21 megapixels too much? - FM Forums

Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · 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 end

Archive 2008 · 21 megapixels too much?

canerino
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #1 · 21 megapixels too much?

Perhaps I am being too nitpicky, but isnt 21 megapixels overkill? I have the current 5D and print fairly regularly from 12x18 to 20x30. As some of you know, the IQ is GREAT at these sizes.

So for me, 21 megapixels is really a waste. It would really clog up my system (3GB of RAM and a dual core) and eat up hardrive space.

I am curious how you intend to make full use of 21 megapixels? (not an attack, but true curiosity).

Sep 19, 2008 at 10:27 PM

Geofn
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #2 · 21 megapixels too much?

For some, yes. I like large prints (up to 24x36) and I also like the flexibility of being able to crop substantially and still have resolution to burn. Having 21MP was to me worth the $8K price of admission last spring. Today that price is $5300 less. But you are correct, for many it will be overkill.

Sep 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM

Ariel Bravy
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #3 · 21 megapixels too much?

It is definitely overkill for me as well, far more oomph than I need, but for others I'm sure it's helpful.

I'm also curious as to how the mucho MP's will benefit the photogs who need it.

Sep 19, 2008 at 10:41 PM

ObservedTrials
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #4 · 21 megapixels too much?

canerino wrote:I am curious how you intend to make full use of 21 megapixels?

By printing big (routinely 24x36 and larger). 21 > 12, but then I already knew that since I have a 1DsIII. I have a dual quad core with 8GB ram, a quad core with 4GB ram and a dual core with 4GB ram. I have RAID 1 with 15,000RPM discs on the dual quad core with a 2TB RAID 10 array for backup. I'm pretty sure it has 4 more empty bays in it, so I can easily add more storage if necessary.

The size of the files isn't a concern for me. Everything is instant, no difference between processing a 2mp file and a 20mp as far as lag, disc swap, etc.

Sep 19, 2008 at 10:41 PM

ICQ

danmitchell
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #5 · 21 megapixels too much?

canerino wrote:
Perhaps I am being too nitpicky, but isnt 21 megapixels overkill? I have the current 5D and print fairly regularly from 12x18 to 20x30. As some of you know, the IQ is GREAT at these sizes.

So for me, 21 megapixels is really a waste. It would really clog up my system (3GB of RAM and a dual core) and eat up hardrive space.

I am curious how you intend to make full use of 21 megapixels? (not an attack, but true curiosity).

In my experience, you would be unlikely to see any difference between 12 x 18 prints from uncropped originals made on a 12MP and a 21MP camera. On the other hand, I think that there could be differences between 20 x 30 prints made on these cameras as long as you aren't limited by lenses or technique.

Dan

Sep 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM

Gary Petersen
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #6 · 21 megapixels too much?

Overkill for some but fun to have anyway. Storage is cheap so why not have it as long as the IQ is still there.

Sep 19, 2008 at 10:47 PM

Alan Kefauver
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #7 · 21 megapixels too much?

So, at 21mps with my 35mm f1.4, lenss I can shoot at ISO800 and then crop in PS into a area equivalent to a 200mm lens and still have enough res for an 8x10 print?

Sep 19, 2008 at 11:48 PM

ICQ

hkitty
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #8 · 21 megapixels too much?

It will give us a LOT of rooms to crop. There's always a good thing, isn't it?

Sep 19, 2008 at 11:58 PM

bobbytan
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #9 · 21 megapixels too much?

Not for me, as I crop my photos a great deal and it's nice to still have 8-12mp size files to work with after chopping away a good chunk of the original image. Okay, so maybe I am not as good as some of you guys who don't do any cropping! Also with the resolution that I have, I will be able to shoot birds and other small animals with my 200mm lens (the longest lens that I have) and get frame-filling images by cropping away the unwanted areas. For snapshots, I would shoot at sRAW1 or sRAW2. External hard drives are inexpensive anyway, and you can easily pick up a 1-terabyte hard drive for under $200.

Sep 20, 2008 at 12:01 AM

bobbytan
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #10 · 21 megapixels too much?

If 21mp is too much, what about the Hassy H3II-50 and Phase One P65+ digital back, as these are 50mp and 60mp respectively? Think medium format .... in a compact DSLR body!

Nikon is rumored to be working on a MF DSLR, and the next version of the 1Ds Mk III will most probably have a 30+ megapixel sensor - and that's very doable with a gapless sensor and dual Digic IV or V.

Sep 20, 2008 at 12:35 AM

Gochugogi
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #11 · 21 megapixels too much?

canerino wrote:
Perhaps I am being too nitpicky, but isnt 21 megapixels overkill? I have the current 5D and print fairly regularly from 12x18 to 20x30. As some of you know, the IQ is GREAT at these sizes.

So for me, 21 megapixels is really a waste. It would really clog up my system (3GB of RAM and a dual core) and eat up hardrive space.

I am curious how you intend to make full use of 21 megapixels? (not an attack, but true curiosity).

