Megapixels - Do we need more? Are we already there?

[Alpha]

Which is hardly an excuse to rob those who do need them of higher resolution, and really not a good enough reason in general. Megapixels are currently driving the digital market. More pixels won't make your shot better, but there's no reason not to strive for higher resolution.

 

[dEARlEADER]

More megapixels would not help 99.999 percent of the pictures taken in this world in any way.

Most pictures I see have serious problems, and those problems have nothing to do with camera resolution.

lol..... I'm sure if I just had more megapixels my pictures would be so much better...

anyone selling any spare megapixels or know of any megapixel dealers???

I need another 3 meg of exposure megapixels and 4 meg of compositional megapixels...

 

[sabbath999]

Which is hardly an excuse to rob those who do need them of higher resolution, and really not a good enough reason in general. Megapixels are currently driving the digital market. More pixels won't make your shot better, but there's no reason not to strive for higher resolution.

I am not trying to rob anybody, nor am I against them (unless they add to the cost or come at the cost of increased noise, both of which are often the case in 2008) per say.

I just think most people should learn how to use the ones they already have before worrying about getting more.

 

[Rhys]

For most amateurs, 6mp is almost overkill. For my own use I standardised on 3mp years ago.

For professional stuff, more MP is better. It means I can shoot wider than I need because sometimes accuracy suffers due to what's going on. More also means bigger prints. Sure - most clients don't need more than a 10x8 BUT for those that do we need more pixels. Quite a few people would like a life-size portrait!

 

[Mav]

Which is hardly an excuse to rob those who do need them of higher resolution, and really not a good enough reason in general. Megapixels are currently driving the digital market. More pixels won't make your shot better, but there's no reason not to strive for higher resolution.

Rather than more and more MP's, I'd rather see more, better, and smarter in-camera processing. I run DxO to handle lens distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration correction when I want it, along with auto sharpening to get it just right calibrated to the body/lens/focal-length/aperture, and other things. We're already starting to see this with the D300 and D3, both of which automatically take care of chromatic aberration issues on lenses, and handle highlights way better than before with their "Active D-lighting" or adaptive dynamic range. There's no reason that more of it can't be done given enough spare processor cycles, storage space (calibration data), and battery life. That all demands more efficient image processors (CPUs) and improved battery technology. Eventually it'll happen and I think things like that would make a bigger difference in most people's photos than more megapixels.

The reason not to keep striving for higher resolution is if things are already overkill for most people, already pushing the limits of what sensor sizes will reasonably handle to maintain a certain quality level, when those resources could be put to better use trying to address other things that will improve people's photos. Why do I have to buy expensive DSLR systems only to find out that post-processing is pretty much "required" to get the best results? That's annoying! So there's something that can be built into the camera that would make a big difference rather than more megapixels!

 

[Alpha]

If they could build post-processing into the camera I guarantee nearly all pros would turn it off. Do you think a pro film photographer would do away with his/her darkroom if their camera made prints, only without the ability to dodge, burn, adjust contrast, sharpness, and hundreds of other things?

 

[Alex_B]

I consider CA correction and distortion correction if done in camera not really the kind of processing a pro would like to do by himself. once you do it, there is only one way to do it, and that is the correct way (CA gone, distortion gone). you do not have creative options. Hence if it was done in-camera it would save a lot of time ... assuming it is done in an ideal and perfect way. If the implementation was poor though, I would of course switch it off and do it myself.

 

[dEARlEADER]

If they could build post-processing into the camera I guarantee nearly all pros would turn it off. Do you think a pro film photographer would do away with his/her darkroom if their camera made prints, only without the ability to dodge, burn, adjust contrast, sharpness, and hundreds of other things?

This is true.... but an incamera algorithms to correct known lens distortions, CA, and flare would be a nice start... especially if we had the option to upload patches for new release lenses...

Dodging, Burning, Local area sharpness are all artistic adjustments that are obviously up to the artist, but the other problems are lens limitations that I'd rather not do in post process.

 

[BoblyBill]

I said 4mp was enough for me because most of my shooting came from a Canon D30 and I made 3.1mp work for me, but now that I have 10.1 it clear to see what more mp CAN actually do for you.

 

[Mav]

If they could build post-processing into the camera I guarantee nearly all pros would turn it off. Do you think a pro film photographer would do away with his/her darkroom if their camera made prints, only without the ability to dodge, burn, adjust contrast, sharpness, and hundreds of other things?

So what? This isn't the pro tips forum, it's the beginner's forum. I end up having to point that out just about every day I post here now. :meh:

I bet 99% of DSLR users aren't pros. And I bet a good number of DSLR shooters (at least a strong plurality, or even a majority) shoot in JPEG only and hardly do a thing in terms of post-processing, if anything at all. Building capabilities like those right into the camera would be great and is the logical next step as far as in-camera processing goes. If you want FULL control and want to do all of your own processing then you're probably shooting in RAW anyways where much of what I'm talking about wouldn't even apply. This would apply more the in-camera JPEG output processing.

 

[Alpha]

Oh boy. God forbid we talk about the needs of professionals.

It may be the beginner's section but its not pre-school.

 

[Alex_B]

hey, no reason to fight here about things which do not matter (pro/beginner/pre-school differentiation)

 

[Rhys]

I bet 99% of DSLR users aren't pros.

There will always be the kind of people that pay thousands of dollars for a fancily engraved special edition 1911. Then there are the people that will buy a 1911 for a few hundred and who'll actually use it.

There are always people that buy expensive pro gear because they think it'll make their photography better or who just collect the gear.

The price of most dSLRs is such that most casual users and most amateurs cannot afford one. I think your figure of 99% is high and that it's more like 25% aren't pros.

 

[Mav]

The price of most dSLRs is such that most casual users and most amateurs cannot afford one. I think your figure of 99% is high and that it's more like 25% aren't pros.

It's 2008, not 2004. D40 and XTI kits fly out the door at places like Costco for hardly anymore than an advanced point and shoot just a few years ago, inculding and extra lens, and including a memory card. I know plenty of people with DSLRs who don't even bother to post on forums like these. Maybe 25% of the people who post on these forums regularly aren't pros, but that's not even the least bit representative of DSLR and camera buyers as a whole. If that's your baseline, you're just looking at a niche part of the market. A lot of amateurs out there have much nicer equipment than a lot of pros do!

 

[Senor Hound]

I would say that I really like megapixels. I have a 5mp camera now, and it is high enough quality that I can blow it up to 8x10 without problems. But I also find that when I crop an image (especially a lot... ), I am no longer afforded this luxury. And since even these large mp cameras have options to shoot at a lower resolution, I don't see the HARM that having a larger mp camera would have, other than the lens not keeping up...

That being said, I think there will end up being a ceiling to it. DSLR users want quality over size, and I hear that you can only put each individual sensor so close to another in order to get quality images. With this being said, I'd think physics would only allow the mp battle to go so far, though that magic number I mentioned may allow for a 50mp sensor on full frame. I just don't know.