Megapixels: How Much Is Enough?

RoryW

http://www.digitalphotopro.com/gear/imaging-tech/megapixels-how-much-is-enough.html

"There’s no question that more megapixels lead to digital photos with improved detail and image quality. However, it has long received too much focus as a measure of the advancements in digital camera technology. What matters most, ultimately, is the quality of the final image. It’s important to appreciate that there’s much more at play here than how many megapixels are packed into the sensor. Perhaps in the future you’ll hear fewer photographers ask, “How many megapixels are in your camera?”, and more ask, “What’s the full-well limit of the photodetectors in your camera?” and “How small is the inter-pixel spacing on your sensor?” Or perhaps photographers will learn to appreciate that the technology in their digital cameras is incredibly advanced and beyond the ability of most photographers to truly understand, so they can go back to focusing on what really matters to photographers: the final image. Isn’t that what it’s all about?"

ThOnda

As far as I know, 12 Mpx of 5D should be enough for me.

MooseJam

yea but more megapixels = better, that is all

ThOnda

nope - more megapixels without marginal improvement of sensor technology equals lower image quality (=higher noise).

MooseJam

yes but when newer cameras come out with more megapixels they obviously do all the other stuff that needs doing so it's pretty safe to compare by megapixel

MagicMarker

Megapixel is only really important when it comes to print size really... as in, you can take a similar quality pic with 8mp than you can with 12mp, but when it comes to print, 12mp would provide a larger size, should you want/need it.

Or am i completely wrong?

MooseJam

isn't film like the equivalent of 26 megapixels, think I saw someone on here say that

Shiny

I wont be happy until i have a gigapixel camera.

Just think, 1000% crop and you can still print A1.

challengemaster

Shiny wrote: »

I wont be happy until i have a gigapixel camera.

Just think, 1000% crop and you can still print A1.

I suggest you start trying to buy >51% of stock in NASA now

Shiny

haha

What tripod would I need to keep half a satellite steady ?

I'm not joking though, I want one.

CabanSail

MooseJam wrote: »

yea but more megapixels = better, that is all

No.

It's a great marketing ploy though. It helps some sales jock who knows SFA about photography impress people with too much money to part with more of it.

My D70S has a 6Mp sensor. I have seen folk wandering around with 10Mp P&S cameras. I know the D70S is a much more capable camera.

The thing is that it's quite cheap to put in a bigger sensor, the expensive thing is to have glass in front of that sensor which has the resolution to match. My phone has a 3Mp camera in it, but a cheap plastic lens, so 1Mp would have been more than enough for it.

Calina

MooseJam wrote: »

yes but when newer cameras come out with more megapixels they obviously do all the other stuff that needs doing so it's pretty safe to compare by megapixel

I think if you are not buying a camera because you are massively interested in photography but want a digital point and click, this is probably not too far wrong. If you are interested in actual photography for the same of photography it's not quite so straightforward.

Interestingly enough, someone did a compare of the picture quality out of two Canon DSLRs at some stage - I am not sure but I think it was the 350D and the 400D at the time - and of course the 400D had bigger resolution but the view at the end of it was that the 350D produced marginally (very marginally) better photographs. At entry level DSLR the difference wasn't big enough to make a huge difference to the end user, but it was, still and all, an interesting exercise.

I'd be interested to see if someone did something similar with a 40D and a 50D.

I'd like a 25MP camera with 8fps and a cache to cater for 30 RAW shots in continuous shooting mode. I may see it in about 5 years time the way things are going.

magicbastarder

here's one way of looking at it - if a 12MP camera is €1000, say, and an 8mp camera is €700, and you only ever print over A4 sized (which 8MP is more than adequate for) 5 times, each of those prints has cost you at least €60, all other things being equal.

AnCatDubh

On its own, megapixel is simply more detail. How much is enough? Depends on what you want to do and how big you want to reproduce your image. I've gone 30x20 from a 6Mp image which is nice and large with quite reasonable results ( I wouldn't like to push it much more though ).

When you review an image in post processing you may notice a little detail in the scene which you hadn't set out to capture and it may be very nice if crop'd out. If your megapixel count is low then you've no chance of getting anything from a small crop that would print ok. But as you hadn't intended such a composition in the first place, it is an unintended consequence or perhaps an added benefit of having more megapixels.

For some, 3 mega-pixel will be more than enough for anything that they will ever do. Others will be looking for that nice little 50Megapixel Hasselblad medium format jobbie.

.

Stephen

I was quite happy with the 6mp offered by my D50. The D90 I have now has 12mp in a new CMOS sensor and I shoot at 12mp since storage is so very cheap and it can be so convenient to crop, but I never print anything big enough for resolution to matter. Its certainly much less noisy at high ISO levels than the D50 was.

I think the only people who are really sucked in by the "more megapixels = better" marketing hype are the people who just want a point and shoot camera that does everything automatically. My own father is one, and he can't get why his 7mp p&s was cheaper than my 6mp D50 was at the time

MooseJam

well whatever you think about megapixels not being the only story I can still guarantee that in 20 years time everyone will be shooting with a 50 megapixel or similar camera

Deliverance XXV

How would the Sony 24MP camera cope with continuous shooting?
Surely the more megapixels, the larger the file size, the slower the saving of the photo?

AnCatDubh

King Nothing wrote: »

How would the Sony 24MP camera cope with continuous shooting?
Surely the more megapixels, the larger the file size, the slower the saving of the photo?

Quite correct.

I saw something about one of the Nikon's having the ability for a 'service' and upgrade of the internal buffer enabling just what you are questioning above. The technical capacity of the camera to transfer data to the memory card won't be limitless. Many cameras can do continuous shooting until end of memory if using a particular type of file - generally JPEG rather than RAW due to the exact issue you reference above. RAW gives too much data that the camera can't flush out of its buffer onto the card before taking the next image.

Creamy Goodness

MooseJam wrote: »

well whatever you think about megapixels not being the only story I can still guarantee that in 20 years time everyone will be shooting with a 50 megapixel or similar camera

yes, but what most of us are saying is a 50megapixel DSLR will produce better shots becuase of better quality components than a 50megapixel point and shoot with inferior components.

ThOnda

Components like sensor size? Yes, more likely yes. And lenses as well.

Morrisseeee

like sensor size

Chalk it down......ie. the bigger/better the sensor, the better the picture, right ????

Placebo

why do people act like they print elephant size posters ?

ThOnda

Morrisseeee: The larger area of the sensor - the larger each light sensitive cell - the better information recorded by the cell. Laws of physics.
If you have APS-C sensor and fullframe sensor of the same megapixel count, the image quality (using the same lens and settings) will be better from fullframe. Especially distance from noise when increasing ISO.

AnCatDubh

Placebo wrote: »

why do people act like they print elephant size posters ?

If i'm regular enough kinda photographer then approx;

96% of prints are small prints (4x6")
3.8% are somewhat enlarged (8x10")
.2% are labrador sized prints

I may never have to print an elephant (although i'd love to do at least one in my photographic life).

For me, it is more important that if i notice something after the taking of the image and need to crop tight that i still have enough mega pixels in the crop'd form to get my labrador size should i desire to. Granted you don't have that problem if you have specifically composed the original take for what you see after the event and perhaps that says more about folk as photographers than the mega pixel debacle. There is comfort in them mega pixels i guess.

kgiller

Question: About megapixels obviously...

How many megapixels relate to different sized prints? Eg: i have a canon 400D which is 10MP, so what is the biggest print that i could get, maintaining the quality? And then what about 12MP, 20MP etc...

Is there a scale somewhere which shows how MP relates to print size?

AnCatDubh

kgiller wrote: »

Question: About megapixels obviously...

How many megapixels relate to different sized prints? Eg: i have a canon 400D which is 10MP, so what is the biggest print that i could get, maintaining the quality? And then what about 12MP, 20MP etc...

Is there a scale somewhere which shows how MP relates to print size?

Print perfect images are usually quoted at 300ppi/dpi - so you basically divide your length and width by 300 to give you an inch value of what is normally needed to produce print quality results.

I've seen this figure also quoted as 320 and 360 but 300 is a good mark.

You can go for lower - perhaps 200ppi/dpi but then you begin to compromise on quality of the final image and this is where pixelation begins to occur with your printed result.

ThOnda

What about 37MPX from Leica?

Phototoxin

Dont tell me you're a lieca gear wh()re !! :eek:

iso 50 velvia > all digital =p

Thirdfox

kgiller wrote: »

Question: About megapixels obviously...

How many megapixels relate to different sized prints? Eg: i have a canon 400D which is 10MP, so what is the biggest print that i could get, maintaining the quality? And then what about 12MP, 20MP etc...

Is there a scale somewhere which shows how MP relates to print size?

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Print perfect images are usually quoted at 300ppi/dpi - so you basically divide your length and width by 300 to give you an inch value of what is normally needed to produce print quality results.

I've seen this figure also quoted as 320 and 360 but 300 is a good mark.

You can go for lower - perhaps 200ppi/dpi but then you begin to compromise on quality of the final image and this is where pixelation begins to occur with your printed result.

300dpi is a good baseline to have but it's not the only consideration (and I have printed at 250-200 dpi and noticed no perceivable drop in image quality).

When you print in a large size 30x20" or a giant "elephant sized" print no one is going to walk up to within 15cm of the print and examine it from that distance.

See all those billboard posters? When you walk up close to them you can see the individual printing spots and they don't look so good... but they're not supposed to be seen from that far.

So while my 6mp image can *only* print a 8x10" image at 300dpi, I am quite confident that if I needed to print a billboard picture to be seen on the side of the street I could probably make do with 75dpi or even lower.

It's all relative people!

A quick google search finds that billboard prints vary between 2 and 20 dpi...
http://www.signindustry.com/outdoor/articles/2001-03-19-viewingDistance.php3

so theoretically I can print a 1600 x 1000 inch photo for a billboard (40x25 metre print) once people view it from far enough.