I think it depends mostly on what you print - we do a tonne of 20"x30" prints, and they've always been done with 8mpx 1D Mark IIs (now mostly 10mpx 1D Mark IIIs... and a 12mpx D300 in my case). The photos all up-rez to 20"x30" really well.
More megapixels means larger file sizes, less photos per CF card, and more cost in file storage - for a large volume operation that's no fun. For what I shoot I'm perfectly happy with 12mpx, and will be for a good while to come (it's why I'm waiting on a 'D3 sensor in a D300 body', rather than a 'D3x'). For other people, the medium-format level of detail in a 21mpx or 24mpx image is more important.
I'm perfectly happy with 12mpx though, I'd rather keep that pixel count and have a better sensor, than more pixels and similar performance.
Ditto what DJ said. Im still selling D2H shots. I have the D3 but still love my old faithfull D2H. Im sure there are ad agency's that know about the digital evolution that require higher resolution. When it comes to the average Joe and Sally they get tickled with anything when they cant even come close to getting the shot. Its all in the light and how you do your job.
I like Mel Gross' answer to some level, but have another point to add.
The "need" for higher pixel count depends in my world on WHAT I am shooting. My ancient Sony 828 has a swivel LCD which my D300 doesn't. When I am shooting "cats in the house" I still use the little Sony. It takes great shots and makes super prints up to about 11x14 (which is all any of my clients want to mat and hang on the wall). More importantly, I don't have to crawl around on my knees or belly to frame the photos of these wicked little critters as they scamper around the floor and furniture at mouse level.
Shooting at dog shows, I want all the pixels I can get, because its impossible to adjust the zoom and fill the frame and manage everything else on the camera while the dog is hurdling, tunneling, leaping, and turning at 100mph (or so it seems). So I need to be able to crop down to a good composition and still produce an 11x14 print. That needs lots of pixels to work with.
FYI, I am currently scanning some 30+ year old slides (and yes, I can see color shifting on the EK stuff, but not on any of the KR stuff), and am working 4 pass scans (to bring out shadow detail) at 5800 dpi, producing 130-160 megapixel TIFFs so that I have (a) all the detail I can get, and (b) the whole frame or most of the frame to workd with for future cropping.
My feeling is that a D300 size camera with 39-45 mpixels would be about ideal, as long as the resolving power of the lenses could be improved to match 35mm sensors at that level (would need about 3500 lines of resolution, I think - and today's lenses can't get there). Somebody with a technical background needs to jump in on this, please.
In New York back in the early '70s we shot 8x10 Kodachrome at the fashion/commercial studio for which I worked. Those images were SWEET!! Talk about resolving fine detail!
Then, when I visited MOMA, the Nikon gallery or other art galleries in general I always saw (and did it myself) people viewing at the proper viewing distance first and then, almost invariably, moving in to within inches for a look at the medium itself including the grain, sharpness and so on. Those things are of interest in their own right.
So, for my landscape work bring on the most M-Pixels that will mimic my old 8x10 chromes with low (nearly non-existent) noise. I'll hock the kids to buy in!
The pleasure with the new technology for me is that we are moving in the direction of maximum IQ with high portability/lightweight gear that lets me leave the old 8x10 in the attic. M-Pixels for me - the sky's the limit.
its too bad Cartier-Bresson had such lousy 35mm quality. Thats worse than 6 megapixels! Imagine someone getting close ... at a gallery. Its almost embarasing to think of. Well I guess maybe his prints were ok a long time ago before the 12 meg cameras came along - but c'mon .... they are obsolete nowadays. Its a shame ... really.
Hah! II always have known, just like some of you discriminating con-ass-eyeeeuurs that I need more megapixels. What's enough? Why thats easy ... just a bit more.
I know a lot of people will think this is nuts... but I'd like 40+ mp in the realm of the high end medium format backs right now. I'd also like the ability to do pixel binning and shoot reduced raw at around 10mpix when I need that (without a crop factor).
That will be approaching the realm of 4x5 chromes, and pretty much require ridiculously good glass. Glass that's diffraction limited past f/4 or so. We have some glass like that today but not lots.
Why?
Giant prints 40x60" and up. Magazine spreads with lots of cropping ability for editors. Wall sized portraits for clients. Finally because we can.
I've read somewhere the max resolution you could squeeze from a 35mm sized sensor using a bayer pattern area is theoretically around 40-50mp. I can't remember where I read that though or what the math behind it was. Anyone familiar with that, Andre?
louis fusco wrote:
guy, now your just making up reasons to buy a d3x ;o)
I think that if I get a 200-400VR next month, I'll have enough gear for this year...
I SWEAR I will NOT buy a D3X in the coming six months
I've seen beautiful 11x14's done with 3MP's. My D100 which was 6MP made gorgeous poster sized prints.
Anything over 12MP is nice, but not that important IMO. I would never go buy a 24MP just for the pixels. I don't need it and honestly don't want it. Can you imagine shooting a wedding with 24MP files?
Improved High ISO and dynamic range is what I would jump for. The D3 has made huge leaps. Imagine shooting at ISO 6400 with noise equal to 400? ISO speeds of 25600. While still having ISO 100. That would be sweet!
Darren555 wrote:
AFAIK all the D3 promo shots were taken with a 39MP Hasselblad so even Nikon aren't happy with just 12MP FX.
