12.8 MP vs 21.1MP? - FM Forums

Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

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 2

3

SoundHound
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #1 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

I guess the imagination thread is found on one of the other FM forums? But this forum is dedicated to technical stuff-so read on at your own risk.

brainiac has described what I will call "Pixel Product" (the entropy found in relating pixel size, pixel count and ISO/noise). So it seems that the only hi-ISO drawbacks for a 1Ds Mk III (verses a D3 or 1D MK III) is the slower frame rate and buffer capacity-Encouraging!

So now I am lusting for a 20+ MP camera. The question is should it be a Nikon or Canon? If it's to be a new D3x then the LCD and VF will be much better that the 1Ds MKIII. Also a few more MP. Not sure just how far Canon can/will go to upscale the 5D Mk II and if that will be in the mix.

Apr 18, 2008 at 02:18 AM

Micky Bill
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #2 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Well, it's a gear forum, so folks will want to talk about gear. And its a lot easier to endlessly debate technical things then aesthetic aspects of images.

Apr 18, 2008 at 04:27 AM

mh2000
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #3 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

yes, it's a gear forum.

Apr 18, 2008 at 04:40 AM

Beni
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #4 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

It's funny reading these people have a go at pro's who are actually printing commercial work at those sizes, work that is subject to paying CLIENTS with expectations! Sean's comment is appropriate if he was talking to a class in photography, to pro's I would see it as both insulting and demeaning. Most pro's taking a 1Ds mkIII to the max have tens of years of experience shooting at a pro level and believe me are using an equipment investment that would make most readers here blanch. They know what they need, they are maximising the potential of their gear and know at what level it meets commercial clients high requirements. To call them gearheads because they need the best of the best to replace their 6X7 and 4X5 film cameras shows more the status of the poster relative to the pro and not the other way round.

Edited on Apr 18, 2008 at 07:47 AM

Apr 18, 2008 at 07:35 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #5 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Beni wrote:
It's funny reading these people have a go at pro's who are actually printing commercial work at those sizes, work that is subject to paying CLIENTS with expectations! Sean's comment is appropriate if he was talking to a class in photography, to pro's I would see it as both insulting and demeaning. Most pro's taking a 1Ds mkIII to the max have tens of years of experience shooting at a pro level and believe me are using an equipment investment that would make most readers here blanch. They know what they need, they are maximising the potential of their gear and know at what level it meets commercial clients high requirements. To call them gearheads because they need the best of the best to replace their 6X7 and 4X5 film cameras shows more the status of the poster relative to the pro and not the other way round.

Why is it just an insult to pros?

Apr 18, 2008 at 08:24 AM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #6 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have? How many of you could benefit more from better composition, better imagination, better vision and more creativity than from more megapixels? Will the next lens or camera body really make you a better photographer? The quality of what you produce has much more to do with your mind than with your camera.

What I like about this Sean Reidy's opinion is that it's free.

Advantageous gear is just one of the weapons in a photographer's arsenal, and unlike imagination, it can be bought using the profit from the previous job.

There are many threads about technique, imagination, and art. This isn't one of them.

Apr 18, 2008 at 09:36 AM

Beni
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #7 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Sorry Pixel, didn't mean that to be the flipside at all, just trying to counteract the notion that quality doesn't count if the subject matter is good enough, for a pro it's their livelihood to make it count and more to the point, anyone being comissioned to shoot for huge prints is not the kind of person who one would have the chutzpa to suggest that if they concentrated on the composition better then they wouldn't have to bother with all the technical bumf.

Problem here is that it's hard to find a clear demarcation between people for whom the technical aspects are extremely important but for whom the photographic aspect is already a given - and gear techies who can't see past the megapixels. This isn't a digital thing either, on the LF forum I read it is obvious that many who shoot a huge format, and many ULF as well, can't produce imagary inspiring enough to bother with 35mm nevermind their huge cameras. Ditto on a recent 'lets see your work' post on the digital medium format forum of LL. On that one the commercial photographers were posting excellent work but the wannabees shooting landscape with 39 megapixel backs, well they would have been better not bothering at all, bland, unimaginative, unemotional waste of tens of thousands of dollars.

I think my point is that pros (for the sake of a word to imply people producing pro level work) already have the photographic aspect well under their belt. All they want is equipment which will be able to express their art, their images, in the way which will either be suitible for a client, or which on a personal level provides a satisfactory representation of their intention.

In the old days it was pretty simple, shoot LF or 6X7, have loads of image quality, overkill in most cases and concentrate on the image knowing that the image quality is plenty by default. Now we are forcing the 'tiny' format to do the work of many others and suddenly there is no overkill any more, no breathing room, every megapixel and 'bit' counts, the lenses are crucial, etc, because we're uprezzing, not downsizing any more.

