With the introduction of the 30D with the same 8.2 mpix sensor, the issue of the utility of more (mega)pixels has come up again. Those who say that 8.2 mpix are enough note that you have to make a very large print indeed before the pixel count becomes a limiting factor.
Even if you don't plan to print big, let me suggest one way they are still important: cropping. Not everyone does it, but probably everyone should.
If you have a zoom, you can do a crop with your lens in the shot. You also may do a little cropping later on. If you use a prime, you can't crop with your lens, you have to crop with your feet. That's not always possible or convenient. If the 50 mm is too long, you may need to use the 35 mm and crop it. You may soon find yourself cropping 30% of the pixels out of the image. All of a sudden, your 8.2 mpix camera is a 5.75 mpix camera which isn't so high resolution anymore.
If you are so skilled that you never crop an image in processing, they perhaps 8.2 is enough. But those of us that do crop images greatly benefit from being able to crop and still maintaining a decent pixel count for print purposes.
What you are talking about here is related only to very large prints. Yes, this is a valid point, but, most people don't print that big..... so for the advanced amateur, semi pro, or even most Pro's, 8.2MP is enough. For those who need to go bigger, there are other options, like the 5D and 1Ds2.
You could argue that 16MP is not enough, and that every one should go buy the 39MP back, but there still other people who consider that even 39MP is not enough.
At some point, the MP matches or exceeds what 'most' people do 'most' of the time. 8.2MP is about that level for 'most' people.
8.2 megapixels is plenty for most uses, even with cropping. The 20D has the densest pixel pitch available in a dSLR, I believe.
Currently, I'm using a 20D for all my work and no one complains, even if a bit of cropping needs to be done. In fact, comments are always favorable and customers comment on the high quality of the files, and I primarily use the frequently maligned 17-85 IS. Cropping in Bridge and up-sampling during the raw conversion works quite well as long as you don't get too crazy.
I do plan on adding a 5D, but I won't use it all the time. For events, the 20D is fine, except the viewfinder is a bit dark at the long end of the 17-85, especially in dark venues, so I may just sell it and get the new 17-55 f2.8. I probably won't upgrade the 20D to the 30D, until the 20D gives up the ghost, but given that I used a Canon AT-1 from 1979 to the early '90s when the shutter finally died, that could be awhile.
When I travel light on vacation, I take my Pro 1 and have licensed many stock images taken with it. I am a little disappointed Canon hasn't upgraded it; IS would be a nice addition as would faster operation. My wife has an S2 IS and it shoots rings around the Pro 1 speedwise.
I'm quite amazed by folks who switch from one system to another frequently. To me it just doesn't make sense, unless you've won at PowerBall or MegaMillions.
I don't think he's talking about very large prints; he's talking about taking a "core sample" of an image, in a significant crop, and seeing how many MP you have left. I do this fairly frequently, either for creative reasons or because I didn't have enough reach, even with my long glass.
You do realize that at 300dpi (which is the highest resolution most labs will print at), the 20D or 30D will produce almost an 8x12 inch print? You can practically crop in half in each direction and still end up with an amazing 4x6, without any interpolation.
Besides, if you routinely print 8x12s or larger (as many landscape, product and fashion photographers do), then you really should be looking at higher resolution solution, such as a 1Ds Mark II (or better still, a medium format back) instead of complaining that Canon's prosumer-level dSLR can't do what only a small fraction of the market would ever need it to.
Shmackey wrote:
I don't think he's talking about very large prints; he's talking about taking a "core sample" of an image, in a significant crop, and seeing how many MP you have left.
But even 5MP or 6MP makes a great print.... I have some 11x17s made from cropped shots taken with a 300D (6MP cropped!) that look awsome at normal viewing distances.
Even if you make huge prints, how close are you going to be looking at them. At some point the reduction in pixel quantity/quality will be made up by the human eye. Even now there are up-res solutions through software that can take a 4mp image and blow it up large enough to fit on a bus and still look as good as the original as an 8X10.
There is obviously a market for the high MP count in product and model photography, and I agree that many of us would like to crop more to attain the composition we were unable to achieve in the field, but those instances are rare for most consumers. If pixel count is that important Canon does offer a couple of solutions above 8.2 megapixels.
I'm not sure what all the bitching is about, in 10 years the digital SLR market has nearly made 35mm film completely obsolete, surpassed film in nearly all aspects, provided a myriad of powerful options during and after our photo treks/shoots, and enabled us the creativity that 40 years of film never had. We have it good and there is way too much whining going on.
Its more about the quality of the pixels than anything, the 4 meg 1D can make really nice prints even up to 20x30 while a 4meg point and shot looks like rubbish at 8x10. More megapixels alone does not mean better quality
As for cropping, well yes everyone does it alittle, but using it as a substitute for the right focal length is a poor idea because of the differing perspective.
Lets think of it in a very extreme example. You could use a 500mm lens and get a nice frame filling shot of the subject. Or, with enough theoretical megapixels, you could use a 50mm lens and crop so you have the same framing. Lets even say the print quality, and eveything would be the same.
Well it sure wouldnt look as good though because the 500mm lens gives a nice compression and great bokeh. The 50mm shot even though framed the same wouldnt have the same "look" at all.
