# How important are mega pixels?



## Rodney (Jul 28, 2010)

I was wondering if I could ask your opinion. I have been a film photographer and am now switching to digital SLR. THe film camera that I used was a Pentax and I never really had any problems with it. So I was thinking that I would purchase another Pentax, only digital this time.
But for me, I have to be very aware of the financial end. I have been looking at the Nikon D3000 (10.2 MP) and the Pentax K-x(12.4MP)
My question is; how much difference in picture quality is there in regards to enlargements with the difference of 2MP?
As I mentioned before, money is tight so I don't want to throw any money away. Do not want to spend the money and then realize that I can't enlarge anything larger than an eight by ten.
Thank you in advance.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2010)

The difference between 12-10mp is not much..  there are other more important things to consider when choosing between two bodies/systems.

You can enlarge 10mp file to poster size if necessary.


----------



## Rodney (Jul 28, 2010)

Thank you for your reponse. But could you tell me what are the more important things to consider?
Thank you


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 28, 2010)

dont look at just the MP number because the wider you go, the more pixels you need to fill.  Look at the width of the pixels.  The nikon has  3872 x 2592 resolution where the pentax has 4288x2848.  So if you divide the width, it is only 10% increase in width.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 28, 2010)

a HUGE benefit of more megapixels is the crop factor. If you couldn't get as close as you wanted, but it's a large picture, you can crop the picture and still have enough pixels to print or post without graininess.


----------



## usayit (Jul 28, 2010)

but the advantage of 10mp or 12mp is small even when considering crop...

Important things to consider:
1) Which of the systems has lenses that most interest what you shoot?
2) Nikon is in lens Image Stabilization while Pentax is In Body Stabilization. 
3) Which of the two feel better in your hands... layout and operation make sense to you?
4) AF operation?
5) High ISO performance?

the list goes on and on...


----------



## Browncoat (Jul 28, 2010)

Don't fall into the megapixel marketing game.  More MP does not equal better quality images.  This isn't 1995 anymore, back when there was a huge difference between 1 and 3 megapixels.

MP mostly refers to how big the image can be, it's not much different than screen resolution on a computer monitor.  I you make a 4x6 print of a 6MP camera vs a 12MP camera, you're not going to be able to tell the difference in quality.

The biggest advantage to higher MP count is that you have a lot more leeway when cropping an image.  Got too much background in your shot?  You can crop the heck out of it and still not have a grainy image with a 10MP+ camera.  Another advantage is that you can make larger, poster size prints with a larger MP count.


----------



## Rekd (Jul 28, 2010)

I see lots of great reasons in this thread that you should buy a Canon 7D... 18 mp, 8 fps, super high ISO, lenses for every occasion. 






What? :meh:


----------



## Neil S. (Jul 28, 2010)

Rekd said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> > but the advantage of 10mp or 12mp is small even when considering crop...
> ...


 
+1

Ya if you are looking to buy a crop camera, the 7D is the best on the market.


----------



## Dwig (Jul 28, 2010)

usayit said:


> but the advantage of 10mp or 12mp is small even when considering crop...
> 
> Important things to consider:
> 1) Which of the systems has lenses that most interest what you shoot?
> ...



Quite true. For most users, the number of megapixels is the least important factor to consider. Just about every other attribute of the camera is more important. 

For an MP difference to even be noticable it has to be a 50% or larger increase. Ignore anything as small as 10-20%

The reason you see it promoted in big letters on camera ads is that it is an easy number to understand so it makes good advertising hype. The more important attributes (noise levels at various ISOs, the ISO range, the dynamic range, color fidelity, ...) are much harder to put a simple number to and therefore much harder to brag about in an ad.


----------



## Rekd (Jul 28, 2010)

Dwig said:


> For an MP difference to even be noticable it has to be a 50% or larger increase. Ignore anything as small as 10-20%



I snorted. 



Dwig said:


> The reason you see it promoted in big letters on camera ads is that it is an easy number to understand so it makes good advertising hype. The more important attributes (noise levels at various ISOs, the ISO range, the dynamic range, color fidelity, ...) are much harder to put a simple number to and therefore much harder to brag about in an ad.



