21 megapixels too much? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2008 · 21 megapixels too much?

Marc Brackhahn
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · 21 megapixels too much?

21mp way too much, 12mp just right.

Sep 20, 2008 at 12:02 PM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · 21 megapixels too much?

21MP on the 5D2... to compensate for using the center AF point only (since the outer ones most probably will be just as crappy as with the 5D).

Seriously, 21MP users should be aware that 21MP will magnify lens imperfections and (slight) focus issues, especially when zooming in 100% on a monitor or printing large.

The difference between printing a 12MP and 21MP file begins to show roughly at 50cm x 70xm. Especially if there are much details in the print (as in a landscape).

Sep 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM

John Power
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · 21 megapixels too much?

I feel like my 1DSMK2 is the perfect balance, MP-wise. Big but not too big. Small but not too small.

Sep 20, 2008 at 12:17 PM

canerino
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · 21 megapixels too much?

John Power wrote:
I feel like my 1DSMK2 is the perfect balance, MP-wise. Big but not too big. Small but not too small.

its funny john, thats one of the directions i am looking now! how would you compare IQ from the 1dsmkII with the 5D? i've never thought of making the comparison as I just thought the 5DmkII would be 16mp.

Sep 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM

John Power
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · 21 megapixels too much?

The same. Great. Plus you get the 1 Series features. As for the LCD screen size, so what. Its small for sure but its only a menu and histogram display. We all have long since learned not to rely on the LCD as a representation of what the photo will actually look like.

These cameras are running between 3 and 3.5K on B/S. Solid, weather sealed, excellent fast focusing. What's not to like. I have zero desire to "upgrade" now and I suspect will not for several years. In fact, I think I have finally reached the point where I am not really in the market for anything substantial.

However, if you hang a 70-200 or a 100-400 on it be forewarned that it is heavy.

Sep 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM

veroman
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · 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).

There's no easy answer to this question. Much depends on how one shoots, what one shoots, and how often one needs substantial cropping room. I generally crop in-camera and more often than not end up with the shot I was looking for. So cropping room isn't a priority for me.

But capturing detail is. I have so far not been 100% pleased with the level of fine detail obtainable with my 5D or my 1Ds. Although these cameras are substantially better at rendering fine detail than my D60, 10D and 40D (I no longer own those cameras), I'm sure the 5D II will be even better. For me, it's tempting from that standpoint alone.

Of course, going from 12MP to 21MP isn't the same as going from 2MP to 12MP. The law of diminishing returns sets in. For some, the small, incremental but noticeable difference might be worth the upgrade. So far, though, I'm not thinking about buying one ... just tempted.

- Steve

Sep 20, 2008 at 01:17 PM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · 21 megapixels too much?

Clearly it depends on many factors such as subject and print size, whether the 21MP is overkill, but I'd rather have too many than too few.

Until the 50D came along I had only expected the 5D II to have around 16.4MP, but seeing what Canon did then it was no surprise to see 21MP.

My perfect one camera fits all camera, would be a 16-18MP version of the D700, with a few updates.

Sep 20, 2008 at 01:23 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · 21 megapixels too much?

I know that, in terms of sharpness and detail with a given sized print, there is a point at which more pixels makes no difference to the human eye.

I can accept that easily.

However, has it ever been proven that, when that pixel limit has been reached, using more pixels adds NOTHING perceptable to the human eye? For instance, subtleties of dynamic range, three dimensionality, shading, etc?

In other words, I'm wondering if there might not be some subtle qualities that have been overlooked, because they are hard to qualify / quantify.

If not, then what is the accepted maximum print size, with absolutely no loss in any percievable factor, given the worst possible subject conditions, for a 12 mp sensor at 12 bit?

Sep 20, 2008 at 01:36 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · 21 megapixels too much?

canerino wrote:
John Power wrote:
I feel like my 1DSMK2 is the perfect balance, MP-wise. Big but not too big. Small but not too small.

its funny john, thats one of the directions i am looking now! how would you compare IQ from the 1dsmkII with the 5D? i've never thought of making the comparison as I just thought the 5DmkII would be 16mp.

That's an interesting possibility. What I'd really like to see is a 1Ds II with a modern sensor. -but I guess that would be a 1DsIII.

