p.1 #1 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Like many, I've been rather excited about the new 36meg Nikon D800 and have nearly placed a pre-order several times today. However, in thinking about things that are expensive and that I don't per say "need" I also glanced at my seldom used large format printer that typically sits, gathers dust and waste a painful amount of ink in cleaning cycles.
It all got me thinking a bit about how ironic it is that we keep raising the megapixels of cameras in an era where so much of our content is viewed on the web, or tablets or HD tv's.
I can't remember what the last file I actually made a large print of was, or the last time I had a family member flip through an actual book of images (even though press printed materials are so cheap and easy to do these days as well) much less a real "photo album" of prints.
Rather I seem to share my photos on webpages, through emails, or via my television so it makes me wonder, what would I really do with 36megs other than look at them at 100% in PS and think how awesome the resolution is ?
What would most people do ? How large do most people print ? How many empty walls do most people have to fill ? Do most people actually sell fine art prints ? Who exactly is "most people" for that matter ?
It really started me wondering if perhaps rather than more pixels if we actually need all in all "better" pixels.
Rather than make a 36meg sensor, what if one could create a sensor technology that could combine 36million pixels of 3 different exposures to produce a 12 megapixel image but with a revolutionary dynamic range of 15 stops or greater ? Not merely some Fuji EXR look where you can hardly see a difference, and not some multiexposure over the top HDR cartoon look, but actually giving a single file with unheard of exposure latitude.
Would something like that not perhaps be more useful than simply sheer resolution ?
When, if ever, do you think we may see a fundamental shift from simply more, to what could be called "better" ? Or, are most people still demanding more megapixels on the assumption that more has to to better, simply because it is in fact "more", and the fact they may just post images to Facebook with a 40+ meg camera be darned ?
p.1 #2 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Agree completely. I did the same today, I thought, damn, those 36MP + 3 good Zeiss ZF
lenses could be great, let's try it out
But it's just becoming ridiculous to be honest, I'm not very good at deleting my files,
I often keep them all and browsing through 1000's of 200MB files doesn't sound like fun.
It would if I did print them all big etc, but you're absolutely right, we mostly make a webpage
and move on. I think it's hard also to go back to that size when you know how much fun
it is to shoot a tiny NEX camera and use all those various amazing lenses.
p.1 #3 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Agree with OP 100%.
I haven't printed anything in about 10 years. I shoot professionally so pass image to publishers.
The last job I did was on sRAW1 (9.9Mpx on 5D2) because that was ample size for the publisher and more efficient to process 500+ images. I often shoot sRAW1 and RAW on the same day, mixing and matching to suite.
Even when processing power and data storage far exceed our needs, there will always be the end use to consider and although many people will need even larger files (than 36M) many more wont.
My 1ds2 gave better shadow details than my 5D2, as an example of 'better' pixels. The greater number of pixels on the 5D2 are not an advantage to me and I would prefer the better quality of the 1ds2.
p.1 #4 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Great read!
Especially now, as I ponder purchasing 4x5 gear.
I am only an amateur hobbyist.
All of what you, the OP, said is very true, even for me.
I have a 5dMkII, which I like very much!
I only print for family and friends.
I don't really need more, but there seems, at least for me, always the want...
I have wanted a medium format digital solution for sooo long now, but for what?
I STILL cannot answer that, and I will never be able to justify the cost.
I really don't know why I am boring all you with this as I type, other than to try and find an answer to my addiction...
I don't see it as need to impress, nor to boast about my gear.
Heh, I hardly post my work, other than when I need guidance.
The engineering life style part of me is always wanting to experiment with new learning experiences.
I find my current hobby of photography vast, from the artsy side, all the way to the technical side.
If I don't learn something new, I do not get any satisfaction, and get bored real easily.
I then "discard it", and move along...
Oh, sorry to ramble, didn't want to hijack your thread...
I agree with OP 100%
Hi, my name is Ed, and I have a current addiction...
p.1 #5 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
I am with you. I would be so very happy if Canon decided to launch the next 5D3 with those 18Mpx of the 1D-X.
Did you see the ISO 1600 noise free images? Very promising.
I could not care less for 36mpx but some do. Some people loved the D800 offering and will probably use it in very large scale printing. Other will just "think" they will use it, and keep on peeping 100% pixels on screen and go WOW...
p.1 #6 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Yeah me too! I'd love to see 60 megapixels if it were in a 12mp X/Y and 5pixels deep for DR, focus shifting, noise cancelation, or whatever.
I'm very happy with the resolution I get from my GH1. I'm not so happy with it's ISO nor it's DR performance. And I feel the same way about the GH2 and Nex 5n samples I've seen too. More pixels in X and Y would not change my feeling there. My brain and my gut top out at around 16 to 18mp. But I sure want more DR and maybe something fun like focus racking too!
p.1 #7 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
snowboarder wrote:
............... I think it's hard also to go back to that size when you know how much fun
it is to shoot a tiny NEX camera and use all those various amazing lenses.