Yes, the MP ads are for dupes buying low-end junk. It's the main selling point and usually a gating factor in one's decision to buy. 

For those people that are buying more serious stuff, MP is only part of it and the manufacturers know this. The other common aspects like frame rate, ISO performance, buffer size and many other systems are considered equally or more-so than MP.

Canon has been going full-bore in their ads boasting all the features, not just MP. To infer other aspects of the camera are not easy to brag about is beyond simply being in denial.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2010)

Kirk Tuck and Thom Hogan both have some pretty good web/blog articles on how there is very little need for high-megapixel d-slrs at this time. As Tuck pointed out, even though he's a commercial photographer, there is now less and less need for high-MP captures,since so much work that is printed in magazines is limited by the halftone screen's resolution-killing effect and the basically small size of a magazine page. Even a double-truck magazine spread in say, SPorts Illustrated, looks quite good even if it was shot with the original Nikon D1 at 2.7 Megapixels, or the later Canon 1D, at 4.1 megapixels, or the Nikon D1h at 4.2 megapixels...the halftone screen magazines and newspapers use reduced every single photo to small dots, roughly 180 per inch...so, virtually ANY d-slr will out-resolve the limits of a magazine double-truck.

Web display is where many images end up...72 dpi web images...a 1-megapixel image can look good on the web...and when printing images, a quality RIP (raster image processor) can take relatively low-resolution 6- or 8-MP d-slr captures made in 2004 or 2005 and upo-sample the files and make fantastic large images....

My printer prints 13x19 inch inkjet images at 1200 ppi...that is about the limit of my EPSON 1280's useful,real-world resolution,and a 6-MP d-slr with a quality lens does quite well at 13x19 inches at 1,200 ppi....even Depression Era film negatives from an ancient Kodak folder, when flatbed scanned, look quite good at 13x19 inches, from old, crappy 2.25 inch x 3.25 inch rollfilm negatives scanned on a consumer level flatbed.

Megapixels: most agree that the 12 MP d-slr's out-resolve 35mm slide film scanned at 4880 dpi...so, why do we need much more than 12 or 13 MP? Canon's original 5D at 12.8 MP on 24x36 is a sweet compromise of sensor size (large), with low demands on the lens, leading to high-contrast images, with an overall, total image quality factor that's very flexible. "Megapixels" is deceptive--sensor AREA is also importnat, as it relates to lens performance...so, a high-MP,tiny sensor, can yield pretty crappy images, like some of the 15 megapixel point and shoot sized sensors--even at ISO 80, their images are beginning to noise up...by ISO 160, their images look crappy...at 400 ISO, the IQ is ridiculously poor.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2010)

While it's true that the resolution of the end result can appear to make super high resolution images seem like overkill, to reduce everything to an equivocation of output resolution and native resolution is misleading at best. Big images also make life much easier when it comes to editing.

OP, I would go with the Kx since you can use your old Pentax lenses on it.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 28, 2010)

I always like the term "misleading at best"...throw it out when you have no evidence or any salient point, and many people simply nod and say, Uh-huh." Big images make editing EASIER? WTF? How about wading through 1,000 50-megabyte images versus 1,000 10- or 12- or 13-MP images....pretty easy,eh?


----------



## magkelly (Jul 28, 2010)

Alpha said:


> OP, I would go with the Kx since you can use your old Pentax lenses on it.



I second that. If you have some good old Pentax lenses already it's a natural match. It will save you a ton of money on lenses. Besides which the K-x is supposedly a sweet camera. It's actually getting to be a pretty hot seller for Pentax, and not just because it comes in a lot of pretty candy-coated colors! You can get one new for well under $500. 

I'm probably getting one myself down the road, used. I'd ultimately like the K-7 and would go there if I could afford it, but the K-x is less expensive and can actually do a lot that the K-7 albeit it comes sans the excellent weather proofing bit. Supposedly it actually does high ISO shots better even.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 28, 2010)

For things like retouching, big images are a huge help.

