12 megapixels is enough

nilhg

One of the top honchos in Olympus' DSLR division said in an interview at PMA this week that 12 MP is enough for most applications that most customers need, and that they now intend to concentrate on better high ISO, dynamic range and colour reproduction.

I have to say I'm inclined to agree, I certainly have never printed anything remotely big enough need anything more than 12 MP and most of the shots never get printed at all.

Mycroft H

Considering the limitations of the 4/3 mount its probably the correct move.

Thirdfox

6 is enough (for me) (when not cropping)

nilhg

landyman wrote: »

Considering the limitations of the 4/3 mount its probably the correct move.

I would have thought that the sensor would have more to do with it..........:rolleyes:


But seriously, even if you take the D3/D3x as an example, while most folks want the best if possible, I doubt if many people will abandon their D3 or D700 just cause it's 12MP.

AnimalRights

You're missing the whole point, people that won't abandon their D3/D700s do it for a number of reasons, besides more than double the cost of the D3X they like the high iso performance and other bits n bobs.
Each camera has its own userbase who picked it specifically for what they want it to do...I have to add now that these are normally the pixel peepers/fan boys type of people.
A review I read recently on 2 different sites said the Canon 5D II was clever that while it didn't excel on the highest resolution/ISO compared to the Sony A900/D700 respectively it literally was only a hairs breadth away although it did have the best IQ (not counting the almost 3 tmes more expensive D3X.....ie the 5D II is the best all round camera and the D700 has its strong points as has the D3X and the Sony too.

AnimalRights

Oh I can see a difference in original file size with my 10MP 40D and my 21MP 5D II.

nilhg

AnimalRights wrote: »

You're missing the whole point, people that won't abandon their D3/D700s do it for a number of reasons, besides more than double the cost of the D3X they like the high iso performance and other bits n bobs.
Each camera has its own userbase who picked it specifically for what they want it to do...I have to add now that these are normally the pixel peepers/fan boys type of people.
A review I read recently on 2 different sites said the Canon 5D II was clever that while it didn't excel on the highest resolution/ISO compared to the Sony A900/D700 respectively it literally was only a hairs breadth away although it did have the best IQ (not counting the almost 3 tmes more expensive D3X.....ie the 5D II is the best all round camera and the D700 has its strong points as has the D3X and the Sony too.

With respect AR, maybe its not me that's missing the point, can I put a "thought experiment" to you. Imagine for a minute that Canon had stuck with 12 MP for the 5DmkII and put the same development effort into it, how good could that camera be?

Also a question to all the 5DmkII users, what do you do with all the extra pixels?

Borderfox

10mp in my 1dmk3 and aint nothing coming close to metering as well as it can and autofocus in low light too. I had something similar of a conversation over on another forum regarding the 5dII and the 1d and if you cant focus then it doesnt matter what ISO your camera goes to.

Fair play to Olympus for stating the case

AnimalRights

nilhg wrote: »

With respect AR, maybe its not me that's missing the point, can I put a "thought experiment" to you. Imagine for a minute that Canon had stuck with 12 MP for the 5DmkII and put the same development effort into it, how good could that camera be?

Also a question to all the 5DmkII users, what do you do with all the extra pixels?

Point A I don't get.
Point B I told you already I can tell the diff no problem on large sizes and am looking forward to getting large prints done in the future, It's great for cropping too, the extra resolution lets you get really strong sharp images cropped.

AnimalRights

Borderfox wrote: »

10mp in my 1dmk3 and aint nothing coming close to metering as well as it can and autofocus in low light too.

1dmk3 is a diff type of camera altogether....how much was that?
I bet you'd love 21MP and the same features you already have on it at the moment.
I don't actually understand the purpose of the thread tbh.

Barname

is megapixel count not directly related to penis size?

GhostInTheRuins

AnimalRights wrote: »

Each camera has its own userbase who picked it specifically for what they want it to do...I have to add now that these are normally the pixel peepers/fan boys type of people.
A review I read recently on 2 different sites said the Canon 5D II was clever that while it didn't excel on the highest resolution/ISO compared to the Sony A900/D700 respectively it literally was only a hairs breadth away although it did have the best IQ (not counting the almost 3 tmes more expensive D3X.....ie the 5D II is the best all round camera and the D700 has its strong points as has the D3X and the Sony too.

Why would you keep reading reviews of a camera that you already own? To be honest it sounds like you are one of those "pixel peepers/fan boys" that you seem to detest so much.

AnimalRights

I read camera forums/sites as it's my hobby, because I own a camera shall I stop reading about cameras?
I went to watch Arsenal play many times so shall I stop watching them on TV now?
Sheesh.:rolleyes:

oshead

No, 12 megapixels is not enough... Well not on the kepler telescope launching this morning. It's got a 5 meter telescope on board, at its heart a 55 inch mirror and a 95 megapixel camera. :eek:

http://kepler.nasa.gov/

Thirdfox

Barname wrote: »

is megapixel count not directly related to penis size?

