For pros and amateurs alike, how many Mp do you really need to do what you do. Everyone wants more, but how many do you really need to accomplish 90% of what you really do on a daily basis. Don't just give an answer, tell us why you think you need that many.
For example, if your gig is mainly for a newspaper, do you really need 12Mp for that, or do you have that many just in case you need them for other stuff?
As always, it depends. Newspapers don't need that much (at least, the one I'm providing images for). For stock: the more the better. Events & weddings: in between. For me the sweet spot is the 5D's 12.8 megapixel. Leaves some room to crop with plenty of IQ to boot.
Guess it would be different in studio settings & outdoor advertising.
The problem is the customer's perceived value. With everyone running around with large MP camera phones nowadays, there is still part of the perception that you need more to be "pro". It's not so much a problem with commercial clients but when you do a wedding and rich uncle Bob shows up with a pro body you sometimes hear the whispers if you don't have one to match.
That is until you break out the strobes and umbrellas.
I voted 8MP because that's the size of my 30D. So far I have no need for MPs even with the magazine project lately. The largest I've seen was blown to half-page size. I suppose larger MP allows for cropping.
It is sad that even my wife's P&S Powershot A640 has more MP than my 30d.
I shoot at 4Mpix for most everything I do - unless I'm in a situation that I know I'll need to crop.
98% of what I do, I have the lens to shoot tight enough, rarely is anything needed to print over 24x36 and I can do those all day long with a measly 4Mpix. Only the longer stuff do I shoot full 8.2 for intended cropping.
Another very large reason that I shoot that 'low' is that I do youth sporting events, averaging 100,000 per weekend. My fileserver has around 3 million photos on it from the past two years: 6 TeraBytes and its full. Shooting at full resolution does nothing for me except take up more space and transfer time.
But that is the niche that I am involved in, and therefore tailor my size for my (and my customer) needs. Everybody's size and reason will vary, but I do remember when the first DSLRs were coming out - 6Mpix was supposedly the holy grail - my how we've slung past that.
I wouldn't shoot with less than 10. I shoot mostly for fine art printing and need every pixel I can get. Currently I have the original 1Ds (11.1) that I have been shooting with for 5 years and a new Canon G9 (12.1) as a carry everywhere camera.
I will be saving my pennies for the 1Ds MarkIII..........
Really depends on the end product. When I was a full-time PJ I could run some full page image from my antique D1. After all, it was newsprint. Now when a bride or a portrait client wants a 24x36 canvas I yearn for a little more form my D200 although it does a fine job for those. For the most part, I am happy with 10MP, but I have my eye on the prospects of more down the road.
For most of what I actually do on a daily basis--wall portraits, 12mp is good enough up to most 20x30 images, but 8mp is certainly not enough for my minimum package of 16x20.
But the 5D can't handle full-length portraits at any more than 16x20. While I don't do many of them (yet), full-length portraits at 30x40 and 40x50 are my most lucrative. I'd certainly like to take them easily with a DSLR than with the clumsy workflow of shooting 6x7 or 4x5 film and drum scanning (which is what it takes to get there).
In fact, if I could eliminate the film processing and scanning, that would instantly add $150 to my profit for that work. At the moment, I don't do enough of them to justify a $20,000 digital back, but $8,000 to $10,000...maybe.
Right now, I don't use film unless I've already contracted for the large print, but if I had at least 20mp in a digital camera, I could shoot that and upsell more clients that aren't sold on the larger prints until they can see themselves in one.
I agree that for me 8 would be enough for most things, but 12 has been enought for all things - ie 20x30 enlargements. You just never know when you get that shot.
I rarely use the 30D, almost always the 5D & I have discovered I am one who wants the MEGA Megapixel model. If only once, & I know once I printed it I'd want to many times, I would love to fill an entire wall with 200MP perfection as sharp as a Cover Magazine.
Now back to earth. If only for the sheer clarity, each image I have up for sale ought to be the very best I can afford to create. Therefore 12.8 MP will have to do for the time being. And as others may say, it certainly is not only about MP. Sensor, lens, & Post Production come into play here also.
By the way, the IRS allows you to gift up to $12,000 a year to anyone. That Phase One Digitla Back might be a nice stocking stuffer. I'll be sure to keep a large stocking hung just in case.
I seldom use any shot below 12 megapixels unless it's for the web or small prints. I find that the 30D is just gathering dust 95% of the time. I could probably do weddings and portraits with it but I just don't any longer. I'm using the 5D about 30% of the time and the 1DsMII about 70%. Just more room with those bodies.
I shoot performance dog events, which often means I'm trying to get a photo of a dog from 100 yards away. Yes, I crop like crazy. So if these extra megapixels you're offering will give me better image quality way out there, then I'll absolutely take them!
I will put it this way and obviously, this is my opinion. 6 megapixels have been enough for me.
I could accept 8, not a big step but an acceptable figure I am sure for many.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Brent Ward wrote:
After trying out a 33mp MF back yesterday I can say that I could use 22 - 39mp easy.
You are about to get caught on a slippery slope called medium format digital . If I had it all to do over again I would stay shooting Canon and spend the 30K I spent on a back to produce more stock images . Medium format is nice but I could still do what I do with a Canon .
ericevans wrote:
You are about to get caught on a slippery slope called medium format digital . If I had it all to do over again I would stay shooting Canon and spend the 30K I spent on a back to produce more stock images . Medium format is nice but I could still do what I do with a Canon .
Yeah, I think my workflow would be a lot easier staying with the new canon.
I´ve had a Canon EOS 1D Mark II N for a couple of years now and it still does the job with 8.2MP.
I shoot everything from portraits, weddings, fashion, newspapers, yes you name it.. I have even had one of my landscapes made in 70x200cm poster, it hurts the eyes, its that good.. So, 8MP does it for me..
However, sometimes i miss the option to crop a bit tighter, a few more MP would give me that option, though i strive to make it all in the take, instead of cropping when i get back..
I voted 21+. The more MP they cram into new cameras, the harder they'll work at IQ at high iso, make better lenses, etc, etc. And prices for my perfectly good 8MP Mark II will get low enough for me to buy 5 back ups
