amalgam wrote:
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.
is there any validity to my thinking here?
Aaron,
Yes, you are correct that the more you crop and then enlarge what is left after the crop, you are further magnifying the effects of camera shake (or an
out-of-focus shot for that matter). So, in effect, when cropping, good technique does become more important.
Les
Different strokes for different folks, because not everyone shoots the same things. 8mp is probably enough for me, but I would gladly take more if it was available at an affordable cost.
I do a lot of cropping on my pictures, but I don't expect everyone else to. If you shoot landscapes or studio work, I don't see a need for you to crop, your subject doesn't move!! But when you get into action photography or journalism type stuff, you sometimes only get 1 second to take the shot, doesn't matter what's on your camera or what zoom setting you're at, you either get the shot or you don't.
Sometimes when going through your pictures post processing, a picture that might be considered a throw away can often be saved by simple cropping. I've also heard the argument plenty of times before from other photographers that say they don't crop because they frame up the picture they want before they snap. And then later I've post processed some of these pictures and cropped the hell out of them because their framing sucked, they just didn't know it. It's a bit harsh, but that's the reality of it - and that obviously doesn't apply to everyone.
As said before in this thread by someone else, most people don't crop, although most people should.
Don't ever let them see shots made with higher megapixel cameras.
Oh great... so now I have to take down all the 1DMkII shots off my website.
My daughter was looking at some of the shots from an away night soccer match recently. They were underexposed and pushed even at ISO 3200, 1/400 f/2.8. "Daddy, is it harder shooting at night? Sometimes some of your night shots look a little fuzzy..."
TBannor wrote:
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.
the long end is too dark, so get rid of the long end. ahem. okay, there is that f2.8, but i'll bet that if you currently use the long end, you will miss it.
carstenw wrote:
the long end is too dark, so get rid of the long end. ahem. okay, there is that f2.8, but i'll bet that if you currently use the long end, you will miss it.
I don't use the long end that much. And I do have a 70-200L albeit f4.
I also agree that cropping is an important factor in relation to resolution but more importantly is proper shooting technique - shoot your subject with correct technique and in-camera cropping then you do not have an issue. So many people hang all of their hopes on the limitations of the camera without going the extra mile and using it to its potential.
Take the time to learn what the camera can do for you and learn how to work within those limitations.
It's not all about how big you can print a pic before it all goes to hell.
It's also about fine captured detail. An 8x10 with a 4 or 6MP just won't show the fine detail in the same subject as the same pic taken with a comparable FF camera say 5D or 1DS MK 1/2 or (a cropped sensor) D2X.
It's also not all about 4xing MP count to 2x resolution.
My fave example is the 1D2 N vs 1DS Mk1. Both bodies have the same pixel pitch (8.2um) and are very close in MP count, yet when looking at line pair numbers (from dpreview):
1D2/N
Horiz Res 1850
Ver R 1650
Diag R 1000
1DS Mk1
HR 2400
VR 2000
DR 2000
%'ntge difference (rounded)
HR +30%
VR +21%
DR +100%
or look at the D1H (2.74MP) vs D1X (5.9MP). Ok, you've doubled the MP and have gotten what (this from a former D1H owner)
D1H
HR 1100
VR 1150
DR 900
D1X
HR 1600 + 45% due to rectangular cells
VR 1150, no change
DR 900, no change
Yeah test charts are test shots, but you look at a close headshot from an XMP and a 1DS Mk 1 or higher resolution body and the difference in captured detail/texture is very notable.
In the end, it just comes down to buying what gives YOU the best results YOU want for the type of photos YOU take.
I agree that 8MP is enough for most uses, excepting some high end professional needs (and those people will buy a 1DsII, not a 30D.
I have a 16"x20" print I took with my DRebel sitting in my livingroom. As judged by the 5x4 aspect ratio, it has been cropped to about a 5MP image, and it's really, really a cracking print. Sure, when looking at the print from 5 inches, there's not the super-fine detail...but when looking at the print from any normal viewing distance (2 feet or so), the print is flawless. Considering it's STILL more detailed than any 35mm film print I've seen blown up to that size, I'm perfectly happy with that. 8MP would only be (a bit) better.
Wait, we need more pixels because everyone should be cropping? Sure in extreme cases like Les's cropping is a great asset. But saying we need more pixels just so we don't need to bother framing in the viewfinder is pushing it. Kind of a "shoot it all and let post processing sort it out" attutde isn't it?
Adding more pixels is going to degrade the quality of all the pixels in the frame... both the ones you crop and the ones that remain.
As much BS as Ken Rockwell spews on his site (which is a LOT of BS), he's mostly right on this count. I think his bunk about Arizona Highways magazine is a full load (If anyone thinks that 35mm film outresolves a 1DsII, they're friggin out of their minds...and if Arizona Highways won't take digital, that's because they've got a snob editor who won't accept the future.)
i guess alot of it has to do with what one considers 'good' when it comes to prints...
i, for some reason, like to put my nose up to everything... but thats just me... i've printed 20x30s from my 20D and have been happy with them (depending on the lens actually)... i also would like to print larger... more MPs would definitely help.. but so would the quality (colour, contrast, etc...) that often comes with 'better' equipment...
according to ken rockwell...
"Ideally you'd like to print at 300 DPI to look sharp even when viewed too close. You can figure this by:
Long print dimension in inches = 4 x (square root of megapixels)
For instance, for an excellent 8x10 you need [8" x 300 DPI] x [10 x 300DPI] or 2,400 x 3,000 pixels, or 7,200,000 pixels, or 7.2 megapixels. This is what the formula at the top calculates the easy way."
he seems to slam the whole MP thing quite a bit... but his calculations for 'good prints' comparable to film (whatever that means) seems to emphasize that MPs ARE important...
I don't know if "I" 'NEED' the quality of images printed in Arizona Highways, (and from my experience with film... i can get better images with my 20D than with 35mm NPC, NPS, or NPH on my Contax ST) but for my own work I would sure like to be able to... (maybe thats why i keep itching whenever i see a MF camera for sale on the b/s)... but again... as many others have said...over and over and over...
