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).
For some, yes. I like large prints (up to 24x36) and I also like the flexibility of being able to crop substantially and still have resolution to burn. Having 21MP was to me worth the $8K price of admission last spring. Today that price is $5300 less. But you are correct, for many it will be overkill.
canerino wrote:
I am curious how you intend to make full use of 21 megapixels?
By printing big (routinely 24x36 and larger). 21 > 12, but then I already knew that since I have a 1DsIII. I have a dual quad core with 8GB ram, a quad core with 4GB ram and a dual core with 4GB ram. I have RAID 1 with 15,000RPM discs on the dual quad core with a 2TB RAID 10 array for backup. I'm pretty sure it has 4 more empty bays in it, so I can easily add more storage if necessary.
The size of the files isn't a concern for me. Everything is instant, no difference between processing a 2mp file and a 20mp as far as lag, disc swap, etc.
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).
In my experience, you would be unlikely to see any difference between 12 x 18 prints from uncropped originals made on a 12MP and a 21MP camera. On the other hand, I think that there could be differences between 20 x 30 prints made on these cameras as long as you aren't limited by lenses or technique.
So, at 21mps with my 35mm f1.4, lenss I can shoot at ISO800 and then crop in PS into a area equivalent to a 200mm lens and still have enough res for an 8x10 print?
Not for me, as I crop my photos a great deal and it's nice to still have 8-12mp size files to work with after chopping away a good chunk of the original image. Okay, so maybe I am not as good as some of you guys who don't do any cropping! Also with the resolution that I have, I will be able to shoot birds and other small animals with my 200mm lens (the longest lens that I have) and get frame-filling images by cropping away the unwanted areas. For snapshots, I would shoot at sRAW1 or sRAW2. External hard drives are inexpensive anyway, and you can easily pick up a 1-terabyte hard drive for under $200.
If 21mp is too much, what about the Hassy H3II-50 and Phase One P65+ digital back, as these are 50mp and 60mp respectively? Think medium format .... in a compact DSLR body!
Nikon is rumored to be working on a MF DSLR, and the next version of the 1Ds Mk III will most probably have a 30+ megapixel sensor - and that's very doable with a gapless sensor and dual Digic IV or V.
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).
I guess you weren't alive during the film scanning era! I recall in the late 90s and beyond scanning chromes and negs and routinely generating 128MP files. Add a few adjustment masks and those file sizes multiplied like friggen rabbits in heat. Old PS3, 4, 5 & 7 handled those whoppers with ease on my old G4 duo. 21MP files are much more nimble and compact in comparison!
I print most of my stuff with Elco 30x40" is almost big enough. Their will always be room for more resolution, until we can zoom in and see individual cells on blades of grass at 100%...
danmitchell wrote:
In my experience, you would be unlikely to see any difference between 12 x 18 prints from uncropped originals made on a 12MP and a 21MP camera. On the other hand, I think that there could be differences between 20 x 30 prints made on these cameras as long as you aren't limited by lenses or technique.
I'll second this. If you take a full frame (no cropping) there won't be much difference at 12x18. In my experience, a print from a 5D starts looking soft in the details at 16x24. Since my printer is a 17" Epson 3800, I am really looking forward to those 21MP files. Printing a 16x24 at 240ppi (instead of the 180ppi I get from the 5D) will look great.
I too found it to be too much resolution for regular use. I'm waiting until the 5D Mark III. For me I'd like to see the speed and buffer of the 50D in the 5D. I'm going to stick with my 5D Mark I until those or very similar improvements are made. I think the 5D II is a great camera but not the upgrade I'm looking for.
Their will always be room for more resolution, until we can zoom in and see individual cells on blades of grass at 100%...