jamesf99
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
|
 p.4 #19 · How many megapixels is enough? | |
Kerry Pierce wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
I'm convinced that all the people saying 12MP is enough either don't ever print their images or are afraid of larger files taking up extra storage space.
Dunno what would convince you of that. I'd be willing to wager a significant sum, that well over 90% of photographers rarely print larger than 12x18. Actually, I'd also bet that 12x18 prints are larger than the norm. 12mp is more than sufficient to that task.
Why am I convinced of what I said? Well gee, I'll answer that. I'll also clarify my post, and my frame of reference. If you're talking about the low end or amateur market, then this discussion requires different parameters and is moot. I also recognize that even in the pro market - shooting for sports for SI, or magazine publication - it's a different animal as there is a print size constraint that makes 12MP OK for those markets. Those files are often transmitted for print, and rarely printed by the photographer. I am talking about the pro market and down to the serious-amateur market, and people that can afford decent and larger printers.... This rules out 90% of the overall market, but it doesn't stop them from complaining.
My post, was directed at those we all read about daily that say their xMP or xxMP camera is enough and don't want more. I've been reading the same thing since 1999, when I started shooting 1MP digital cameras along side film. I remember my first 2MP camera was seen as an improvement, but my first 5MP P&S was lambasted by the owners of 3 and 4MP cameras as "over kill" with larger files that will take up more space, requiring more computing power, not making a better 8x10 print, etc. it was funny that those same 3&4MP camera owners telling me not to go to 5MP had to fight off the complaints of the 2&3MP owners before them. I've heard it all before, and I'll hear it again.. Same complaint, same boorish ignorance. Want to know how many times I've read/heard since 1999 the "all your eggs in one basket" nonsense with CF cards with people telling me not to buy 64MB CF cards?
Based on volume, very few of the images captured today are ever printed. The number is extremely small for several reasons, but primarily most images are viewed "on screen" today. There are far more complaints against "large file sizes" than anything else (takes up storage, requires more HP to process, et. al. Just do a search here and find out for yourself. Go to other forums are you'll read the same thing. This is no secret and the complaints are legion.
Many 4x6 snapshot prints are made but that's simply not relevant, unless that's your market and frame of reference, in which case we are talking about apples and oranges. I shoot things that are larger than 12x18 most of the time, and when printed, those shots get printed larger than 12x18. The other working photographers I know are printing larger too, and it's true that some are working with 12MP (Nikon owners). My response? So what? It is possible to print larger, they are faced with limitations and must make do.
If you have clients that routinely demand very large, detailed prints, then you should be getting the appropriate fees for same, which means that there is no reason not to have the biggest and best, which is not 35mm format.
The vast majority of folks that really need more than 12mp and are printing very large prints, should be using MF. Anyone that claims that more is better, but only until ~20mp is hit, is kidding themselves. A 40mp MF will produce much better images and require even less enlargement than a ~20mp FF. If stitching is involved, then 12mp is just as good as 20mp. Technique, glass and support system are much more important than MPs at that point.
Sorry, but IMO you're wrong. On what do you base your assertions? Your clients? The industry discussions? I'd like to see, because it's just not matching my experiences or anything I've read or heard. Perhaps we know different types of photographers, but I've been doing it for years so I have to assume our experiences, and requirements are apparently very different. Ever seen a print out from the original 1ds (11MP)? You can do it, but with more MP it's even better. I've also shot 35mm film and scanned that for large prints (much larger than 12x18). It can be done, but more "clean" native pixels is better.
Your assertion that larger prints require MF is flat out wrong. Just go to bookstores, look at the authors of landscape books, et. al. and talk to them. Why do you think that there's so much excitement about a 24MP camera? Is it just to beat Canon and match Sony? No.. well at least not for the rational people...
Look up Annie Leibovitz. Guess what. She prints larger than 12x18 and shoots Canon 1 series cameras. More MP and larger prints.... no MF, no complaints... I'm sure she'd value your opinion about how she's making a mistake and should change back to MF (which I know she used, but I don't know if she does currently).
MF has it's place, but the break point is no where near what you're suggesting. The results are often exceptional for landscapes where detail is important, and there are situations where it's required, but there are far more professional photographers shooting DSLRs and printing larger that what you think the limit is. I talked to another local photographer the other day (we were both at the lab picking up OMG, some film...). He "regrets" (his words) buying his Hassy/39MP MF back. A "mistake" he said; just too expensive and not worth it in his words. He prefers to shoot 8x10 for large work, and I do mean "large" or will use Canon/Nikon digital for other work. Hmmm. he seems to be satisfied, but knows that a higher res DSLR can give him lots of room...
A 1Ds2, and now the 1Ds3, can print very large images with good detail. I've even seen D3 images blown up to huge sizes. I'll respectfully suggest you need to do a little more research about what DSLR MPs will do for you, and if Canon releases a new 16.5MP camera this fall, I'll be happy.... I have serious doubts right now about the 24MP cameras coming, but I'll judge the output when I see it, but judging from the 1Ds3, there will be a price to pay and I don't mean just financially. you won't get the same ISO performance as with lower pixel density, so we'll see if Sony can pull it off.
There are so many people on internet forums (the majority?) that picked up a camera for the first time in the last few years and now believe they're experts. They know all about what's going on; or in their own mind they do, but I've seen the same nonsense, the same ignorance asserted as fact for almost 10 years. the camera changes, but the new 'experts" are always the same........
Edited on May 23, 2008 at 02:18 PM
|
I'm sure that the 1dsIII is a fine camera, but it won't hold a candle to the MF output.