Inversely? :pac:

melekalikimaka

For anything but serious sizes I'd say just under the ten mark is more than enough anything else is mp self gratification

Nforce

Slightly off topic. What would be the largest size I could print an image (assuming the shot was taken at a resolution of 3872x2592) from my D80 (10.2mp) without losing quality?

DotOrg

nilhg wrote: »

Also a question to all the 5DmkII users, what do you do with all the extra pixels?

if i'm making a wedding album that each page is 12" x 12" , I can then do a double page spready of 24" x 12" that looks amazing. It also means I can crop an image and still print it full page.

For magazine work, I can crop considerably and still do full page shots or double page spreads

Sleepy

As a 450D user I'd rather have a higher dynamic range / better high ISO performance than more megapixels tbh.

pete4130

I've printed A0 from my D3 without any upsampling and thats 12.? MP.

melekalikimaka

the ol megaixel myth is very valid... big prints dont need to be 300 dpi so you can really push big

nilhg

DotOrg wrote: »

if i'm making a wedding album that each page is 12" x 12" , I can then do a double page spready of 24" x 12" that looks amazing. It also means I can crop an image and still print it full page.

For magazine work, I can crop considerably and still do full page shots or double page spreads

That's what it's meant for, it's just I have a strong suspicion that 95%+ of shots never get printed and 95%+ of those that do never get printed much more than A4.

PixelTrawler

I think a better title for this thread would have been "12 megapixels is enough for me" - there is no debate here. One size does not fit all.

You are assuming no-one needs more then 12MP, however anyone selling to stock sites for example would find a market for much larger prints, or for other commercial uses.

If you don't need more then 12mp thats fine but i fail to see the point of making a thread on this one.

Technology moves on...

pfft... megapixels? gigapixels ftw

http://gigapan.org/viewGigapanFullscreen.php?auth=033ef14483ee899496648c2b4b06233c



i know it's stitched before anyone says it

stcstc

pete

how did you not upsample


if you printed at a low res, the printer still does upsample it

Thirdfox

Nforce wrote: »

Slightly off topic. What would be the largest size I could print an image (assuming the shot was taken at a resolution of 3872x2592) from my D80 (10.2mp) without losing quality?

Depends on what you mean by quality - a lot depends on dpi, which in turn depends on view distance too.

It's generally accepted that above 300 dpi humans can't see a difference. Personally I've been quite happy with 200 dpi (seeing no appreciable difference) and can get away with 150 dpi - holding it under your nose and comparing you will see a difference though. DPI stands for dots per inch by the way.

But add in viewing distance...generally the larger the print, the further away you'll view it from (you don't hold a 1 x 2 metre print under your nose to check for details do you?) So for a gallery print that will always be view from at least 30-40 cm away, you can drop the dpi again.

Taken to the extreme - most billboard ads are around 25 dpi. (The massive 5 x 3 metres ones etc.) That means with my 3008 x 2000 (6mp) image I can print: 120 x 80 inches (if for a billboard being viewed from a few metres) (3 x 2 metres large).

It all depends on a variety of factors.

the_syco

oshead wrote: »

a 95 megapixel camera. :eek:

[sarc]Srsly?[/sarc] I want :cool:

Thirdfox wrote: »

Taken to the extreme - most billboard ads are around 25 dpi. (The massive 5 x 3 metres ones etc.)

Cool. Didn't know that.

pete4130

stcstc wrote: »

pete

how did you not upsample


if you printed at a low res, the printer still does upsample it

They are just sharpeend jpegs from the tif files I saved from my Raws...so they acan be anywhere from 4MB-16MB depending on detail and colours. I printed them on a plotter, not a photo printer so the DPI wouldn't be up there. It isn't photo paper, it isn't photo ink and it isn't a photo printer and they do come out a tad dark the way the in gets put down on the paper. All those things go against the print being a good print but even up close it doesn't look pixelated. At that size they look very dramatic!
I even tested a Nikon D2Hs 4.1MP sensor) file at A0 and up close, you can see the pixelation. Maybe the plotter does upsample, I don't know all that much about the printing process other than the A0's I've pushed out from 4ishMB-16ishMB jpegs print alright at A0.

I think the D3 file printes at 328% and the D2Hs file was at something over 500%.

I've got a solo exhibition the end of March/Start of April in Temple Bar and I'm trying to do it as cheaply as possible so I'm considering using those A0's in it. I'm guessin gI'll sell them at a reasonable/cost price if somebody wanted them because they definitely aren't archival quality with the way they are printed.

stcstc

yea i have printed 5m * 2m from a stich of 4 D200 frames

but its in a visitor centre where you viewing from maybe 10Feet away or so, looks great

Valentia

AnimalRights wrote: »

Oh I can see a difference in original file size with my 10MP 40D and my 21MP 5D II.

What do you need 21MP for? Or anyone except the high end advertising photogs. If I get the 5D Mk II it certainly wont be for the MP's. In fact working with 21 MP is a pain in the Bollix TBH. I'd like one all the same.

