p.2 #1 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
I love to see my best images in print and hanging on the walls around town for exhibits. While more MP is tempting, I keep reminding myself of how 7D made my glass collection look bad to me. 5D2's MP count is about right for me, enough resolution, my lenses look great on it, and yet the files are reasonable to process.
If I know I am going to be printing smaller sizes or just posting to web, I am perfectly happy to grab my 8 MP 1D2n. Well, more than happy - I find that camera body a joy to shoot.
p.2 #2 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
douglasf13,
I made the posters for the Nagoya City Summer festival in 2006 I think it was. I used an 8mp camera. They looked freaking gorgeous to me. I guess the judges thought so too as I had to compete with about 12 others. The medium sized ones were 60x40 inches I think. About or a tad over five feet tall. I later saw a backlit version in a subway underground area that was about 15 feet wide and cropped the top and bottom off severely. That too looked totally killer to me!
All from 8mp.
Oh, and I printed an entire wall of an exhibition hall (30 feet x 20 feet about) from a 12mp CG render. It became kinda famous too. Gee that was in the late 80's I think.
p.2 #3 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
I'm totally with the op on this one (guess this would surprise a few people...)!
What we desperately need is a technology that will increase the amount of information per pixel position. And now I'm not talking about the Foveon techs, that ran headfirst into a bricked off alleyway five years ago, but something GOOD.
Something with good light sensitivity, combined with a tunable wavelength response (so you can get reasonable colour!)
As I wrote in some other thread, we're now throwing away at least 70% of the light passing in through the lens. We don't need absolute 100% efficiency, as long as it's better than today.
Sony, Aptina and many others have patents including at least one layer of organic substrates on top of the silicon substrate. This means that you don't have to filter away 2/3 of the light going into every pixel, but maybe just 1/3. That's a win/win situation. ISO sensitivity goes up by a full stop, you get less blotchy colour noise, and you get better colour resolution. Getting better colour resolution means that you can safely skip the AA filter (a topic quite popular these days) without running into any adversary effects.
But large scale production is still a few years away, at least for larger sensors. We might see this solution prototyped in smart-phone camera modules already late his year, or next year.
p.2 #4 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Bifurcator wrote:
douglasf13,
I made the posters for the Nagoya City Summer festival in 2006 I think it was. I used an 8mp camera. They looked freaking gorgeous to me. I guess the judges thought so too as I had to compete with about 12 others. The medium sized ones were 60x40 inches I think. About or a tad over five feet tall. I later saw a backlit version in a subway underground area that was about 15 feet wide and cropped the top and bottom off severely. That too looked totally killer to me!
All from 8mp.
Oh, and I printed an entire wall of an exhibition hall (30 feet x 20 feet about) from a 12mp CG render. It became kinda famous too. Gee that was in the late 80's I think.
There is a big difference between advertising photography and fine art photography, when it comes to size, viewing distance, etc. If it looks good to you, that's all that matters. I'm simply saying that I would prefer more detail than you do in prints, but to each his/her own.
p.2 #5 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
millsart wrote:
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.
The D3x and D7000 have 14 stops of DR and the D800 will have at least that.
p.2 #6 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
I shoot for competition in the local photography club. Other than that, I don't print a lot of photos. I used to put mine on the wall at work, but now that has been taken away, so most will probably be seen once or twice and put away forever. It makes me wonder about the sanity of the entire endeavor.
I have a Nikon D700 and it is probably the last camera I will buy. 36MP? For what? To be seen once and tucked away like some old porn mag? DDdo they even print Hustler and Penthouse and the like anymore?
p.2 #8 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
runamuck wrote:
I shoot for competition in the local photography club. Other than that, I don't print a lot of photos. I used to put mine on the wall at work, but now that has been taken away, so most will probably be seen once or twice and put away forever. It makes me wonder about the sanity of the entire endeavor.
I have a Nikon D700 and it is probably the last camera I will buy. 36MP? For what? To be seen once and tucked away like some old porn mag? DDdo they even print Hustler and Penthouse and the like anymore?
A $3000 camera isn't really something that I'd expect occasional shooters to go out and buy. I would imagine that many of those that buy such cameras are also the ones that own Epson 3880 and larger printers, fast computers, etc., so the extra resolution is welcome.
p.2 #10 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
douglasf13 wrote:
A $3000 camera isn't really something that I'd expect occasional shooters to go out and buy. I would imagine that many of those that buy such cameras are also the ones that own Epson 3880 and larger printers, fast computers, etc., so the extra resolution is welcome.
How many that bought a larger format printer, high end computer etc actually are really putting them to frequent use though ?
I think many may have bought such things thinking they'd use it more than they did. I know that was the case with me.