I agree 100%. I've got no interest in upgrading my D300, mainly because I'm having so much fun and getting such great results with the NEX that I'm sure 95% of my photography will be with the NEX.
p.1 #8 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Well, I guess I'm the odd guy out. I do enough jobs, both professional and personal, that really do require the resolution. Some of this involves reproducing paintings which might be printed as wide as my 44" (hint - Canon printers use less ink then Epsons) printer will print and quite a bit longer. The last few gallery shows I had involved 3' x 6' photographic scrolls and one piece I did was a whopping 18 foot wide x six foot high. Folks like to walk right up and put their noses in a print in a gallery so resolution can matter in some instances. Do I always print that large, no, but I don't ever care to find my choices and opportunities restricted by my equipment. When it's needed, it's really needed! 36MP is still not up to 4x5 film standars yet but we are getting there. Then I'm sure I will desire 8x10 quality.
p.1 #9 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Yes and no for me I guess.
I definitely have finally settled in on a "good enough" solution (m43 in my case). It took being forced to move across the country from my shooting locations such that I have to fly with my gear now to re-evaluate everything about my kit and its output (and fortunately mirrorless came along just about that time). I tried even smaller (high-end compacts) but they did give me the focal lengths I needed or quite the optical quality.
Still I'm constantly tempted by a 5DmkII (or III soon) as I've got the L glass for it already. Then of course I realize L glass really isn't up to the 5DII so I'll be packing a bunch of Zeiss primes instead. And I've got a 4x5 camera here, boy maybe I should shoot some film instead - I really don't shoot many exposures per trip anyway.
So I get the constant tug for "more" and "better". And I get that there is a point of diminishing returns (that point being different for each photographer and application of course).
So in that context I get the "fewer better pixels" (and not "bigger" pixels, they aren't any better than more of their smaller brethren, but as you mention perhaps targeting more DR).
But I'm not so sure. Will it be another diminishing return? At higher ISOs practical DR is already limited by photon shot noise and sensor size, so no fancy architecture will help us there. That leaves base ISO as the only place to do it. Do we really need that much more? How many photos are actually helped by insane amounts of DR - maybe it's an aesthetic thing but even with my m43 cameras (pretty so-so as far as base ISO DR goes) I'm often increasing contrast and pushing some shadows to black rather than reaching for the fill light slider. The optics limit what is possible as well.
But, I guess I'll agree, there is always room for more. You could get that blown out window to blow out just right. And sunsets with foregrounds will be easier (though the purists will tell you the grad-ND is still necessary to help the lens with the extreme DR).
Well - I rambled. Which I guess just goes to show you made a thought provoking post!
p.1 #10 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
millsart wrote:
Not merely some Fuji EXR look where you can hardly see a difference, and not some multiexposure over the top HDR cartoon look, but actually giving a single file with unheard of exposure latitude.
Totally agree with your post except the quoted line above. The EXR technology of Fujifilm really works. Before EXR sensors were out, I shot often with Fuji's SuperCCD HR sensor. Blowing highlights was very common and keeping them under control outdoors was a FULL time job. Once I had an EXR, it took enormous brightness to blow highlights. I simply stopped worrying about it as it almost never, ever happened.
Even better was Fujifilm's SuperCCD SR II sensor. The highlight recovery ability of that sensor remains incredible.
p.1 #11 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Nikon seems have been doing both from what I can tell. I would love a D800. My D300s prints start to look like plastic at ~16x20 and that is being generous, imo. The 20x30s from the D300s looks like crap compared to my 4x5 prints. No I am not going to stand on the other side of the room. I look at my prints at arms length. I love the fact that I can put my nose to my 4x5 and 8x10 prints and be very satisfied. Cannot say the same for my D300s files.
The D800 offers more than just a bigger final image. It's not like they took a D700 file and uprezzed it in CS5. There is a whole heck of a lot more detail available. Just look at the samples, they are incredible. That detail comes through in the final print. Not to mention making editing more precise and less prone to artifacts in my experience.
If you aren't printing or using the detail that is made available to you then I am sure the D800 would be a waste. I am printing more and more because there is nothing more satisfying than viewing the final print.
p.1 #13 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
A definite no for me, I wouldnt take 36mp even if they paid me to take it.
It would basically mean streamlining and/or upgrading my processing gear and workflow, which I have zero interest in doing.
The largest print I've ever made was A3 from a panasonic LX3 and it got exhibited, won me a photocomp, got sold multiple times, has close to 300 favs on flickr () and generally nobody seems to give a pinch of his pocket lint about the fact that it was made from a smaller camera.
