Megapixel obsession

Cinka · Sep 1, 2008

I'm a little perplexed about the megapixel obsession. That is, once upon a time, I thought 6 was phenomenal. Later, 10 was good enough to shoot for billboards...now with the 50D and it's 15mp capabilities, I'm wondering if it's just overkill. Seems like it.

Mostly, I'm bummed that people who don't really know anything about megapixels will think I'm 5 megapixels in the rear. And not to mention, my 40D almost instantaneously went down in price nearly 50%.

Hurm.

roadkill · Sep 1, 2008

If you're satisfied with the resolution then who cares? Does it suit your needs? If not adjust as necessary. If it does... awesome. Don't sweat what anyone else thinks you should have. Who f-ing cares?

Cinka · Sep 1, 2008

roadkill said:
If you're satisfied with the resolution then who cares? Does it suit your needs? If not adjust as necessary. If it does... awesome. Don't sweat what anyone else thinks you should have. Who f-ing cares?

I know, I'm just ranting

Joves · Sep 1, 2008

Yeah the people obsessed with MP counts can be aggravating. Id rather they perfect the sensors at whatever MP then move on to more.

Dubious Drewski · Sep 1, 2008

I've noticed a severe dropoff in the Megapixel craze in the past few years, especially in the point 'n shoot market. Technically, you only need 2MP to make a 300dpi 4x6 print and I tell customers this nearly every day. Cameras with 6-10MP will be all that the average Joe needs for a long time to come.

I'm guessing that in the professional realm, this is happening as well to some extent. For me personally, 10-15MP is great, practical and all I need. I'd rather have low noise and good clarity (quality pixels) than an extra million pixels or two.

But of course the folks whos shots get printed on to billboards have different needs. So all the power to them.

prodigy2k7 · Sep 1, 2008

10MP was good enough to shoot for billboards, that doesn't mean it good enough to view up close, you can only produce huge images like that because of the viewing distance is so far away... If you want to make a full size up close image of a model inside a mall's store. Well you may need a higher MP count.

With no enhancements(such as enlarging a photo/cropping etc) to print an image at 6 foot tall.(100%) (72 inches) 300dpi You would need a 311MP. Of course very good images can be produced with just 50MP at 6 foot when enlarged a smidge

Moglex · Sep 2, 2008

You are right that the obsession with mega-pixels is pretty stupid.

How many MP you need is very much down to what you want to do with the camera.

Even then there are other, equally important factors to take into account.

Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If you need to produce very large prints, or for some reason need to frequently crop to small portions of your shots, for example, then a high MP count will be important (although you need to ensure that other factors in the camera will support such a high count (e.g. lens, sensor noise).

ksmattfish · Sep 2, 2008

Cinka said:
I'm a little perplexed about the megapixel obsession.

Bigger is better is a commonly held belief in many subjects. Gear and process obsession have always been part of photography. I suspect it's because the technical side is much easier to learn and discuss than the art side. The same thing happens with film too. Film photogs start out with 35mm, which is obviously great stuff, then they want 6x4.5cm, then bigger medium formats, and the next thing they know they're hauling 50 lbs of 4x5 gear and dreaming of hauling 150 lbs of 8x10 gear. Their photos still mostly suck, but now they suck at incredible resolution!

Cinka said:
Mostly, I'm bummed that people who don't really know anything about megapixels will think I'm 5 megapixels in the rear.

Refuse to play the gear rat race. Display your photos proudly, and dismiss the photo geeks that want to judge them based on gear cost. Most folks will judge the photos on how they look.

Cinka said:
...my 40D almost instantaneously went down in price nearly 50%.

You have learned to stay behind the new technology curve. Having the latest stuff will always be more expensive. You should have gone with a 20D or 30D instead of the 40D. In competent hands there would be no way to tell the difference in prints.

Moglex · Sep 2, 2008

One other thing that occurs to me for people who already have a digital camera and wonder whether they should get more MP's:

How often do you look at a picture and think: "I wish I had more detail in that shot"?

That is to say, when looking at your photographs, how often do you think they would be improved by having more MP as opposed to better composition, use of DOF, choice of subject, lighting, timing.

If you can honestly say that you can often point to an objective reason why a shot would be improved by more MP then perhaps you do need them. Otherwise it may be a matter of money better spent elsewhere or just practice.

LWW · Sep 2, 2008

More MP's is better when everything else is equal and most noobs assume that everything else IS equal ... and in reality it is not.

As to decreased resale value ... that's only important if you are trying to sell your old one.

In film I almost always shot ISO 400 or faster film and with 6MP's I can't honestly tell the difference.

Addin that my glass assortment today would cost a mint to replace with the same focal lengths in film and I'm tickled.

LWW

Battou · Sep 2, 2008

I have megapenis...I mean pixels.

Personally I don't see the point of inflating the megapixels of cameras.

I shoot just as well with 3.1

As I do at 7.1

I see epic pointlessness...but then again I don't shoot billboards so.....

William Petruzzo · Sep 2, 2008

90% of the time, I'd be satisfied to keep shooting on my 20D, and my customer's would be also. For me, it's less the megapixels and more the sensor size.

Bifurcator · Sep 2, 2008

I think there are actually 3 issues here. Sensor size, number of pixels, and pixel density - for course the later is a product of the former two but...

I don't like more than about 8 to 12 MP for most things and I think 4 to 6 is actually ideal! :thumbup: Between 8 and 12 feels just about identical to me in handling and storage but the 15, 24 and 50+ mega-pixel images to me are too big unless I'm trying to print a poster or need that many pixels for some uber-processing job or something.

Without infinite funds I like the 4/3s chips best over FF I think. The way it crops you cut the worst CA parts of cheaper lenses out completely, you gain zoom, and you really have just about an identical amount of DOF blur.

In considering image quality on the sensor side I think one of the most important factors or specifications, is pixel density. Garbs taught me that. I hadn't really considered the fact that the ratio of number of pixels to chip size was significant until he mentioned it in one of our early discussions. I went back over all the cameras I owned and examined on-line samples and wow.

Village Idiot · Sep 2, 2008

I believe there's a 21mp camera coming out shortly that is supposed to rival the 13mp D3 and D700's noise capabilities. I'm thinking about selling my dog for it. :mrgreen: