12 megapixels is enough

nilhg · 06-03-2009 11:42PM #1

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 · 06-03-2009 11:49PM

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

Thirdfox · 06-03-2009 11:49PM

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

nilhg · 07-03-2009 12:00AM

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 · 07-03-2009 12:05AM

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 · 07-03-2009 12:10AM

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

nilhg · 07-03-2009 12:16AM

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 · 07-03-2009 12:47AM

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 · 07-03-2009 12:50AM

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 · 07-03-2009 12:53AM

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 · 07-03-2009 01:24AM

is megapixel count not directly related to penis size?

GhostInTheRuins · 07-03-2009 01:34AM

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 · 07-03-2009 02:01AM

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 · 07-03-2009 02:08AM

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 · 07-03-2009 04:44AM

Barname wrote: »

is megapixel count not directly related to penis size?

Inversely? :pac:

melekalikimaka · 07-03-2009 04:56AM

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

Nforce · 07-03-2009 02:07PM

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 · 07-03-2009 02:37PM

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 · 07-03-2009 02:53PM

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

pete4130 · 07-03-2009 03:45PM

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

melekalikimaka · 07-03-2009 04:20PM

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

nilhg · 07-03-2009 04:36PM

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 · 07-03-2009 04:58PM

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...

07-03-2009 05:03PM

pfft... megapixels? gigapixels ftw

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

i know it's stitched before anyone says it

stcstc · 07-03-2009 05:03PM

pete

how did you not upsample

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

Thirdfox · 07-03-2009 05:07PM

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 · 07-03-2009 05:16PM

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 · 07-03-2009 06:14PM

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 · 07-03-2009 06:26PM

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 · 08-03-2009 12:05AM

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 · 08-03-2009 02:08AM

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.

12 megapixels is enough

Comments