I take it you meant 50 megapixel images? People do it all the time. That's like saying "Don't shoot 4x5. The negs take up way more room than 35mm."


----------



## Rekd (Jul 29, 2010)

Derrel said:


> Big images make editing EASIER? WTF?



Huh? Who said that? I missed it! edit:, nevermind... I found it!!)

I also read something about how more MP gives you more room to crop, and for sports it's absolutely correct. There is more real estate to work with on higher MP, and no level of deflecting or denial is going to change that. :lmao:


----------



## Rodney (Jul 29, 2010)

I would like to thank everyone for their responses. As I stated in the original post, I am new to digital and all the info that you have given is very helpful. Thank so much. Hopefully getting my camera tomorrow. CAN"T WAIT!!! Feel like I am a kid again and its CHristmas eve. LOL


----------



## usayit (Jul 29, 2010)

Rekd said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Big images make editing EASIER? WTF?
> ...



You are ignoring several things... (here are a few)

# From a cropping perspective the 2mp difference isn't going to buy you anything...  do the math... the difference is nominal.

#There is diminishing returns in terms of squishing more sensor sights in the same area.  (as Derrel said) 

#Ability for the lens to resolve enough to crop.  

#No lens is perfect.  Cropping and enlarging brings out more attention to these imperfections.  This is regardless of the number of pixels in sensor.    (I am keen on this as I often adapt older, sometimes uncoated, lenses to a 2x crop sensor camera)



Ignoring these subtile points (as well as the points already made) and continuing to restate the obvious is in of itself .. denial.



Here's a question....

Why do photographers consider "digital zoom" as an unacceptable feature to use but "cropping" is considered ok?


----------



## IaR17 (Jul 31, 2010)

very important, in my opinion, is the sensor size!
With hight ISO and a small sensor too many MP could cause problems!


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 31, 2010)

IaR17 said:


> very important, in my opinion, is the sensor size!
> With hight ISO and a small sensor too many MP could cause problems!


That IS an important aspect, but it's lessened in it's impact by modern in-camera processors... like the Canon 7D and T2i's dual Digic 4s. They cram 18mp onto an APS-C sensor (1.6 crop factor) and manage excellent low-light, high ISO noise control.


----------



## bushpig (Aug 3, 2010)

Nah. All the best cameras are <1 megapixel. I have myself a few of these. They're great.

Here's one of my shots with a Game Boy Camera (Japanese model):







Forget DSLRs. Who needs them when you can spend less than $20 and get a Game Boy and a camera for it?


----------



## jemima.harris (Aug 4, 2010)

Megapixels indicate how much detail an image will have becasue the number of megapixels will determine the quality of your final photo and more megapixels in an image will mean a larger sharp print can be made from the image. A picture element is made up of simply a dot. Digital camera images are made up of these dots called pixels. One megapixel equals one million dots. 


​


----------



## Garbz (Aug 4, 2010)

jemima.harris said:


> Megapixels indicate how much detail an image will have becasue the number of megapixels will determine the quality of your final photo and more megapixels in an image will mean a larger sharp print can be made from the image. A picture element is made up of simply a dot. Digital camera images are made up of these dots called pixels. One megapixel equals one million dots.
> 
> 
> ​



ERRRRRRRR, sorry, but thanks for playing.

I guarantee that the Canon 1D outperforms the iPhone 3GS. 

Anyone taking one element of the camera system so far out of context needs their head checked.


----------



## skieur (Aug 4, 2010)

Contrary to what has been said by some, it is possible to see the difference in megapixels between shots.  A camera with more megapixels resolves more detail.  It may produce more picture noise which may be bad for some shots but tolerable in others or removeable in post.  In some shots more detail may not really be wanted,...as in do we really want to see the pores in the skin of the face of a model?  On the other hand we may want to see the lace and detail in a wedding dress.  In a landscape, fine detail may be irrelevant.

