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 4 end

Archive 2008 · 21 megapixels too much?

Ben Horne
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · 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.3 #2 · 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.3 #3 · 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
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #4 · 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.3 #5 · 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.3 #6 · 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.3 #7 · 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.3 #8 · 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.3 #9 · 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.3 #10 · 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

canerino
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · 21 megapixels too much?

i have to say that there are several things brought up here that I had not thought of....

hmmmm, maybe 21 megapixels isnt too much!!??

Sep 20, 2008 at 10:17 PM

Ben Horne
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · 21 megapixels too much?

Cableaddict wrote:
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.

Could you clarify how this does not address your question? I think it makes perfect sense. People will often complain that the 1:1 image quality of a camera is sub-par. Things are a bi soft. This is why the foveon sensors have so much potential, because they are not dealing with interpolated data from a bayer array.

When you take an image, and downsample it, you end up with a higher quality image at a 1:1 pixel level. That's why you can take identical photos with a 12 megapixel camera, and a 21 megapixel camera --- then downsample the 21 to 12 mp, and you'll have a higher quality photo at 12 MP than the native 12 mp file. It will be more clear, and look less digital.

This of course is a direct comparison between a 21 megapixel camera and a 12 megapixel camera at 12 megapixels as the question was asked. If you don't downsample, and keep them at their native resolutions --- but you print large, the 21 megapixel image will obviously also have a huge advantage.

Sep 20, 2008 at 10:34 PM

aegipan
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · 21 megapixels too much?

21 Mpx too much ?
Funny. I'm a 5D shooter for 3 years now, I must confess I'm very happy of my camera. I'm mainly a "studio" shooter, my 5D gives me good results and with 12 Mpx my current workflow is quite "simple" and doesn't give me trouble.

My clients were happy with the results. I don't remember when I've received the little message (from one of my clients) telling me they couldn't buy my 12 Mpx pictures anymore at the price they did in the past . The message was sent in February, I think.
They say a 12 Mpx file wasn't a XL-file anymore but just a L-file so my reward will be L and not XL anymore

XL file >= 16Mpx

That wasn't a good surprise. I thought I must buy another camera (1DsII or 1DsIII) to produce at least 16Mpx file. As this was a part-time job, I was a little worried about that: putting a lot of money into a new camera to (finally) earn the same amount of money than I did before ... That is what I call 'being under pressure'.

And finally Canon gives me a nice solution, I will have (crossing my fingers) a new camera that can produce 21 Mpx files for a "reasonable" price.

The only real question that stays in my mind now is: how 21Mpx files will affect my workflow process ?

Don't you think the same ?

Sep 21, 2008 at 01:33 AM

Mark Kenfield
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · 21 megapixels too much?

The good thing is you can always select to shoot in small or medium sized jpeg/RAW. And just use the full res when you actually need it.

Sep 21, 2008 at 01:36 AM

bobbytan
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #15 · 21 megapixels too much?

There is no reason to change your work flow. Maybe you shouldn't take as many pictures as you used to, since the files are so big, but otherwise nothing should change.

It helps to have more RAM and you will certainly require more storage space, but you can buy a 1-terabyte external hard drive for $175, and you have a few to choose from if you are willing to pay $200 .... so hard drive space and even CF cards are not expensive anymore.

aegipan wrote:

The only real question that stays in my mind now is: how 21Mpx files will affect my workflow process ?

Don't you think the same ?

Sep 21, 2008 at 02:06 AM

ChrisDM
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #16 · 21 megapixels too much?

That's why this camera is really only great for professional landscape and commercial photogrpahers, and general gearheads that have to have one bigger than yours. I fall into all three categories so I can't wait to get mine! Of course if it isn't for you there are plently of other cameras with more sensible resolutions for you to choose from.

Seriously though, the gallery that represents my landscape work likes big prints, up to 40x60", and I often hike many miles to capture these images. So the 5D2 will be my most valuable tool.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

Sep 21, 2008 at 02:38 AM

DSL67
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · 21 megapixels too much?

I've had the 5D for two years now as my main camera. For portrait work it is fantastic! But, it does peter out a little on the 30x40 + sizes. Even the 24x30 sizes is really pushing the limits of this camera, imo. They look great, don't get me wrong, but...I am very excited about the new 5D Mark II. Now that I've started shooting weddings, the 10mp sRaw feautre is perfect for most of the wedding as far as resolution is concerned (and the extra iso looks to be tremendous!). And for my portrait work, which is currently most of what I do, I am basically doubling the resolution of my current camera. That is a welcome relief for the larger sized wall portraits that we do.

Sep 21, 2008 at 02:55 AM

RDKirk
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · 21 megapixels too much?

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.

C'mon. There has been another 21mp 24x36mm on the market before. We already know that 21mp displays real improvement, worth $8000 for a lot of photographers and certainly worth $2700 for a lot more.

This is what Phil Askey said after his test of the 1Ds Mk III:

If you need resolution, the Mark III - as long as you choose your glass carefully - has it by the bucket load. From here the only way to get more resolution is to go medium format, which brings a whole new set of considerations (not the least the need to sell your house - or at least a kidney - to afford the body and lenses). The Mark III may not be able to beat a MF back in the studio for critical work, but the sheer versatility offered by a 35mm format camera that can shoot 21.1MP images at 5.0 frames per second at up to ISO 3200 shouldn't be underestimated.

Sep 21, 2008 at 04:09 AM

bobbytan
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · 21 megapixels too much?

RDKirk wrote:

C'mon. There has been another 21mp 24x36mm on the market before. We already know that 21mp displays real improvement, worth $8000 for a lot of photographers and certainly worth $2700 for a lot more.

That's one way to look at it. If my understanding is correct, this new 21mp sensor is superior to the previous one, thanks to Digic IV and other improvements. So you are actually getting better IQ than someone who paid $8,000 just a few months ago .... and people are still bitching about what a crippled camera the 5D Mk II is. Isn't IQ the most important thing? Sheesh!

Sep 21, 2008 at 04:21 AM

JDSA
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · 21 megapixels too much?

DSL67 wrote:
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

Hardly! I mean in a real 35mm camera, not a cropper.

Sep 21, 2008 at 05:53 AM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end