12 megapixels is enough

democrates

For a given 8"x10" print from the 85mm f1.2 I've found I can get sharper results with the 5dii versus the 450d. The 21Mp file sizes slow any pp, sometimes to a crawl and sustaining 100% cpu I'm almost expecting the fan on my pc to burn out, but at times that's par for the desired result. /!shock

It makes sense to achieve balance in Your quality chain (ie lighting, the shot, lens, body, software, printer/paper/ink).

That got temporarily out of kilter for me (lens above on a crop sensor), I failed to anticipate how interested I'd become in photography so I was snagged by "buy cheap buy twice" and upgraded some elements before others. It also takes time practicing and listening to learn what sensible options are for your own area of interest given available time and money.

Some people seem to develop a fetish about a particular thing, great, whatever floats their boat, it doesn't mean that's going to interest or be a good fit for others. Arguing about it with a 'right v wrong' frame is at best an amusement for the rest of us, at worst can mislead beginners into sub-optimal decisions.

AnimalRights

......

Valentia

AnimalRights wrote: »

It doesn't, you addressed me.

But I did address you in my last post and what I said stands. What I am saying is if you can afford the best than fair play to you. Though the 5D Mk II is not necessarily the best depending on what type of photography one is in to. That's basically the jist of what is being said. The other point is that the 5D MkII doesn't necessarily need 21MP to be the best. Affording the camera is one thing affording a computer that can work with those files at a comfortable speed is another. One big vicious circle. As I said, can I have your job please. And, of yeah I forgot the last time...:D:D:D:D:D:D

TelePaul

AnimalRights wrote: »

Your popcorn go stale then?

:rolleyes:

Jesus, you can't even appreciate it when people stand up for you.

Valentia

TelePaul wrote: »

Jesus, you can't even appreciate it when people stand up for you.

This gets more confusing? Is this something to do with the "photo anarchy" thing. I'm lost!

TelePaul

Valentia wrote: »

This gets more confusing? Is this something to do with the "photo anarchy" thing. I'm lost!

Just read the post preceeding your latest.

Valentia

Sorry. I'm just thick. It doesn't matter.

AnCatDubh

Ok, Enough is enough. Please stop ALL sniping at each other and concentrate on the question as posed - namely is 12 megapixels enough?

This is to say that no more off topic posts will be tolerated on thread. This thread has already exceeded what would reasonably considered banter, and exceeded what would be considered mildly off topic comments. It isn't fun any more so desist please.

Thank you.

Valentia

Mea culpa.

ThOnda

By the way, Valentia, what are your personal opinions after comparing pictures from your camera and the 5D MkII?

Valentia

The main thing as the ability to get better crops. I don't think there is ever a situation otherwise that I would need 21MP.

I love my 5D. There is a depth to the shots that's not there with the others. I include the 1D Mk III in that. The full frame is brilliant in most situations though I prefer the extra pull with telephoto on the cropped sensor cameras.

The new camera seems to have improved even on that though my experience with it is very limited. I would definitely buy one if I could afford it.

Click Clicky

Olympus issued a statement of correction today. They say that Watanbe actually said (or meant to say) 20 megapixels, and not 12.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10189546-39.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

AnimalRights

OMFG!
That is hilarious, we nearly had civil war in this thread....lol@nilhg

PopeBuckfastXVI

Well imho 10-12 mp is plenty more than enough for p&s cameras with their tiny sensors & lenses.

I would imagine that the vast majority of posters in this forum would use several metrics when determining camera/lens performance. Most average users go by the pixel count. This suits the marketers fine cause they can slap a big number on the front of their camera, alongside the 3x optical and 15x digial zoom numbers. Consumers like it cause they can say, well what's the difference between the cameras? Aha... a bigger number!

My phone has a 6mp camera in it, and it is the absolutely worst piece of crap ever. It's noisy and the white balance is rotten. The low light performance is just pathetic. Any pic that comes out of it that isn't taken at 12 noon in the summer in a hot country just comes out a noisy blur, but hey it's got 6mp so it must be good right!?

Frankly it's about time somebody came out and said the pixel count isn't everything, and that for most peoples usage (i.e. an 800x600 party snap on facebook) getting above even 6mp is pretty worthless if the camera can't handle low light situations. It may not make any difference to us, because we have more needs than the average user, and we understand exposure control, but it will make all the difference to an average user if the metrics move from the mp p*ssing contest to actual camera performance.

That's just my 2c anyway.

Barname

its longterm sales strategy 101

educate joe sixpack about megapixels, sell 'em unit after unit with increasing megaberts, keep marching them up that megahill and then drop them back down at then end of phase one (no pun intended) in 6 months to a years time when the Manufacturers choose to educate and shift marketing focus to say, light sensors....

'forget de megayokes its de lightsensor dats whas importants eye s o's and all dat, youll be shootin like david bailey ye will'

Brian

Sounds similar to the GHz myth and the whole dual core processors thing. Pentium 4 3GHz, C2D 2GHz.. which immediately looks faster, eh?