As for weight, the 1DS II is 1225 grams, empty. A 5D with battery grip (empty) is 1264 grams.

Edited on Sep 20, 2008 at 01:58 PM · View previous versions

Sep 20, 2008 at 01:38 PM

RDKirk
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · 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.

Doggone aye. I love being able to enlarge the images of a small, hand-held camera up to 20x30 and hang it with no apologies next to 20x30s from my Mamiya RZ cameras.

But a well-scanned negative from the Mamiyas still beats the 5D1 when I need more resolution for 30x40, 40x50, or a 20x30 family or full length portrait.

The 5D2 may be what it takes to finally retire the old Mamiyas.

Sep 20, 2008 at 01:56 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #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).

We had the same discussion when the D30 was replaced with the D60. It might have gone something like this.

"I don't know if I really need all the resolution that the D60 has to offer. The 3 megapixels on the D30 are very high quality megapixels. I've been able to make great some nice 16x20's from the 3MP, and I really don't need to crop... so I think I'll be sticking with my D30."

Next came the leap to 8 then 10. It has been questioned all the way. I'm sure people questioned the need for 12MP on the 5D. I think it's rather amusing because we keep hearing the same old thing.

Personally, I'll take all the resolution I can get. I don't think they will ever come up with too many megapixels on these cameras. I await being up at 30 or 40 MP. Not only does it provide for large print possibilities, but also greater cropping flexibility. Also, when a 21 megapixel image is downsized to 12MP, you will end up with a super high quality 12 MP file that will blow away the 5D.

Sep 20, 2008 at 02:29 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · 21 megapixels too much?

Ben Horne wrote:
Also, when a 21 megapixel image is downsized to 12MP, you will end up with a super high quality 12 MP file that will blow away the 5D.

Ben, can you explain that, technically? Perhaps you are correct (and this goes back to my last question, above) but if the human eye can't detect past a certain pixel-density, then your statement would seem to make no sense.

I'm trying hard to understand this mp issue, so as to make future purchase decisions. (loving my 5D right now)

Sep 20, 2008 at 02:51 PM

Traveller99
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · 21 megapixels too much?

With the 5D, many people talked about the 1.6x crop "advantage" for telephoto - because if you were "focal-length challenged" with a distant subject and took a 1.6x crop from a 5D image you got only 5MP which wasn't up to the 8.2MP you got with 20D or 30D cameras.

Now with the 5D II, if you crop 1.6x you get an 8.2 MP image which is equivalent tp a 20D/30D image (and remember the 20D was current when the 5D was introduced). The 5D Mk II, therefore, leaves you with some margin to compensate for being "focal-length challenged".

Of course the cropped image will still be far less resolution than an image from the 50D, but then that often won't matter much - especially given that with a lot of lenses, you won't get significantly more detail anyway even if you could get that resolution from a 1.6x crop.

Edited on Sep 20, 2008 at 03:39 PM · View previous versions

Sep 20, 2008 at 03:34 PM

krobatshov
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · 21 megapixels too much?

I don't think the fact that the 5d2 got 21MP will be beneficial to more than 30% of photogs. here, since 10-15MP can "do" the job as well.

The main reason why they went up with the MP value might be IQ improvement by resizing the 21 MP img taken at iso 6400 down to less than 15MP.

Smaller image results in "less" noise / better image quality (I know it's kinda vague to make such a statement...but hey...this is just a theory/guess)

Sep 20, 2008 at 03:38 PM

jerrykur
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · 21 megapixels too much?

Cableaddict wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
Also, when a 21 megapixel image is downsized to 12MP, you will end up with a super high quality 12 MP file that will blow away the 5D.

Ben, can you explain that, technically? Perhaps you are correct (and this goes back to my last question, above) but if the human eye can't detect past a certain pixel-density, then your statement would seem to make no sense.

I'm trying hard to understand this mp issue, so as to make future purchase decisions. (loving my 5D right now)

The human eye may not be able to detect the extra information but any post processing program can and put it to good use.

For example, if the final image size is smaller than then the "Native size" (technically inaccurate, but illustrative) and algorithm must make a determination on which color to make the newly created pixel. If it has more source pixels it can make a better approximation.