So, as to how important megapixels are, it depends on what you shoot and for what purpose or end use.

skieur


----------



## supraman215 (Aug 4, 2010)

With enough megapixels you could have the equivalent picture quality of a 1200mm lens using T2i, with a 200mm. It's more likely that megapixels are going to go up to that level long before you have $100k to drop on a 1200mm L lens. 

I'm not talking about going from 10-12mp. I'm talking about 24mp, 40mp, 60mp (highest today for professional cameras). There will be a time when a D3000 equivalent camera will have a 60mp sensor, and when it does you won't need a lens longer than 100mm to get close to the subject. Because you'll be able to produce a high quality 12mp picture by cropping that 60mp picture down. So now how important are megapixels? A 4x5 negative will never fix into a 35mm camera body BUT 60mp will, and beyond. That's how important megapixels are.


----------



## usayit (Aug 4, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> With enough megapixels you could have the equivalent picture quality of a 1200mm lens using T2i, with a 200mm. It's more likely that megapixels are going to go up to that level long before you have $100k to drop on a 1200mm L lens.
> 
> I'm not talking about going from 10-12mp. I'm talking about 24mp, 40mp, 60mp (highest today for professional cameras). There will be a time when a D3000 equivalent camera will have a 60mp sensor, and when it does you won't need a lens longer than 100mm to get close to the subject. Because you'll be able to produce a high quality 12mp picture by cropping that 60mp picture down. So now how important are megapixels? A 4x5 negative will never fix into a 35mm camera body BUT 60mp will, and beyond. That's how important megapixels are.



You are forgetting the glass' ability to resolve...  cropping simply enhances those imperfections.  

A 40mp MF digital with an 80-ish mm lens will outperform a 40mp 135 digital with a 50-ish mm lens.  

MP isn't important anymore because of diminishing returns.  Its the same reason why a 12mp P&S will have difficulty producing the same quality images of a 12mp canon 5D.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 4, 2010)

The importance is going down. Look at digital medium format, they sell fewer and fewer each year. I was reading a article where one top high paid photographer paid out like 45K about 2 years ago for a Haselblad system and its already obsolete and was saying his Canon produced photo's that rivaled it. Melissa Rodwell on her forum Fashion Photography blog did a nice comparison Product Advertising Shoot Featuring the Phase One P40+ and Nikon D2x | Fashion Photography Blog and I had a similer discussion in a photography class. For the most part we have reached what we really need. Sure we will get more, it's what we all want, but don't really need them for the most par. K maybe a few people who shoot million dollar jewlery might benefit from a slight more detail, but my 50D is more than enough for me right now and I think even, if and when I make Pro, it still will be. Sure Ill upgrade, but there are stellar works done by 8 and 10MP cameras that I could not tell if done with a 18 or 20+. Hope this helps


----------



## Alpha (Aug 4, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> The importance is going down. Look at digital medium format, they sell fewer and fewer each year. I was reading a article where one top high paid photographer paid out like 45K about 2 years ago for a Haselblad system and its already obsolete and was saying his Canon produced photo's that rivaled it. Melissa Rodwell on her forum Fashion Photography blog did a nice comparison Product Advertising Shoot Featuring the Phase One P40+ and Nikon D2x | Fashion Photography Blog and I had a similer discussion in a photography class. For the most part we have reached what we really need. Sure we will get more, it's what we all want, but don't really need them for the most par. K maybe a few people who shoot million dollar jewlery might benefit from a slight more detail, but my 50D is more than enough for me right now and I think even, if and when I make Pro, it still will be. Sure Ill upgrade, but there are stellar works done by 8 and 10MP cameras that I could not tell if done with a 18 or 20+. Hope this helps




You're forgetting MF digital's primary advantage, which I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum. A modular system is of the utmost importance when the only component you _need_ to update is the digital component. So far, MF is the only format that satisfies this.


----------



## asuphotofreak (Aug 4, 2010)

mega pixels only truly matter when you are doing things like blowing up your image. The larger the image the more pixelated it will look. Pixels will also come into play when doing digital editing. honestly I have taken classes on digital slr and studied pixels and all of the things that go along with it. 2 pixels don't even really sweat over unless your a serious professional.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

asuphotofreak said:


> mega pixels only truly matter when you are doing things like blowing up your image. The larger the image the more pixelated it will look. Pixels will also come into play when doing digital editing. honestly I have taken classes on digital slr and studied pixels and all of the things that go along with it. 2 pixels don't even really sweat over unless your a serious professional.


