How many megapixels is enough? - 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
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

1

2 3 4 5 end

plnelson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #1 · How many megapixels is enough?

With all this talk about the Sony 900 and and Nikon D3x - both 24 MP - I'm wondering how many megapixels we need?

I've made beautiful gallery-quality (literally for a gallery) 13x19" prints from my 6MP D100. This works because the bigger a print is the farther away people stand when they're looking at it. Now I shoot with a D300 which has 12 MP and lower noise so the pixels are even less visible. If I made a 28"x42" print, sure, it would be only 100 DPI but at the distance anyone would look at a print that big they still wouldn't see the individual pixels.

People sometimes talk about what it takes to print a billboard. Here's a test. Keep a business card in your car and next time you're stuck in traffic near a big, close billboard, when you get to the closest distance and optimum angle, hold up the business card until it just eclipses the billboard.

Note the distance of the card to your face. It's probably at least a foot or two and at that distance you probably can't visually resolve more than 300 DPI of detail on the card, if that! So that's 1050 x 600 pixels worth of resolvable detail - anything higher is wasted because it's below the limit of your visual acuity. In other words all the detail you can actually across the visual angle of the billboard could have been captured with a 2MP camera. The fact that the pixels on the billboard might be 4" across (0.25 DPI) is irrelevant because at that viewing distance you can't see them, i.e., billboards don't actually require a lot of pixels.

The gist of my question is whether we've already reached a point of diminishing returns WRT megapixels. I think that even with the current 12 MP bodies - D3 and D300 - photographers can already make any practical size print they need to. My boss makes big, beautiful landscape/scenic art-prints from his D200 (he just recently bought a D300) and sells them for tons of money (and they sell well!).

May 16, 2008 at 07:39 PM

Avi B
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · How many megapixels is enough?

I say 12 is enough. Actually, 4 is working out for me too

But I understand that people want medium-format like resolution in a DSLR form factor.

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 07:56 PM

May 16, 2008 at 07:56 PM

poisonpill
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · How many megapixels is enough?

I'm a fan of 8mpix personally. However I can't complain with 12mpix. I've learned to like the ability to crop. It means I can get give my D300 to my wife and have her fire away and in PP I can crop out a keeper in the end.

From an art POV it's offensive reasoning, but heck I'm just a hobbyist. Chances are I'll just get whatever is the norm at the time. If in 20 years everybody is shooting 45 mpix, I'll probably have something in that range.

But yeah in the end, I would be happy with 8.

(yes I'm aware there is no 8mpix nikon)

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 08:06 PM

May 16, 2008 at 08:06 PM

HerbChong
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · How many megapixels is enough?

they would walk up to the really large print and see the difference because that is what people do. people shot and still shoot large format film for a reason. the D3X at 24M is the next step up and that is all. sweating the details and producing the highest quality the hardware allows is my goal because that is what separates my work from most of my competition.

Herb...

plnelson wrote:
If I made a 28"x42" print, sure, it would be only 100 DPI but at the distance anyone would look at a print that big they still wouldn't see the individual pixels.

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 08:25 PM

May 16, 2008 at 08:25 PM

plnelson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · How many megapixels is enough?

Avi B wrote:
I say 12 is enough. Actually, 4 is working out for me too

But I understand that people want medium-format like resolution in a DSLR form factor.

I understand they want it, I just can't figure out what they'll DO with it. The new sensor is 6236 x 4124 pixels. If you printed that at 300 DPI it would be 20.7 x 13.7 inches. No one will be looking at a print that big close enough to see 300 DPI of detail! So most of that great resolution will basically be wasted!

I was a medium format photographer (RB67) for years and it's not the sheer resolution that justifies MF. It's two other things -

1. You get wide optically flat perspective with lens focal lengths that can deliver optimal optical performance. Ever notice the problems they've had making really good, distortion-free, CA and coma-free wide-angles in the 10-20 mm range? NOBODY makes a really excellent one! The best of them have coma and CA and distortion. But it's easier to make a lens in the 50-80mm range at a MF - lens-to-film-plane distance that's practically perfect, so MF can give you wide angle pictures that are sharp and distortion-free corner to corner.