The same issue occurs in determining edges for sharpening, blending, filtering, etc.

Sep 20, 2008 at 03:55 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #16 · 21 megapixels too much?

Cableaddict wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
Also, when a 21 megapixel image is downsized to 12MP, you will end up with a super high quality 12 MP file that will blow away the 5D.

Ben, can you explain that, technically? Perhaps you are correct (and this goes back to my last question, above) but if the human eye can't detect past a certain pixel-density, then your statement would seem to make no sense.

I'm trying hard to understand this mp issue, so as to make future purchase decisions. (loving my 5D right now)

Simple. Take one of your existing photos, and examine the quality at pixel level (1:1). Look at the way that tree leaves look, or other sorts of fine detail. Now, downsize it to about half the megapixel resolution, and look at it again at pixel level (1:1). You will find that the image is not as soft, noise is less of an issue, and the overall image quality is improved. This is not to say that it will print better ---- We're throwing away resolution, but the 1:1 quality improves.

That being said, if you take an identical photo with the 5D, and the 5DII, both will be a bit soft at pixel level. Downsize the 21 megapixel image down to 12 megapixel, and you'll now have a rather sharp, clean, and detailed image that will show less noise, and require far less sharpening.

If you're talking pure print quality and you're printing small, the 21 megapixel will have the advantage because it can be downsampled more. If you print large, the 21 megapixel image will have the advantage because it has almost double the pixels, and it will not need to be interpolated as much. When printing large, you of course would not want to downsample to 12MP, then res back up. Just keep the 21 megapixel image at the large size.

I believe that much of this chatter about 21 megapixels being too much has to do with people being threatened by a higher resolution camera --- and trying to defend the existing resolution that they have. Now, instead of the obvious benefits to having more resolution, people are saying that it's too much, or that they don't need it. Again, this is what happened back in the transition from the D30 to the D60, etc.

I remember saying the same when I had a 2 megapixel camera, and the 3 and 4 megapixel cameras were coming onto the market. I was convinced that 2 megapixels was all I needed. In retrospect, I think it's quite humorous.

I'll be the first to admit that I'll take every pixel I can get. Even if I'm not printing huge on every print, you will have benefits by downsampling if you are printing smaller sizes. For those that say they want "higher quality pixels" and not just more pixels ---- You get the best of both options with a higher res camera. Simply downrez it back to 12MP, and you have higher quality 12MP. Keep it at 21, and you have more resolution for bigger prints.

Sep 20, 2008 at 04:10 PM

eonflux
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · 21 megapixels too much?

I don't think you can have enough pix. It's the noise that generally goes with it that people see as a turn off...it's all about quality (IQ). If you have QUALITY pix, then you are set for anything and everything your heart desires, minus the fantasy girl.

Sep 20, 2008 at 04:22 PM

Don Clary
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · 21 megapixels too much?

If you think 21MP is large, based on the 50D sensor, just wait for a 1Ds4 at 30 to 40 MP, perhaps available within one year.

Sep 20, 2008 at 04:34 PM

bobbytan
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · 21 megapixels too much?

One year? I am thinking 6 months. I think a new 1D will be released at PMA in February.

Ben Horne is correct - we used to say that 3 megapixels is super-duper quality and you don't need more megapixels .... soon that became 6 megapixels .... and then it was 12 megapixels .... and in the next few months 24 megapixels will be the new benchmark. I mean, advertising and commercial photographers have good reason why they need a 50 or 60 megapixel camera like the Hassy H3II-50 or Phase One P65+ digital back .... so Canon, Nikon and Sony are moving in the right direction with their 20+ and 30+ megapixel DSLRs.

A few years from now, we will be laughing at ourselves for thinking that 21 megapixels is way too much!

Don Clary wrote:
If you think 21MP is large, based on the 50D sensor, just wait for a 1Ds4 at 30 to 40 MP, perhaps available within one year.

Sep 20, 2008 at 05:39 PM

jxsq
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · 21 megapixels too much?

The real issue is that per pixel sharpness is much worse. so the 21mp is not 21 really, and be able to crop more is very questionable.

pay the price for nothing, i think, at least from the samples i saw so far.