Yeah, I agree. Who knows maybe someday Ill have a photo cover a side of a building in Tyoko which cast the new 500MP Nikon D8 or Canon IDS Mark IX might come in handy . Then you can check out my photo while drinking a Latte at Starbucks in LA lol


----------



## Alpha (Aug 5, 2010)

asuphotofreak said:


> mega pixels only truly matter when you are doing things like blowing up your image. The larger the image the more pixelated it will look. Pixels will also come into play when doing digital editing. honestly I have taken classes on digital slr and studied pixels and all of the things that go along with it. 2 pixels don't even really sweat over unless your a serious professional.



This is silly. At the very least you should study some megagrammar.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 5, 2010)

Idahophoto said:


> Then you can check out my photo while drinking a Latte at Starbucks in LA lol




Says the guy in Idaho where the burgeoning commercial photography market is.


----------



## asuphotofreak (Aug 5, 2010)

Alpha said:


> asuphotofreak said:
> 
> 
> > mega pixels only truly matter when you are doing things like blowing up your image. The larger the image the more pixelated it will look. Pixels will also come into play when doing digital editing. honestly I have taken classes on digital slr and studied pixels and all of the things that go along with it. 2 pixels don't even really sweat over unless your a serious professional.
> ...



I am sorry I was unaware I was in english class.


----------



## Idahophoto (Aug 5, 2010)

Alpha said:


> Idahophoto said:
> 
> 
> > Then you can check out my photo while drinking a Latte at Starbucks in LA lol
> ...



You better believe it! Digital age is awesome, and hey you know what? If I need to go to LA or Tokyo they have these things that actually fly! Totally amazing, you should Google it! Just go to some nice person pay a fee and poof your there in a few short hours time or less. It's so cool!


----------



## Garbz (Aug 5, 2010)

skieur said:


> A camera with more megapixels resolves more detail.



No. A camera with more megapixels produces pictures with higher sensor resolution, nothing more. To resolve more detail you need the entire system to resolve more detail.

Again a 5mpx iPhone 4 will not produce a picture with more detail than a 4mpx Canon EOS1D.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2010)

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Up In Smoke. Burn the past.

High Megapixel cameras attract a lot of attention...but how necessary are they,really?
Read what a successful photographer, lecturer, and published author has to say about the current need for high megapixel captures in today's market.


----------



## supraman215 (Aug 5, 2010)

usayit said:


> supraman215 said:
> 
> 
> > With enough megapixels you could have the equivalent picture quality of a 1200mm lens using T2i, with a 200mm. It's more likely that megapixels are going to go up to that level long before you have $100k to drop on a 1200mm L lens.
> ...



This is the only response that addressed what I was trying to say! Thank you usayit!

So then the question is, at what point (pixel density) do we see this impact on a high quality lens? Say on a high quality piece of canon L glass? This could be measured, this would be the max theoretical resolution we should expect. Assuming your final product need not be more than 12mp. Because I think we're all in a pretty good agreement that at the end of the day 10-12 mp can be blown up pretty large and should suffice for 99% of work and in the end not much more than that is needed.


----------



## klotzishere20 (Aug 5, 2010)

Or you could just get something like this...


----------



## DennyCrane (Aug 5, 2010)

/thread


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2010)

supraman215 said:


> [at what point (pixel density) do we see this impact on a high quality lens? Say on a high quality piece of canon L glass?



It became visible on the Canon 50D, at 15 megapixels on a 1.6x APS-C sensor, which is the smallest of the APS-C sensors, measuring roughly 14.8mm x 22.2mm, or 329 square millimeters in area. As they noted in their conclusion after testing the 50D for several months: "It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail."