2. Bigger negatives shrink grain. But modern digital cameras have noise levels that are invisible at ISO 100, 200, and usually 400.

So basically, #1 cannot be solved by adding megapixels. It can only be solved by either using a bigger sensor than 24x36mm or by some breakthrough in lens design. And #2 is already solved.

Edited by plnelson on May 16, 2008 at 08:38 PM GMT

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 08:38 PM

May 16, 2008 at 08:31 PM

douglasf13
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #6 · How many megapixels is enough?

Agreed, Herb. Also, if one shoots for magazine layouts, having high resolution enables great multipage spreads and allows for cropping by the editor. A 24MP sensor at 300dpi produces over a 20"x13.5" print.

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 08:34 PM

May 16, 2008 at 08:33 PM

plnelson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #7 · How many megapixels is enough?

HerbChong wrote:
they would walk up to the really large print and see the difference because that is what people do.
Maybe there's a certain sort of geeky-pixel-peeper who does that, but I spend a lot of time in galleries, both as an art buyer, and also pulling gallery duty for various arts organizations I'm in, and I'm not seeing that. Most people walk up to a comfortable distance from the work. The only photos I see people getting really close to are the really small prints.

And frankly, the ones who look at works from a correct distance are more likely to be the ones who BUY, because they're the ones sizing up the work as it will be viewed in their home or business.

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 08:46 PM

May 16, 2008 at 08:44 PM

R. Francois
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · How many megapixels is enough?

6...

get a D40 while you can

May 16, 2008 at 08:47 PM

plnelson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #9 · How many megapixels is enough?

douglasf13 wrote:
Agreed, Herb. Also, if one shoots for magazine layouts, having high resolution enables great multipage spreads and allows for cropping by the editor. A 24MP sensor at 300dpi produces over a 20"x13.5" print.

Yeah, but think about what you just said. A multipage spread in American Photo or Vogue still won't be 20x13. And anyway magazines can't print 300 DPI of actual detail at their press resolution.

While I agree that it's always nice to have cropping headroom, let's not forget that the CURRENT "A"-list of high-gloss magazines is already being done quite successfully with the current crop of 10-12 MP DSLR's. I don't know about you, but I haven't recently picked up a copy of W or Vogue or Communication Arts or something and thought to myself, "Tsk - Too bad - if they'd only shot this with a higher-res camera they'd really have something!"

May 16, 2008 at 08:56 PM

chemprof
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · How many megapixels is enough?

When I was in Springdale, Utah last year I saw the first (I've personally seen) ever 30x40 inch prints on Ilfochrome (formerly Cibachrome). These images were more detailed and had more depth than anything I'd seen before at any size. My own Cibachrome 8x10's from 35mm slides came CLOSE.

I want to be able to walk up to a print and see that fine detail. My D200 at 16x24 comes CLOSE, like my 8x10 Cibachromes used to.

Bring on the megapixels. We also need better printers, inks, and papers. Ilfochrome is still better than any digital process.

Gerald

May 16, 2008 at 09:05 PM

jamach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #11 · How many megapixels is enough?

Yessir! Cibachrome rules, my Ciba pictures have more color and WOW than any other . And the sound the 'paper' makes when waving it is very cool!

I understand what you are talking about!

I will say that my new prints take my breath away printed on Kodak metallic paper.

- Joe

May 16, 2008 at 09:38 PM

hjanssen
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · How many megapixels is enough?

12345678900MP seems enough to me, so th engeneers ca go forward with this and when they reach this goal they can go to some usefull things to develop.

May 16, 2008 at 09:41 PM

douglasf13
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #13 · How many megapixels is enough?

A double page in W magazine is around 19"x13.5" and, for better or worse, there have been many times I've looked at an ad in such a magazine and thought it looked bad. Plus, you have to leave a lot of cropping room for you pics shooting for mags.

Is 24mp necessary? Probably not. Will it be nice to have? Definitely.

May 16, 2008 at 09:57 PM

eaglewolf
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #14 · How many megapixels is enough?

How much do we need? Just a little bit more...

Actually, I'm pretty happy with the resolution of the D300. I think other things are more important to image quality than ultimate image resolution, but if they keep the IQ up I can deal with higher resolution. 16mp D350? Sure, I'd take it. 24mp FX sensor? Sounds good to me! Just keep the noise low so we don't go backwards and it's fine with me.

