enlargements.
I think the 'liquid' you refer to is only 'Scan Gel'. It just helps to keep the film flat on the drum or glass surface, and disguise dust and scratches on the tranny. Annoyingly most damage is done to the original by clumsy operators in a hurry to clean up the film after scanning!
In reply to dek:
Maybe they've got much better. I had some very bad experiences trying to scan my own. Just no comparison with the people who scanned for the illustrations in my mountain books.
Yes, scan gel sounds exactly what I'm talking about. It's nearly two decades since I was last involved in that work - so memory hazy. The best scans I ever had done were for my Cuillin book, by World Print in Hong Kong. Well, they were the printers my publisher then used.
Maybe they've got much better. I had some very bad experiences trying to scan my own. Just no comparison with the people who scanned for the illustrations in my mountain books.
Yes, scan gel sounds exactly what I'm talking about. It's nearly two decades since I was last involved in that work - so memory hazy. The best scans I ever had done were for my Cuillin book, by World Print in Hong Kong. Well, they were the printers my publisher then used.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
The Nikon and minoltas are good, but weirdly have rocketed in price for used models.
Pity you didn't get to try out a Hasselblad Flextite (virtual drum scanner) an absolute doddle to use, you can scan a 5x4 in about 5 mins!
The Nikon and minoltas are good, but weirdly have rocketed in price for used models.
Pity you didn't get to try out a Hasselblad Flextite (virtual drum scanner) an absolute doddle to use, you can scan a 5x4 in about 5 mins!
In reply to dek:
My brother has a brilliant 35mm Nikon scanner. But I had the impression that they've recently stopped making them and that John got one of the last ones in America ...
I imagine it has a Hasselblad price tag attached to it, which is why I didn't contemplate it. I'd spent enough on the Hasselblad outfit, with each lens c.£2000. I assume you're talking about something like £15K ?
> The Nikon and minoltas are good, but weirdly have rocketed in price for used models.
My brother has a brilliant 35mm Nikon scanner. But I had the impression that they've recently stopped making them and that John got one of the last ones in America ...
> Pity you didn't get to try out a Hasselblad Flextite (virtual drum scanner) an absolute doddle to use, you can scan a 5x4 in about 5 mins!
I imagine it has a Hasselblad price tag attached to it, which is why I didn't contemplate it. I'd spent enough on the Hasselblad outfit, with each lens c.£2000. I assume you're talking about something like £15K ?
In reply to ow arm:
The original question was "Do Megapixels Matter?" The answer is sometimes, to some extent, for some uses, but only if the rest of the camera system, in particular the lens, is capable of supporting the quality of the sensor.
> i thought we were just talking about the camera body itself
The original question was "Do Megapixels Matter?" The answer is sometimes, to some extent, for some uses, but only if the rest of the camera system, in particular the lens, is capable of supporting the quality of the sensor.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Yep, it's a shame the demise of analogue films means scanner makers can't justify keeping going.
The newish Flextites are expensive, but you may find a Photography resource that allows you to hire the scanner, on an hourly basis? Its a good way to digitise those old masterpieces, retouch and tart them up at your leisure,
Yep, it's a shame the demise of analogue films means scanner makers can't justify keeping going.
The newish Flextites are expensive, but you may find a Photography resource that allows you to hire the scanner, on an hourly basis? Its a good way to digitise those old masterpieces, retouch and tart them up at your leisure,
In reply to dek: oil or gel is used to prevent 'newtons rings' interference patterns that occur becuase of the very small gaps between the film and drum.
In their hay day a good drum scanner (which could be £50k +) in the hands of a skilled operator could knock the spots off any flat bed / desktop device for scanning transparencies. They used photo multipliers rather than ccd's and hence had superb dynamic range with very little noise.
Don't see many around these days.
In digital imaging less 'good' pixels will often result in better image quality than a lot of 'bad' pixels.
In their hay day a good drum scanner (which could be £50k +) in the hands of a skilled operator could knock the spots off any flat bed / desktop device for scanning transparencies. They used photo multipliers rather than ccd's and hence had superb dynamic range with very little noise.
Don't see many around these days.
In digital imaging less 'good' pixels will often result in better image quality than a lot of 'bad' pixels.
In reply to dek:
This is a near as I could get with a quick google.
http://scanunit.com/scanner-hire/
The only Hasselblad rental site I could find was in Australia.
This is a near as I could get with a quick google.
http://scanunit.com/scanner-hire/
The only Hasselblad rental site I could find was in Australia.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I'm truly just getting started with film & darkroom processing, but indeed some of the automated/on-board scanning processing sounds like it would be confounding, especially for colour reproductions.
I'm truly just getting started with film & darkroom processing, but indeed some of the automated/on-board scanning processing sounds like it would be confounding, especially for colour reproductions.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...