Canon EOS 50D Review: 31. Conclusion: Digital Photography Review

So, there you go...15 megapixels on APS-C is already stressing Canon's "sharpest primes" away from the center of the frame--and that on an APS-C-sized sensor! The issue of lens diffraction on the Nikon D2x's larger sensor, 370 square millimeters, and a 12.2 megapixel count in my own experience shows that diffraction begins kicking in around f/4.5,meaning that is the smallest-diameter aperture one can use, before the images begin to LOSE sharpness,contrast, and there is NO GAIN in sharpness, only greater depth of field as the lens is stopped down.

The upshot of the above is that, unless you are shooting the most-modern lenses, like Canon's new 70-200 Mark II, and not their older 70-200 2.8 L IS (like the one I own), the vast,vast majority of zoom lenses are insufficient for the task. The new Canon 7D, using the newer 17-55 Canon IS lens....looks like crap at wide-angle near the edges of the frame...the lenses we have, in the largest part, are simply NOT good enough to handle 15 to 18 megapixels on a small sensor like a Canon 1.6x size sensor...

The total system, sensor size, sensor technology,anti-aliasing filter pack, digital software processing of the signal, lens performance---all of those things have to work together. We cannot continue to up the megapixel counts using the vast majority of lenses currently in existence in today's marketplace. As Leica found out when developing the S2, we are now "lens-limited"....a few years ago, the lenses were capable of looking good on all sensors...what we need to do NOW, in 2010, is to go to physically larger sensors, to get the best resolution, clarity, and apparent acutance, and the best color and the widest dynamic range. It really irritates the buyers and lovers of the small-sensor, ultra-high MP cameras to hear it, but full frame sensor size is the path to the best quality...Canon has already hit the wall with 17.8 million pixels on their small, 1.6x sized sensors. The highest lens performance tests are coming from full-frame bodies, not APS-C bodies...so the total,overall SYSTEM PERFORMANCE winner is currently,and always will, be the larger-sensored cameras.


----------



## skieur (Aug 5, 2010)

Garbz said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > A camera with more megapixels resolves more detail.
> ...


 
I would not define an iPhone as a camera despite its photographic capability.  I was referring to roughly similar format digital cameras.

skieur


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2010)

How many megapixels do you suppose this camera that this lady is using has?


----------



## usayit (Aug 5, 2010)

skieur said:


> Garbz said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...



But Garbz's point still stands...  Both have lenses.  Both have sensors.  Both capture images.  

A 4mpx Canon EOS 1D will outperform an 5mpx iphone simply because the system, which includes better glass, better processing, better sensor,  as a whole works better on the Canon.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2010)

usayit said:


> But Garbz's point still stands...  Both have lenses.  Both have sensors.  Both capture images.
> 
> A 4mpx Canon EOS 1D will outperform an 5mpx iphone simply because the system, which includes better glass, better processing, better sensor,  as a whole works better on the Canon.



Sounds like we need a new thread: Canon or iPhone?  We could do 25 pages and 5,000 views in probably a week or so.

We're coming to an era now where the cellphone "camera" is becoming the camera of the masses....Chase Jarvis has his book,shot entirely with the iPhone...there are some great iPhone applications...a guy the other day,who knew I was into photography asked me if I'd go through some of his pictures with him--and he pulled out a phone,loaded with surprisingly GOOD PICTURES! You know, the picture part of photography is what most people are interested in. As I understand it, there are a handful of cell phones with pretty decent cameras in them...and you get no pictures unless the camera is actually with you,and that's where the big, Canon 1D and Nikon D3-sized cameras are kind of a drag....3.8 pounds of camera and battery...$4,500 to $7,499 price tags..worries about damage, theft, hassles from security,etc.

The argument "how important are megapixels?" really needs to be qualified with an immediate qualifying question ,and that is, "to whom?" One of the absolute best shooters under 20 years old I know is using a Kodak Easyshare 10.2 MP digicam, and she's got talent! Her shots rock. At least on the web. Which is where more and more images are being used. If she were selling 40x60 inch landscapes, I suspect she'd get a higher-resolution system.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 6, 2010)

skieur said:


> I would not define an iPhone as a camera despite its photographic capability.  I was referring to roughly similar format digital cameras.