I'd be reading on Luminous Landscape about all these cool sounding new photo papers and I got this romantic notion in my head about how cool it would be to always be making these beautiful gallery prints. It was fun for a little while, getting lots of papers, making prints, but it didn't last. There wasn't that much I really needed printed. I don't have regular client orders. I only have so many walls in my home. Ink and paper cost got pricey, as didn't framing supplies. All and all it just feel to the wayside and I'd guess thats true of many.
I can't remember the last thing I printed, nor can I really remember the last actual photocentric vacation I went on, you know, where the goal was simply to shoot and at least how I'd see it in my mind, was to come back with an exhibit's worth of fine art images, that I'd print all myself and then sell for thousands of dollars. Heck, then I'd quit my job and just be an "artist" for a living and open galleries in NY, Paris etc. Somehow capturing those cities in ways that the millions of other photographers who all produce millions of images every year couldn't. Nice dream at least but hardly realistic lol
Thats honestly part of what I think Nikon is selling, the dream. The notion of how 36megapixels is going to take ones landscape photos to the next level. Same way that an expensive suit or watch gives thoughts of living this luxury celebrity lifestyle with fast cars and supermodels lol.
p.2 #11 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
runamuck wrote:
It makes me wonder about the sanity of the entire endeavor.
Ι hear you...
then count the hours you spend doing photography related stuff that you dont particularly enjoy like processing your photos, multiply by your normal chargeout rate at work and the whole thing looks even more insane
I guess you know it when you stop enjoying it, it's happened to me twice and it lasted years.
p.2 #12 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
millsart wrote:
How many that bought a larger format printer, high end computer etc actually are really putting them to frequent use though ?
I think many may have bought such things thinking they'd use it more than they did. I know that was the case with me.
Maybe, maybe not, but a $3K camera, whether having a million megapixels, or infinite DR, or perfect color, or whatever, is still a waste of money if it's not being used. I'd imagine all of us have fallen victim to buying more than we need at some point or another. In fact, I'm in the process of preparing to sell all but four or so lenses.
For me, I don't get a lot of satisfaction out of viewing images on a computer screen, and the print is a necessary part of the process, no matter how big or small. I rarely go on Flickr and other sites to look at pics. When I do, it's often to find out where I can go see the prints in person, or whether there is a good book with the pictures. On these forums, I generally just look at pics to get a rough idea as to lens qualities and what not. I'd imagine that, for some, just a few large prints a year make the money invested worth while.
I currently only have a 13x19 printer, so the 24-36mp range would be fantastic, but I'll wait until it comes in a camera body that makes more sense for me. The beauty is, I don't have to buy a new camera all the time.
p.s. I thought the NEX-7 was going to be a perfect situation for me, until the rangefinder wide issue came along.
p.2 #13 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
buggz2k wrote:
Would this deteriorate over the lifespan?
Noticeably?
That was one of the main problems initially, creating an inert chemical seal top plate for the sensor surface and a material combination that is photoelectrically stable. As I understand it right now, the only thing really harmful for the materials used are insane exposure levels of UV light.
p.2 #14 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
The sensor on my camera has no problem with oblique light rays and has a DR of 14 stops user selectable. The problem is that it's only good for 36, sometimes 38 exposures
Seriously I would like the issue of light angle resolved, perhaps with the organic sensor technology. I don't care about DR, 5-6 stops are enough for me I don't mind the megapixels, even if nowadays I don't print larger than 8x12, as they are a necessary evil for removing the most dreaded AA filter. The more mp you have, the less the need for this image softener, which coincidentally plays also a detrimental role in the oblique light rays issues
p.2 #16 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Spyro P. wrote:
how much is it anyway?
arri alexa $60k
Feb 07, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
It's also good for cropping. A lot of people will love that they can crop their image and still make a big print.
Most people can make the composition better by cropping in the PP.
Many bird, wildlife, sport shooters can't afford those very expensive long tele lenses. They would gain a lot from the cropping possibilities of 36mp.
p.2 #18 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It's also good for cropping. A lot of people will love that they can crop their image and still make a big print.
Most people can make the composition better by cropping in the PP.
Many bird, wildlife, sport shooters can't afford those very expensive long tele lenses. They would gain a lot from the cropping possibilities of 36mp.
+1 for cropping.
Especially if I only bring one fixed lens and it's too wide for the scene. It's ocassionaly though (for my case).
p.2 #19 · Better rather than just more megapixels ?
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It's also good for cropping. A lot of people will love that they can crop their image and still make a big print.
Most people can make the composition better by cropping in the PP.
Many bird, wildlife, sport shooters can't afford those very expensive long tele lenses. They would gain a lot from the cropping possibilities of 36mp.
ah, cropping... that explains the 6-pixel boobs in gossip magazines
Well, more than happy - I find that camera body a joy to shoot. 