Need? Hey, we're talking photography, not food and water. I enjoy the heck out of it, but it isn't like breathing to me. Then again, maybe that's why this is just a hobby for me.

David

May 16, 2008 at 11:30 PM

Elan II
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #15 · How many megapixels is enough?

plnelson wrote:

1. You get wide optically flat perspective with lens focal lengths that can deliver optimal optical performance. Ever notice the problems they've had making really good, distortion-free, CA and coma-free wide-angles in the 10-20 mm range? NOBODY makes a really excellent one! The best of them have coma and CA and distortion. But it's easier to make a lens in the 50-80mm range at a MF - lens-to-film-plane distance that's practically perfect, so MF can give you wide angle pictures that are sharp and distortion-free corner to corner.

Excellent point! We can probably do without LF, especially with stitching, but MF will always have a place. DX too, for a completely different set of reasons.

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM

May 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM

HerbChong
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #16 · How many megapixels is enough?

you haven't offered them a choice to find out which they would prefer. people who have know that if all the images are the same high aesthic quality, the higher resolution one wins the sale.

Herb....

plnelson wrote:
Maybe there's a certain sort of geeky-pixel-peeper who does that, but I spend a lot of time in galleries, both as an art buyer, and also pulling gallery duty for various arts organizations I'm in, and I'm not seeing that. Most people walk up to a comfortable distance from the work. The only photos I see people getting really close to are the really small prints.

And frankly, the ones who look at works from a correct distance are more likely to be the ones who BUY, because they're the ones sizing up the work as it will be viewed in their home or business.

May 16, 2008 at 11:51 PM

Mel Gross
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · How many megapixels is enough?

As usual, the question isn't so simple.

But landscape photographers who do sell prints for a living want as many pixels as they can get.

Those who are saying that those who come close to a picture aren't buyers, are deluding themselves.

300 dpi is considered to be perfect for images looked at from about 18 inches, but people DO look at larger prints from that distance.

Even in an art gallery showing paintings, people try to get that close, something about brushstrokes.

My 5D produces very fine images, but when I print a 17 x 26 image, even with excellent up rezzing, I can see the difference between it, and a picture taken with the Hassie and the Leaf back.

This question only started in the early days of digital photography. In the days of film, companies, spurred on by photographers, continued to do their best to come out with the finest grained, sharpest films possible.

The same thing is occurring with digital.

The only difference is that now, WE have the responsibility to buy into a whole new camera in order to obtain the sharpest. The expense can be grueling. So the myth that pixels don't count began.

While it was true, a few years ago, that pixel quality was a problem, that's not so true today, and will become insignificant in the future.

In another five years, or so, we will all be shooting around 20-30 MP, with high quality, and the question, for most, will die down.

But as long as some pursue the highest quality possible, and companies are looking for more sales, camera quality will continue to get better.

We might just be arguing about whether we need 60 MPs, or are 40 enough.

May 17, 2008 at 12:19 AM

mawz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #18 · How many megapixels is enough?

10MP is enough for me for the final image for most uses, but I'd like more for fine detail resolution as well as cropping room. I don't expect to need more than 20 anytime soon.

12 is working out fairly well, it's not too often that I wish I had more pixels.

May 17, 2008 at 12:40 AM

dj dunzie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · How many megapixels is enough?

I like 24... and not because I need it for anything I do... I say 24 because it will make D3 owners feel inadequate and a glut of dirt cheap D3 bodies will end up for sale. Bring it ON!

Seriously... for MY needs, 8MP is really enough, 12MP adds a little extra cropping room, and I've proven I can also get by nicely with only 4 or 6MP!

May 17, 2008 at 01:24 AM

Steve Perry
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #20 · How many megapixels is enough?

I think that it depends on the tradeoffs. If I could shoot 40MP with D3-like capabilities or better, why not? I don't think I've ever looked at one of my images and said, "Gee that has too much detail!"