Forget I said iPhone my point is resolving power of the sensor does not define image quality, resolving power of the system does. That relationship holds between the extremes as well as some very similar format cameras. The 6 megapixel Nikon D70 will produce equally resolving images to a 10 megapixel Nikon D200 when using a Sigma 10-20mm. In fact if you zoom to 100% some people not quite clued into the physics of it all would probably say the 6 megapixel camera looks sharper. 

If you take any element of the photographic system in isolation then you have lost. The glass matters, the sensor resolution matters, and the sensor size matters too. 

What is important is that you know the limits of each part so you can build the system. If you have no L glass then the higher resolution should not be the deciding factor in stepping from a Canon 20D to a 7D. If you have nothing but L glass and you're still on a 20D then the next logical investment would probably be a camera with higher resolution.



Derrel said:


> Sounds like we need a new thread: Canon or iPhone?  We could do 25 pages and 5,000 views in probably a week or so.



Just because you can doesn't mean you should, but one thing is certain this photographer has been whoring the news lately with his silly little stunt (great advertising for him) and he's making apple fanboys' heads collectively explode.
http://fstoppers.com/iphone/


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 6, 2010)

Garbz said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like we need a new thread: Canon or iPhone?  We could do 25 pages and 5,000 views in probably a week or so.
> ...



Funny.  No mention of the $10,000 (probably more than that...) worth of lighting equipment that went into that shoot - not "just an iPhone".

Not to mention the PRO everything - models, makeup, hair, PP, etc...


----------



## TobascoJackson (Aug 8, 2010)

I work at a camera store, and one of the biggest things people are screaming about is MORE MEGAPIXELS! There seems to be a mistaken mentality out there that more megapixels = higher quality or more megapixels = better pictures somehow. Not at all.

Megapixels are nothing more than the final size you can print your photo (or how much you can crop, I guess if you do a lot of that). In fact, packing more megapixels onto a sensor starts to degrade that sensor's high-ISO performance. It's one of the reasons I went with the XSi over the T1i when I bought my DSLRI've never needed more than 12 megapixels professionally or for hobby, so the T1i's extra 6 megapixels are nothing more than a lowlight quality degrading, filesize inflating nuisance to me.

That being said, get the Nikon. Pentax is so hard to find decent lenses for compared to Nikon or Canon. And speaking of Canon, get a Canon.


----------



## DennyCrane (Aug 8, 2010)

TobascoJackson said:


> I work at a camera store, and one of the  biggest things people are screaming about is MORE MEGAPIXELS! There  seems to be a mistaken mentality out there that more megapixels = higher  quality or more megapixels = better pictures somehow. Not at all.
> 
> Megapixels are nothing more than the final size you can print your photo  (or how much you can crop, I guess if you do a lot of that). In fact,  packing more megapixels onto a sensor starts to degrade that sensor's  high-ISO performance. It's one of the reasons I went with the XSi over  the T1i when I bought my DSLR&#8212;I've never needed more than 12 megapixels  professionally or for hobby, so the T1i's extra 6 megapixels are nothing  more than a lowlight quality degrading, filesize inflating nuisance to  me.
> 
> That being said, get the Nikon. Pentax is so hard to find decent lenses  for compared to Nikon or Canon. And speaking of Canon, get a Canon.



I'll put the T1i against the XSi in low light any day. I've used both and it's day and night. There's more than sensor size and megapixels... there's the processor. The Digic 4 will spank the Digic 3 everytime. And there's only a 2.7mp difference between the 2 cameras.


----------



## cfusionpm (Aug 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> It really irritates the buyers and lovers of the small-sensor, ultra-high MP cameras to hear it, but full frame sensor size is the path to the best quality...


Actually, I can't think of anyone who disagrees with that. :thumbup:

Well, maybe medium format shooters...