What were the reasons you bought it?

Borderfox

AnimalRights wrote: »

1dmk3 is a diff type of camera altogether....how much was that?
I bet you'd love 21MP and the same features you already have on it at the moment.
I don't actually understand the purpose of the thread tbh.

1dmk3 is very close in price to the 5dmk2 at the moment, I know which one I would choose in a heartbeat. 21mp for my work is too much especially for the event stuff

Your right Danny, 21mp is a pain to work with. I had had some pano's that continually crash photoshop when I work on them because of running out of memory.

AnimalRights

Valentia wrote: »

What do you need 21MP for? Or anyone except the high end advertising photogs. If I get the 5D Mk II it certainly wont be for the MP's. In fact working with 21 MP is a pain in the Bollix TBH. I'd like one all the same.

What were the reasons you bought it?

I had L glass and found the 1D series too large.
I also liked the idea of going Full Frame.
Bonus' were top of the range ISO, top of the range 3" lcd screen, famous 5D IQ, High definition video...have I to keep going?

challengemaster

Valentia wrote: »

What were the reasons you bought it?

He had the money to throw at it tbh.

nilhg

Solyad wrote: »

I think a better title for this thread would have been "12 megapixels is enough for me" - there is no debate here. One size does not fit all.

You are assuming no-one needs more then 12MP, however anyone selling to stock sites for example would find a market for much larger prints, or for other commercial uses.

If you don't need more then 12mp thats fine but i fail to see the point of making a thread on this one.

Technology moves on...

I thought I had put a question mark at the end of the title, not going to change it now.

I don't know if you read the article I referred to (and linked) in my OP, but the Olympus boss quoted said that anyone who thinks they need more than 12MP should go FF.

The point of posting was to open up a debate, my mistake with the title might not have helped with that.

Click Clicky

nilhg wrote: »

I don't know if you read the article I referred to (and linked) in my OP, but the Olympus boss quoted said that anyone who thinks they need more than 12MP should go FF.

Well it's made my mind up, I'm pretty angry over the statement. I've over €15k worth of Olympus gear, but unless their replacement for the E3 has significant improvements in dynamic range, autofocus and high ISO performance, I'll be jumping ship. 10/12mp is enough when all of the above work well, but unfortunately at the moment, they don't. I'm not very hopeful though, so chances are I'll be getting a 1DsMk3 within a year.

It's a shame, because I honestly believe the f2 Zuiko lenses are unrivaled in terms of Image Quality. The 4/3 sensor just doesn't do them justice.

GhostInTheRuins

AR, I'm just curious, what's the average size of a raw file from the 5d2?

Click Clicky

I think it comes in around 22mb. The D3x is the highest at 30mb.

AnimalRights

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

AR, I'm just curious, what's the average size of a raw file from the 5d2?

Mine are anything from 22mb to 26-27 so as Click Clicky says probs around 25ish.
Luckily I had a games computer and I have np's with workloads.

Ricky91t

AnimalRights wrote: »

Mine are anything from 22mb to 26-27 so as Click Clicky says probs around 25ish.
Luckily I had a games computer and I have np's with workloads.

I'd be more concerned about the number of hard drives you'd go through!

You must clock up 4-5 gb at a gig?

AnimalRights

Ricky91t wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about the number of hard drives you'd go through!

You must clock up 4-5 gb at a gig?

I don't keep any of my photographs.
If Pix.ie ever crashes It will be a good laugh. :pac:
I do about 2-3gb per gig, I never shoot burst mode which helps.

ThOnda

Barname wrote: »

is megapixel count not directly related to penis size?

That explains why Elven has 5DMkII

I can imagine why that could be useful to have more pixels for cropping, however 12 mpx is sometimes too much for me. Especially when uploading and processing. I press my trigger too often :-(

And back on the topic, I think that 12 mpx is usable for most common purposes, the image quality should be more important. Progress in increasing dynamic range and lowering the noise levels should be the main aim for SLR producers.

CabanSail

I think the Pixel Density is more important than Total Pixels.

af_thefragile

My camera is 10MP and its enough for me now...
I say i'ld feel a little handicapped if i had less mpxls cuz i crop many pictures quite radically... So i like to have those extra mpxls at any time to get rid of waste stuff from my pics...

And if (when) i move to pro levels and i'm printing large posters, i'ld love to have those 50mpxls a Hasselblad offers to you!

Valentia

challengemaster wrote: »

He had the money to throw at it tbh.

Hmm. I'd like his job then!

AnimalRights

.......

Valentia

AnimalRights wrote: »

No response to my response to you then?

I think my last one covers it.

AnimalRights

.......

TelePaul

AnimalRights wrote: »

It doesn't, you addressed me.

*Gets popcorn*

AnimalRights

aahhh it don't matter.
I looked at his pics again and we can put up with him just for the quality of his pics.

GhostInTheRuins

So why should we put up with you?

:P

TelePaul

I'm out of this forum. It's just not worth the bitching anymore.