DaveEP wrote:
But even 5MP or 6MP makes a great print.... I have some 11x17s made from cropped shots taken with a 300D (6MP cropped!) that look awsome at normal viewing distances.
As a wildlife shooter, I know that, even with my 500/4 and a 1.4x, cropping is going to be a reality of life. Still, even with my two 8 mp bodies, I can severely crop down to as little as half the original frame and still be able to print sharp detailed prints at 11x14(or 17) and even 13x17(or 19) if....
I start out with a sharply focused and properly exposed file. On the other hand, if I have a poorly executed picture where the focus is soft and/or the exposure is not right, I could have 16 mp, and all I would have is a bad picture with twice as many pixels.
I know a wedding and portrait photographer
with a very upscale clientele. He uses two 20Ds for all of his work.
I've seen 20x30 portraits that he has produced, and they are stunning.
The fact is that, even with cropping, 8 mp is more than enough for the needs of most photographers. Until less than 2 years
ago, Canon only had one body with more than 6 mp. Until about a
year ago, Nikon's top of the line body only had 5+ mp. Still, photographers were taking great photos, cropping, and printing reasonably large.
I find it amusing how, on this board, we chastise P&S buyers and beginning DSLR users for being caught up in the megapixel mania. Yet, we seem inclined to do the same. Canon announces a camera with some very nice substantive improvements, yet most would have been happier if they had upped the pixel count by a couple of million and left off the spot meter, ability to adjust ISO in 1/3 stop increments, etc. I'd venture to say that, for most who would like better pictures than they are getting, not having enough pixels is not the reason why.
Les
The really irritating thing to me about this is that now I guess I'm going to have to issue refunds for all those 13x19 prints from cropped 4MP 1D images that I sold...
Brutus_B wrote:
Its more about the quality of the pixels than anything, the 4 meg 1D can make really nice prints even up to 20x30 while a 4meg point and shot looks like rubbish at 8x10. More megapixels alone does not mean better quality
As for cropping, well yes everyone does it alittle, but using it as a substitute for the right focal length is a poor idea because of the differing perspective.
Lets think of it in a very extreme example. You could use a 500mm lens and get a nice frame filling shot of the subject. Or, with enough theoretical megapixels, you could use a 50mm lens and crop so you have the same framing. Lets even say the print quality, and eveything would be the same.
Well it sure wouldnt look as good though because the 500mm lens gives a nice compression and great bokeh. The 50mm shot even though framed the same wouldnt have the same "look" at all.
given that you take the photo from the same position as the 500mm, you will get the exact same compression and look to it with the 50mm. your perspective is the same.
Nill Toulme wrote:
The really irritating thing to me about this is that now I guess I'm going to have to issue refunds for all those 13x19 prints from cropped 4MP 1D images that I sold...
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
The photo that I've sold more of than any other is one that I took with my
1DII, but that was cropped to less than 30% of the original frame. I'm glad that the people in over 25 states and 2 foreign countries who have bought
11x14 or 13x17 prints of that picture don't know that it only had less than
3 mp after I cropped. If they knew that, they probably wouldn't have bought the picture.
Les
While there is always the exception and the on-of-a-kind shot you want to save, if you have to crop more than five percent of you shots you should work on you skills, not worry about your equipment.
Nill Toulme wrote:
The really irritating thing to me about this is that now I guess I'm going to have to issue refunds for all those 13x19 prints from cropped 4MP 1D images that I sold...
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
lol
Well said, by an obviously experienced shooter.
Apparently not everyone understands the law of diminishing returns.
Time to let the cat out of the bag.
A 4MP (1D) sensor is 71% as big in horizontal and vertical resolution as an 8MP (20D) sensor. If you think it is 50%, you are disillusioned.
Likewise, the horizontal and vertical resolution of the 20D's 8MP sensor is 80% as big as the 5D's 12MP res. (not 66%, as many may think).
Again, 4MP really is enough for at least 90% of us. The 10% that need more MP either have specific professional requirements or need to work on their framing skills and stop relying on cropping.
Am I glad my 20D has 8MP? Sure, I've been able to save a few photos by cropping some stuff out.
Am I glad most people are getting sucked into buying more MP? Yep. I got a cheap 1D out of it.
Edited by cogitech on Feb 22, 2006 at 12:54 PM GMT
les, do you think that massive cropping can also have a negative effect that can cause the final output to appear blurry and out of focus because effectively, you end up magnifying it a lot. for example, you took the picture with a 50mm lens but cropped it to say, the fov of a 135mm lens. when you took the picture, you accounted for camera shake by applying the 1/focal length rule for a 50mm lens. also the camera's AF took into account the dof for the 50mm lens fov.
TBannor wrote:
Of course, there is the guy on the 20D forum on that "other" site that stated the, "20D can't be used for serious imaging." I wonder if he ever tried?
It's as though in any given argument about a camera's megapixels, someone will come and claim that you need a camera with 2MP more to "beat film"/"get pro quality"/"whatever soap box they have". A year or two later and you get the same comments for the camera that is 2MP larger.
To the orginal poster, would you want to crop that much if the increase in MP also caused an increase in noise?
Nill Toulme wrote:
The really irritating thing to me about this is that now I guess I'm going to have to issue refunds for all those 13x19 prints from cropped 4MP 1D images that I sold...
There's an easy solution, Nill.
Don't ever let them see shots made with higher megapixel cameras.