----------



## TobascoJackson (Aug 8, 2010)

The reassuring thing for me is that they CAN make lenses that will out-resolve huge amounts of megapixels. Yes, even the current L primes from Canon hit the wall at around 15 megapixels or so, but my dad's ancient RB medium format film camera has lenses that are optically superior to those enough to get massive prints. My dad scans his medium format film at a resolution that renders it equivalent to 99 megapixels. Now I don't think the glass he uses will out-resolve 99 megapixels, but it certainly out resolves 15.


----------



## Garbz (Aug 9, 2010)

False! Because of the sensor format. When you use a larger sensor with a larger lens all sorts of limits such as diffraction, and manufacturing quality and accuracy are extended. Those companies which design ultrasharp lenses for medium format cameras would still struggle to get beyond 15mpx within the confines of a tiny 36x24mm square projection. 

By would I mean do, the Zeiss Distagon ZF T 25mm f/2.8 is a wonderfully sharp lens but it performs about similar to the top gear from any other DSLR lens manufacturer, and this from the same company that produces the Zeiss Planar T 80mm f/2 which gives most medium format shooters a big fat woody on sight.

Also a quick google will hint at all sorts of common names at the top tier. The Plaubel Makina 670 is raved about at the luminous landscape in the same sentence as "Sharpest medium format lens ever". The lens there is an 80mm f/2.8 Nikkor. 

Neither Canon nor Nikon are dumb. There's just more to sharpness then megapixels.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 9, 2010)

Garbz said:


> >SNIP> There's just more to sharpness then megapixels.



Indeed. Megapixel count is a number. Higher and higher and higher megapixel counts do not bring with them a linear increase in overall resolution. It takes roughly a four-fold increase in megapixel count to bring a doubling of resolution. A 6-megapixel d-slr is out-resolved by a factor of two once the MP count is roughly 24-megapixels in a similar d-slr sensor.

Given the same MP count on a smaller sensor, and the same MP count on a larger sensor, current, actual lenses from Canon and Nikon deliver higher overall,total resolution figures on the larger sensors than on smaller sensors. The highest lens performance figures of current lenses come from Full-Frame d-slr sensors, not crop--body sensors.

This is why the 10.2, 12.2, and 15 MP sensors are all so close in total,overall performance. As MP count goes up and the area of the sensor (the size) is held constant, the per-pixel image quality begins to suffer, in several metrics. One cannot take a VW chassis, and put a 350 V-8 into the body, and then a diesel truck engine, and finally a jet engine and not expect that some of the horsepower increases will be wasted because, well, the tires are small and too skinny to handle the ever-increasing HP levels.

Leica's S2 chief optical engineer gave a great interview to the Luminous Landscape,and he admitted that now, the LENSES are the problem,the stumbling block, and so when Leica designed its tweener medium format S2, they KNEW that they needed ALL-NEW, super-capable lens designs that would last for this generation, and beyond. He said it clearly: current medium format lenses are not adequate for the demands of a larger, high-resolution sensor. "We are lens limited right now," he said. Same in the APS-C size 35mm-style d-slr segment that most users use. That is why Olympus and Nikon are not too worried about  the 12 to 15 MP APS-C size currently....it's about all lenses can do right now, without loss of contrast, diffraction, and no real significant quality boost, just larger data  sizes to write, higher noise levels, and reduced color quality at elevated ISO levels to show for the 15 to 18 MP counts on APS-C sensors. The facts underlying high MP counts, small sensors, digital signal processing, and optics often seem to really,really irritate the buyers of 18MP d-slrs however, and they keep denying that FF sensors with lower MP counts offer better images, by several metrics.

We've gotten to the point now where there is a total,overall "system" that determines resolution, either by allowing it to go up, or by limiting its potential. Like the VW Bug, we can NOT make it go faster by putting ever-bigger engines into the same old body size.


----------



## skieur (Aug 9, 2010)

Garbz said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > A camera with more megapixels resolves more detail.
> ...


 
I really don't think that anyone is considering buying a 5 mpx Iphone 4 as their serious camera, so that kind of comparison is irrelevant.

Ah, higher sensor resolution will resolve greater detail if you are comparing apples with apples like two DSLRs with roughly similar lenses.

skieur


----------