As I said above, (and people who have only shot 35mm and Canon/Nikon DSLR's just don't seem to "get" this . . . ) the difference between medium format and 35mm has very little to do with megapixels or resolution. It's mainly about the larger format itself and the optical and geometric properties that that gets you.
Agree with the OP. 24 MP is overkill, plain and simple. If you feel like you wont succeed without it, then you're not really cut out for professional photography. Only a retard (or a pixel peeping, gearheaded pseudophotographer) would view a billboard size print at 3 feet away.
Time to end the megapixel madness.
Give me that CMOS technology in the D3, half the MP count to 6MP while concurrently increasing the pixel size, and that camera will produce far better images than the D3 itself.
If Nikon had the brains to make a 6MP CMOS for the D60, instead of the pathetic garbage that IS the D60...well, they would have the best selling DSLR of all time.
techtalker21 wrote:
Agree with the OP. 24 MP is overkill, plain and simple. If you feel like you wont succeed without it, then you're not really cut out for professional photography. Only a retard (or a pixel peeping, gearheaded pseudophotographer) would view a billboard size print at 3 feet away.
Time to end the megapixel madness.
Give me that CMOS technology in the D3, half the MP count to 6MP while concurrently increasing the pixel size, and that camera will produce far better images than the D3 itself.
If Nikon had the brains to make a 6MP CMOS for the D60, instead of the pathetic garbage that IS the D60...well, they would have the best selling DSLR of all time. ...Show more →
and what might those geometric properties be? perspective? that's only where you stand relative to the subject. FOV? change the lens focal length. DOF? stop down. sharpness? get better lenses, at least to a point. you choose the appropriate tools and settings and the geometry can be completely duplicated. the mathematics of the geometry is pretty trivial to shown to be unitless except diffraction effects. sensor properties are different, but not in a positive way for medium format backs because their sensor designs are much older and they don't bother to do much for higher ISOs.
i was at the opening of a show today of a friend of mine and an occasional FM member, Vince Billota. whether you like his artistic vision or not, his images at all sizes impress. his small images were in the 100-200 megapixel range. his large images were in the 1-2 gigapixel range. he has used them in prints up to 10ft by 40ft that are designed to be walked up to and have noses pressed against. at any distance, there is detail. that is what in film days large format was about and what some die hards still stay with. a contact print from a 12x20 sheet of film like Clyde Butcher does is quantitatively and qualitatively beyond anything in a 12x18 print i make from any of my bodies.
the D3X at 24MP is only the next step up. some of those people buying 1Ds Mk3s, 39MP medium format backs, and not to mention the large format scanning backs at an effective 100MP and up might be stupid, but i'd wager not many. your thesis is nothing but a rehash of film 35mm vs medium format vs large format in digital terms and just as obviously based on the level of quality you are willing to live with. for me, 100MP is about right because i don't need to make prints larger than about 4ftx6ft designed to be placed low to the ground and to be walked up to.
Herb...
plnelson wrote:
As I said above, (and people who have only shot 35mm and Canon/Nikon DSLR's just don't seem to "get" this . . . ) the difference between medium format and 35mm has very little to do with megapixels or resolution. It's mainly about the larger format itself and the optical and geometric properties that that gets you.
HerbChong wrote:
and what might those geometric properties be? perspective? that's only where you stand relative to the subject. FOV? change the lens focal length. DOF? stop down. sharpness? get better lenses, at least to a point. you choose the appropriate tools and settings and the geometry can be completely duplicated. the mathematics of the geometry is pretty trivial to shown to be unitless except diffraction effects. sensor properties are different, but not in a positive way for medium format backs because their sensor designs are much older and they don't bother to do much for higher ISOs.
i was at the opening of a show today of a friend of mine and an occasional FM member, Vince Billota. whether you like his artistic vision or not, his images at all sizes impress. his small images were in the 100-200 megapixel range. his large images were in the 1-2 gigapixel range. he has used them in prints up to 10ft by 40ft that are designed to be walked up to and have noses pressed against. at any distance, there is detail. that is what in film days large format was about and what some die hards still stay with. a contact print from a 12x20 sheet of film like Clyde Butcher does is quantitatively and qualitatively beyond anything in a 12x18 print i make from any of my bodies.
the D3X at 24MP is only the next step up. some of those people buying 1Ds Mk3s, 39MP medium format backs, and not to mention the large format scanning backs at an effective 100MP and up might be stupid, but i'd wager not many. your thesis is nothing but a rehash of film 35mm vs medium format vs large format in digital terms and just as obviously based on the level of quality you are willing to live with. for me, 100MP is about right because i don't need to make prints larger than about 4ftx6ft designed to be placed low to the ground and to be walked up to.
Right on Herb. As I have said - my D200 will print excellent quality prints up to 16x24 in. These are prints that live up to very close scrutiny, however, I would say that anything much larger than that does NOT satisfy me. I find the D300 (so far - I haven't printed anywhere near as many prints from this camera yet) to be similar in print quality.
There is no way that I would be satisfied with even a 30x40 in print from these cameras, unless it was a reproduction of some piece of modern art with no fine detail in it...
for my own purposes, I think 12 is the sweet spot. The D3 is the perfect camera--I can use my DX lenses (17-55, 12-24, and 10.5) for about 80% of the photos that I take. However, that other 20% of the time, it sure is nice to have the bigger files.