I guess you weren't alive during the film scanning era! I recall in the late 90s and beyond scanning chromes and negs and routinely generating 128MP files. Add a few adjustment masks and those file sizes multiplied like friggen rabbits in heat. Old PS3, 4, 5 & 7 handled those whoppers with ease on my old G4 duo. 21MP files are much more nimble and compact in comparison!

Sep 20, 2008 at 01:06 AM

DSL67
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #12 · 21 megapixels too much?

If 21mp is too much, you can shoot sRaw and get 10mp files.

Sep 20, 2008 at 02:14 AM

Jammy Straub
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #13 · 21 megapixels too much?

I print most of my stuff with Elco 30x40" is almost big enough.

Their will always be room for more resolution, until we can zoom in and see individual cells on blades of grass at 100%...

Sep 20, 2008 at 02:29 AM

LiquidAir
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #14 · 21 megapixels too much?

danmitchell wrote:
In my experience, you would be unlikely to see any difference between 12 x 18 prints from uncropped originals made on a 12MP and a 21MP camera. On the other hand, I think that there could be differences between 20 x 30 prints made on these cameras as long as you aren't limited by lenses or technique.

I'll second this. If you take a full frame (no cropping) there won't be much difference at 12x18. In my experience, a print from a 5D starts looking soft in the details at 16x24. Since my printer is a 17" Epson 3800, I am really looking forward to those 21MP files. Printing a 16x24 at 240ppi (instead of the 180ppi I get from the 5D) will look great.

Sep 20, 2008 at 02:44 AM

Jeff
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #15 · 21 megapixels too much?

I agree that 21MP is a bit over the top, 16MP would be fine for me.

Sep 20, 2008 at 03:57 AM

canadajim
Online
Image Upload: On

p.1 #16 · 21 megapixels too much?

DSL67 wrote:
If 21mp is too much, you can shoot sRaw and get 10mp files.

Good idea and you have the flexibility of larger file sizes for different applications.

Jim

Sep 20, 2008 at 04:03 AM

Esquire08
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #17 · 21 megapixels too much?

DSL67 wrote:
If 21mp is too much, you can shoot sRaw and get 10mp files.

True, but then the advantages of the 5DmkII over the original 5D significantly shrink.

Sep 20, 2008 at 04:22 AM

izanaki
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #18 · 21 megapixels too much?

21 is insane

I too found it to be too much resolution for regular use. I'm waiting until the 5D Mark III. For me I'd like to see the speed and buffer of the 50D in the 5D. I'm going to stick with my 5D Mark I until those or very similar improvements are made. I think the 5D II is a great camera but not the upgrade I'm looking for.

Sep 20, 2008 at 04:42 AM

JDSA
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #19 · 21 megapixels too much?

21MP is too much for most of my shooting. I'd rather have 10 to 12 MP and a fast frame rate.

Sep 20, 2008 at 05:18 AM

DSL67
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #20 · 21 megapixels too much?

JDSA wrote:
21MP is too much for most of my shooting. I'd rather have 10 to 12 MP and a fast frame rate.

Then you will love the 40D

Sep 20, 2008 at 05:30 AM

lilboi
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #21 · 21 megapixels too much?

You could always shoot the 5DII with mRaw. It'll give you the 10mp images that you want. Then again, you're paying for something you'll only use 5% of the time.

Sep 20, 2008 at 05:38 AM

Don Clary
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #22 · 21 megapixels too much?

In landscape printing, there is no such thing as too many pixels.

Liquidair wrote: In my experience, a print from a 5D starts looking soft in the details at 16x24.

I printed a 20"x30" landscape of Dead Horse Point, Utah. It was made from ten 5D frames stitched together, shot with a Zeiss 50mm. 130 million pixels. How can I describe it? Rather crisp. It showed vastly more detail than you could see with your eyes, viewing the actual scene.

It is the sharpest landscape print I've ever viewed, and I've seen many superb gallery prints from an 8"x10" view camera, printed at 40"x60", in a showroom near Zion N.P. Utah. They were not in the same league as this stitched digital print.

Sep 20, 2008 at 05:51 AM

EOS20
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #23 · 21 megapixels too much?

21MP Is a bit excessive (IMHO), However It does allow you to crop your photos down, And you can make large prints if you need the quality.

However, With the 5D2, You can shoot in sRAW and get 10mp sized images for the times you don't need to be shooting at maximum quality, Or even sRAW2 which is only 5mp.

Sep 20, 2008 at 05:56 AM

eanderson123
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #24 · 21 megapixels too much?

If I could afford it I would buy it tomorrow. In my previous life as an industrial photographer I shot with a Mamiya RB67 (6x7 cm medium format monster). Had my choice between that and a Hasselblad 6x6. I went for the larger negative, more resolution. These days I try to fill the frame with my composition. I want to use every pixel. I am looking forward to the day when a full frame 645 camera comes out for under $2500.00. The way things are going it may be just a few years away.

Sep 20, 2008 at 06:04 AM

andylaiphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #25 · 21 megapixels too much?

It's not costing more to have it, why worry? Storage is so cheap and memory for computers is nothing these days.

It's just the evolution of the industry.

Sep 20, 2008 at 06:07 AM


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