Edited on Apr 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM

Apr 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM

AhrenL
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #8 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have? How many of you could benefit more from better composition, better imagination, better vision and more creativity than from more megapixels? Will the next lens or camera body really make you a better photographer? The quality of what you produce has much more to do with your mind than with your camera.

Next time you're feeling blue, feel free to keep it to yourself. This is a Canon Gear forum for pete's sake?!

Apr 18, 2008 at 10:22 AM

xrayvision
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #9 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

whats LW/PH ?

Apr 18, 2008 at 01:08 PM

Paul Gardner
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #10 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

I like to shoot landscapes with my 5D and 1DS3, BUT I don't even try to kid myself that the quality comes anywhere close to a P45 MF. Its just more affordable and does a respectable job. Years ago I shot 4X5 & 8X10 LF film which was more affordable and much higher quality than 35mm at any price, but what a pain it was. Not only the cameras with the dark slides and huge tripods but also the processing which was very expensive. I still shoot a small amount of 2-1/4 X 2-1/4 film and the 1DS3 still has a hard time reaching the MF film quality, but its sure nice not having to reload film that has been stoired in the refridgerator every 12 shots and then send it out to the lab, than scan to digital before sending to the printer. Don't even talk to me about my packed up and stored dark room. Phew, I don't miss it at all. Just put your gear in perspective and enjoy.

Apr 18, 2008 at 02:10 PM

Sean Reidy
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #11 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Micky Bill wrote:
Well, it's a gear forum, so folks will want to talk about gear. And its a lot easier to endlessly debate technical things then aesthetic aspects of images.

It's also a lot easier to endlessly debate technical things than to go out and actually make good photos.

May 09, 2008 at 08:29 PM

Sean Reidy
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #12 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

AhrenL wrote:
Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have? How many of you could benefit more from better composition, better imagination, better vision and more creativity than from more megapixels? Will the next lens or camera body really make you a better photographer? The quality of what you produce has much more to do with your mind than with your camera.

Next time you're feeling blue, feel free to keep it to yourself. This is a Canon Gear forum for pete's sake?!

Not feeling blue. Just a little contemptuous........I use Canon geat too, but I prefer to use it than to debate megapixels.

Edited on May 09, 2008 at 08:30 PM

May 09, 2008 at 08:30 PM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #13 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Sean Reidy wrote:
Not feeling blue. Just a little contemptuous........I use Canon geat too, but I prefer to use it than to debate megapixels.

Jolly good show! I hope this means we can count on that being your last contribution to the thread then. So long ;-)

May 09, 2008 at 10:42 PM

ghozer
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #14 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Then why in the world are you reading a, and posting on, a gear forum

That would be like any of us showing up at a wine tasting and complaining about everyone talking about the taste of the grapes.

Not feeling blue. Just a little contemptuous........I use Canon geat too, but I prefer to use it than to debate megapixels.

Edited on May 10, 2008 at 01:54 AM

May 10, 2008 at 01:53 AM

Roy Pertchik
Online
Image Upload: On

p.3 #15 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

I'm always surprised when a megapixel count thread centers on print size, when to me, the point of pixel count is editing headroom. Unless you are printing wall size prints, tons of pixels to spare are useless, IMHO. However if you have pixels to spare to crop (which did get some attention before) that's a huge plus, especially if you like primes. And once you are in PP, well we stay in RAW to preserve data, and non-destructive editing in PS is a help, but the simple fact is that every edit in PS destroys data. The higher res and greater bit depth you start with, the more editing headroom you have. That's the main reason I prefer my 5D over my 20D. Neither is in the 21 mpxl league to be sure, but if I ever felt a need for that kind of sensor, it would be most likely for editing headroom.

Similar thoughts about 14 bit depth sensor. Many threads say they don't see the diff, but I am sure, if you expose to the right and then recapture detail in the highlights of a 14 bit sensor, you will have way improved tonal gradation.

IMHO, re: pixel count and bit depth, think editing head room, not print size.

Edited on May 10, 2008 at 03:37 AM

May 10, 2008 at 03:33 AM

trumpet_guy
Online
Image Upload: On

p.3 #16 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Sean Reidy wrote:
It always saddens me to see gearheads debating endlessly the relative merits of different lenses or bodies. How many of you can say that you are truly getting the best results out of the equipment you have?

I'm a gearhead, yes, but also enjoy taking lots of pictures.
And while this is a discussion of megapixels, the reason I'm
so tempted to get a 5D when the rebates arrive is ..........

Viewfinder Size.

I want a larger viewfinder than my 30D gives me, and I want great
manual focus control. For my level of development and the relatively
few prints I actually make, the 5D should do the job nicely.

The first camera I bought, back in high school, was a Minolta
X-700. A great value body with a beautiful viewfinder. Going to digital
was a big improvement in almost every way for me, but the crop body
viewfinders have always stuck in my craw.