However, when the D3X comes out, it's just about a given that it's not going to be in the same league as the D3 for noise. So, if I'm shooting something where I can use lower ISO, you bet I'll have the D3x out. If I'm shooting macros or landscapes with leaves blowing in the wind, I'm going to want the extra low noise shutter speeds I can get with the D3. Or if Nikon ever makes the 600vr available, I might even switch from the D300 to the D3 for some low light wildlife shots :-)

I guess it's not the number of MP, it's the quality and what you can do with them.

Steve

May 17, 2008 at 01:50 AM

Mark Kenfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · How many megapixels is enough?

I think it depends mostly on what you print - we do a tonne of 20"x30" prints, and they've always been done with 8mpx 1D Mark IIs (now mostly 10mpx 1D Mark IIIs... and a 12mpx D300 in my case). The photos all up-rez to 20"x30" really well.

More megapixels means larger file sizes, less photos per CF card, and more cost in file storage - for a large volume operation that's no fun. For what I shoot I'm perfectly happy with 12mpx, and will be for a good while to come (it's why I'm waiting on a 'D3 sensor in a D300 body', rather than a 'D3x'). For other people, the medium-format level of detail in a 21mpx or 24mpx image is more important.

I'm perfectly happy with 12mpx though, I'd rather keep that pixel count and have a better sensor, than more pixels and similar performance.

May 17, 2008 at 02:04 AM

Christian S
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #22 · How many megapixels is enough?

Ditto what DJ said. Im still selling D2H shots. I have the D3 but still love my old faithfull D2H. Im sure there are ad agency's that know about the digital evolution that require higher resolution. When it comes to the average Joe and Sally they get tickled with anything when they cant even come close to getting the shot. Its all in the light and how you do your job.

Edited on May 17, 2008 at 02:26 AM

May 17, 2008 at 02:22 AM

BenV
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #23 · How many megapixels is enough?

12 and 16mp is my personal preference.

May 17, 2008 at 02:39 AM

Genes Home
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · How many megapixels is enough?

I like Mel Gross' answer to some level, but have another point to add.

The "need" for higher pixel count depends in my world on WHAT I am shooting. My ancient Sony 828 has a swivel LCD which my D300 doesn't. When I am shooting "cats in the house" I still use the little Sony. It takes great shots and makes super prints up to about 11x14 (which is all any of my clients want to mat and hang on the wall). More importantly, I don't have to crawl around on my knees or belly to frame the photos of these wicked little critters as they scamper around the floor and furniture at mouse level.

Shooting at dog shows, I want all the pixels I can get, because its impossible to adjust the zoom and fill the frame and manage everything else on the camera while the dog is hurdling, tunneling, leaping, and turning at 100mph (or so it seems). So I need to be able to crop down to a good composition and still produce an 11x14 print. That needs lots of pixels to work with.

FYI, I am currently scanning some 30+ year old slides (and yes, I can see color shifting on the EK stuff, but not on any of the KR stuff), and am working 4 pass scans (to bring out shadow detail) at 5800 dpi, producing 130-160 megapixel TIFFs so that I have (a) all the detail I can get, and (b) the whole frame or most of the frame to workd with for future cropping.

My feeling is that a D300 size camera with 39-45 mpixels would be about ideal, as long as the resolving power of the lenses could be improved to match 35mm sensors at that level (would need about 3500 lines of resolution, I think - and today's lenses can't get there). Somebody with a technical background needs to jump in on this, please.

May 17, 2008 at 03:27 AM

Chaz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #25 · How many megapixels is enough?

In New York back in the early '70s we shot 8x10 Kodachrome at the fashion/commercial studio for which I worked. Those images were SWEET!! Talk about resolving fine detail!

Then, when I visited MOMA, the Nikon gallery or other art galleries in general I always saw (and did it myself) people viewing at the proper viewing distance first and then, almost invariably, moving in to within inches for a look at the medium itself including the grain, sharpness and so on. Those things are of interest in their own right.

So, for my landscape work bring on the most M-Pixels that will mimic my old 8x10 chromes with low (nearly non-existent) noise. I'll hock the kids to buy in!

The pleasure with the new technology for me is that we are moving in the direction of maximum IQ with high portability/lightweight gear that lets me leave the old 8x10 in the attic. M-Pixels for me - the sky's the limit.

May 17, 2008 at 06:10 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 5 end