My only reason for upgrading has always been that some camera helps me take the photo in the first place, very very rarely because the actual photo is better.
Thats just me though, countless photographers (maybe the majority?) have different needs or wants. I expect this camera to make a killing in landscape photography for example.
p.1 #14 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
rattymouse wrote:
Totally agree with your post except the quoted line above. The EXR technology of Fujifilm really works. Before EXR sensors were out, I shot often with Fuji's SuperCCD HR sensor. Blowing highlights was very common and keeping them under control outdoors was a FULL time job. Once I had an EXR, it took enormous brightness to blow highlights. I simply stopped worrying about it as it almost never, ever happened.
Even better was Fujifilm's SuperCCD SR II sensor. The highlight recovery ability of that sensor remains incredible.
I will give you that, I didn't own one myself but had a wedding photographer friend who used the S series (s3 or s5 I think it was) and that did show some pretty impressive latitude in its JPEG's, especially good considering where the rest of the industry was a few years ago.
On my little Fuji X10 though I just never saw much of a difference with it, 1/2 a stop maybe. Same goes for my X100 where the DR400% just gives what to me looks like a low contrast look.
The idea is a step in the right direction but I'd like to see it really taken to the next level, 4-5 stops of exposure latitude in a single file totally eliminating the need for things like ND grad's in addition to having to take multiple exposures if you want to blend them together.
Something that can match the DR of human vision and depending on what part of the scene we choose accurately show the deepest blacks to the brights of highlights.
p.1 #17 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
I often wonder why those who don't print or send to publishers keep buying new cameras at all?? I have a 13x19 printer, and my 16mp camera still doesn't even print at 300ppi with that average sized printer. Add in the desire to future proof myself a little bit, should I decide to print larger, and 36mp is still a relatively modest number, IMO. If I was just shooting for web jpegs, maybe I'd want an advanced 2mp camera, but, for me, printing is a big part of the process/art.
The fact remains that, assuming similar sensor tech, more megapixels are only really hurting us in hard drive space, computer speed, data throughput, etc. Heck, I often only shoot a few "rolls" worth of pictures per outing, so I'm not getting bogged down with data over here.
p.1 #18 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
I understand those who say more is good too. I occasionally become quite interested in scientific cameras which capture in 100's of megapixels. I bet I could find a use for it too - not to mention it being just plain fun to edit and dink about in the massive files. But to me that's a specialty item - even a novelty item. If I want images for the art of capturing what I (as a human being) see with the intent of keeping it for future reminisce and/or maybe sharing it on-screen or in print (8x10, A4, 4x5, A5 or smaller) I actually do not want more than about 16mp or maybe 18 max.
To me this is the main purpose of a camera. Capturing and/or sharing a vision or version of reality in a semi-permanent media (paper, file, screen). If my purpose were to reproduce the works of great painters and artists photographically or something of that nature then I would enthrallingly welcome the D800's higher resolution and likely call for more. So I do understand those digging this. IMO however, such a high resolution belongs to a specialty or scientific camera model of some kind.
I guess if my home were equipped with one or more of those VR walls we see in hollyweird films I might feel differently...
p.1 #19 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Bifurcator wrote:
I understand those who say more is good too. I occasionally become quite interested in scientific cameras which capture in 100's of megapixels. I bet I could find a use for it too - not to mention it being just plain fun to edit and dink about in the massive files. But to me that's a specialty item - even a novelty item. If I want images for the art of capturing what I (as a human being) see with the intent of keeping it for future reminisce and/or maybe sharing it on-screen or in print (8x10, A4, 4x5, A5 or smaller) I actually do not want more than about 16mp or maybe 18 max.
To me this is the main purpose of a camera. Capturing and/or sharing a vision or version of reality in a semi-permanent media. If my purpose were to reproduce the works of great painters and artists photographically or something of that nature then I would enthrallingly welcome the D800's higher resolution and likely call for more. So I do understand those digging this. IMO however, such a high resolution belongs to a specialty or scientific camera model of some kind.
You print very small, so it makes sense for you, but go to any contemporary art exhibition these days, and 13x19 is on the smaller side of things, and it makes sense to build cameras that cater to the great many of us that print at medium and large sizes. If I bought the D800, I'd probably also consider the cost of upgrading my computer and buying a larger printer, which would be fantastic. Alas, I'm staying where I'm at for now.
p.1 #20 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
douglasf13 wrote:
I often wonder why those who don't print or send to publishers keep buying new cameras at all??
because it's not all about the print, its also about getting the shot in the first place... and not everybody has more than half a second to set up a shot or more than a jacket pocket available for gear
) and generally nobody seems to give a pinch of his pocket lint about the fact that it was made from a smaller camera.