May 10, 2008 at 04:09 AM

Hrow
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #17 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Sean,

I have been shooting with a 1DsMkIII for about a month and will tell you unequivocally that it produces much better images than either my 1DMkIII did or my 20D. There are tonal variations, reduced PP, increased resolution all of which combine to produce higher quality images with greater flexibility. Please note, I'm not talking about huge prints - you can see the difference on the screen and small prints as well.

BTW... I have done about 5,000 frames with it over the last three weeks and have barely had time to casually review many of the images. Go out and shoot comments are insulting.

May 10, 2008 at 04:26 AM

httivals
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #18 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

My experience is that a well-executed 5D file (tripod, MLU, excellent lens), will hold up extremely well printing a landscape at up to 24" in the long dimension, which is about 180 dpi. When i print anything about 18", instead of printing at 180 dpi, I uprez the image to 360 dpi, and, after uprezzing add simulated (digital) grain. The simulated grain still gives you an essentially "grainless" looking print, but makes edges look sharper and hides any softness due to uprezzing.

My background is printing 6cm x 9cm Velvia slides shot with view cameras and drum scanned. up to 24" in the long dimension, the 5D images hold up extremely well.

Beyond 24" in the long dimension, the 5D is still vg to about 30", but, for my tastes, at least for landscapes, I wouldn't print beyond that.

danmitchell wrote:
Beni wrote:
Some respected photographic experts who hold this view are also convinced that lower resolutions (e.g. 180 "dpi") can be quite good in a larger print.

A useful experience for many would be to go and closely inspect some gallery prints of well-known photographs by some of the best photographers. Many (I'd say most) of these beautiful and high quality images are very definitely not "sharp" according to the standard that some are proposing here.

Dan

May 10, 2008 at 06:25 AM

LMCasey
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #19 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

As pixel densities get higher and higher, you might want to ask yourself how steady does the camera have to be before camera shake of any type will take away potential resolution increase. I don't own a 1DSIII, but I do have the opinion that in crop cameras, the progression from 6.3 mp to 8 to 10 to 12, has not resulted in huge increases in "real world" resolution. Certainly not for handheld shots anyway.

Regards,

Casey

May 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM

ghozer
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #20 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

LMCasey wrote:
As pixel densities get higher and higher, you might want to ask yourself how steady does the camera have to be before camera shake of any type will take away potential resolution increase. I don't own a 1DSIII, but I do have the opinion that in crop cameras, the progression from 6.3 mp to 8 to 10 to 12, has not resulted in huge increases in "real world" resolution. Certainly not for handheld shots anyway.

Regards,

Casey

This is an interesting topic. There's a thread that's been going on DPR on this topic. The theory is that the true benefit of the 1Ds3 over the 5D or 1Ds2 is not going to be seen unless strobes are being used to stop vibrations. The pixel density of the 1Ds3, as far as I know, is equivalent to the 20D/30D so there really shouldn't be, in theory, any more problem with movement blur in the 1Ds3 than those cameras. However, with the larger mirror of the 1Ds3 combined with that pixel density, it is, in fact, harder to handhold and see the full resolution benefits of the 1Ds3. It would appear the old rule of thumbs of using a shutterspeed equal to the reciprocal of the lens, and using MLU when shooting at 1/15s or slower is no longer applicable in this case.

Now, that being said, I am seeing a definite improvement over my own 5D files at everyday shutterspeeds while using a tripod (sometimes with and without MLU but always without a strobe). Whether that improvement represents the full potential of the 1Ds3 is an argument for another day

Doug

http://www.doglesbyimages.com

Edited on May 10, 2008 at 02:11 PM

May 10, 2008 at 02:09 PM

Hrow
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #21 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

I am in no way trying to be rude but the entire line of reasoning about pixel density is just silly.

May 10, 2008 at 03:49 PM

danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #22 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

While there is, obviously, some potential for greater resolution with the higher pixel density, reports I've read suggest that this may not be the most significant IQ difference with the 1DsMKIII.

And I join Hrow in his observation. :-)

Edited on May 10, 2008 at 04:03 PM

May 10, 2008 at 04:03 PM

Andi Dietrich
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #23 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

BTW dpreview, they have test charts from both cameras, that is if you dont mind to pixelpeep on resolution chart photos

here

May 10, 2008 at 04:09 PM

Hrow
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #24 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

See, Andi's link just proved it. The 24 from the 1DsMkIII is fatter than that of a 5D or a D3 or an E3. What more proof does anyone need? Case closed.

May 10, 2008 at 05:45 PM

ghozer
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #25 · 12.8 MP vs 21.1MP?

Hrow wrote:
I am in no way trying to be rude but the entire line of reasoning about pixel density is just silly.

In what way? I'd really like to know.

May 10, 2008 at 11:42 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 end