Why Megapixels ARE Important

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

end

DavidP
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #1 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

Nill Toulme wrote:
"Daddy, is it harder shooting at night?"

No, dear. But it does take a lot more money.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 06:17 PM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

No one makes anyone buy a 30D (or any 8MP camera). Canon produces DSLRs with higher resolution. You and your wallet decide what you buy.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 06:24 PM

carstenw
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

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.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 06:26 PM

TBannor
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #4 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

carstenw wrote:
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.

I don't use the long end that much. And I do have a 70-200L albeit f4.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 06:42 PM

CarlG
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #5 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

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.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 06:46 PM

Conner999
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #6 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

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.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 06:47 PM

Jman13
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #7 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

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.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 07:07 PM

nads
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #8 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

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.

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 07:50 PM

Dave2005
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

The megapixel Myth........
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 07:58 PM

Jman13
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #10 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

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.)

Edited on Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM

Feb 22, 2006 at 08:29 PM

d10d
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · Why Megapixels ARE Important

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...

its personal preference...

Feb 22, 2006 at 08:39 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end