Sep 20, 2008 at 07:09 PM

LynnP
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · 21 megapixels too much?

Finally, something besides Canon bashing, good discussion. As a person that does my own printing up to 12X18 and send out for anything larger will the 5DMkII give me a noticeable difference over the 5D on the 12X18s.
This is more important for me with photos taken with a long telephoto lens like the 100-400 w/1.4X TC. The photos would be of birds or other wild life.

Sep 20, 2008 at 07:13 PM

LynnP
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #22 · 21 megapixels too much?

Finally, something besides Canon bashing, good discussion. As a person that does my own printing up to 12X18 and send out for anything larger will the 5DMkII give me a noticeable resolution difference over the 5D on the 12X18s.
This is more important for me with photos taken with a long telephoto lens like the 100-400 w/1.4X TC. The photos would be of birds or other wild life.

Sep 20, 2008 at 07:13 PM

abam
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · 21 megapixels too much?

i didn't read the whole thread, so excuse me if i repeat.

i remember when i was buying a computer to take to creighton with me (way back in 1998), and the salesman told me that there was no way i was going to fill up the 3 gigabyte bigfoot hard drive in the model i settled on.

then shortly after i got to university, i discovered half life 1, macromedia mx suite and corel draw.

21MP is not overkill for me, because large prints are always getting cheaper and cheaper, as are the computers to store and process them - opening new avenues that i didn't know existed a few short months before.

Sep 20, 2008 at 07:20 PM

Jonathan H
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #24 · 21 megapixels too much?

The real benefit to huge files is NOT for printing large. Like numerous people have said just above - the 1Ds2 and 5D (and even 20D) can all make very nice looking large format prints.... 20x30 is well within reason for all three of those cameras.

The advantage is in post production. Especially when you consider what happens on large commercial jobs - the final client select file frequently goes through 4-5 rounds of retouching as each art director and client get their respective veto. Try that with a file from the 5D and you'll have blocked up colors, posterization, etc.

Actually, the 45mp backs seem to strike a sweet-spot on the available resolution vs bottleneck ratio. A celebrity portrait session I was on about 2 weeks ago generated just under 25 GB of images in 2 hours. If we were using one of the next-gen backs like the new Hassy or P65+, that would have ballooned to nearly 35gigs - gotta draw the line somewhere.

Sep 20, 2008 at 09:30 PM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #25 · 21 megapixels too much?

Ben Horne wrote:
Cableaddict wrote:
Ben Horne wrote:
Also, when a 21 megapixel image is downsized to 12MP, you will end up with a super high quality 12 MP file that will blow away the 5D.

Ben, can you explain that, technically? Perhaps you are correct (and this goes back to my last question, above) but if the human eye can't detect past a certain pixel-density, then your statement would seem to make no sense.

I'm trying hard to understand this mp issue, so as to make future purchase decisions. (loving my 5D right now)

Simple. Take one of your existing photos, and examine the quality at pixel level (1:1). Look at the way that tree leaves look, or other sorts of fine detail. Now, downsize it to about half the megapixel resolution, and look at it again at pixel level (1:1). You will find that the image is not as soft, noise is less of an issue, and the overall image quality is improved. This is not to say that it will print better ---- We're throwing away resolution, but the 1:1 quality improves.

-But that's not the point you made that I am questioning.

I'll buy Jerry & Jonathan's argument, that more pixels = more control for post processes (same as 14 bit vs 12 bit) and really that's enough of an answer. Regardless, I still question your point. We're not talking about downsizing, we're talking about going UP, past the limits of the human eye.

-And this is not an argument from people looking to defend their current 12 mp camera, as someone else wrote. Just the opposite. It's information people need to decide whether or not to upgrade. That should be obvious.

So, even with the "post processing" argument accepted as fact, one has to ask "how much is enough" for a given print size, and I have yet to see any concrete answer. Some websites suggest that a 300 ppi print at 8X10 is more than the eye can see. Maybe yes, maybe no. If so, how many mp is that? How many mp would that require in order to ALSO leave all necessary "extra resolution" for post-processing?

Someone will hopefully do such a real-world test, and soon.

Sep 20, 2008 at 09:39 PM


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