Msteelio9 said:
Curious on opinions here - with the ever-cheaper addition of higher res screens, monitors, prints, and mobile devices... At what point do older digital cameras become obsolete? In other words, at what point does the camera's MP count hinder it's ability to produce an image that can be considered acceptable on newer screens? I still use my now 7 year old D7000 which shoots at a max of 4928 x 3264. Still pretty good but once you start cropping you start to dip below the resolution of some monitors. I'm wondering if there's a formula here for figuring out at which point a camera is unable to meet the "stretch" of say a 50" 4k screen.
It's also possible I'm looking at this totally wrong but I'd like to hear what you all think
It depends on the camera, the user, and the uses for the photos. OLD digital cameras like 1.5 to 4 MP models...that shoot only JPEG...not the best these days.
I dunno...the Nikon D2x is now 11 years old. At BASE ISO of 100, with studio flash, it is still usable. The dynamic range is easily bettered by newer, cheaper cameras, but the files can be up-rezzed, and the original D2x Color looks were carried forward by Nikon and other developers. 12.2 megapixels on APS-C. Crappy at over ISO 400. I still use it for my
eBay pics. Works GREAT!
Canon 5D Classic: 12.8 MP. Very nice sensor for its era, still usable image quality wise, but the AF is slowish for sports. Still a viable portrait and general use camera. 11,12 years old now...
Nikon D3x: 24 MP on FX...still a great imager...not quite as good of a FILE as the D600,D610,or D750, but a much better camera body and viewfinder than any of those ever had...Released years ago, in 2009...still a great "shooter", with incredible battery life.
Canon 5D-II. Obsoleted by two three newer models, but still very usable.
Nikon D90: lot of features, but the image sensor is definitely nowhere as good as newer cameras.
Cropping a 16-MP D7000...Jeezis...I sold newspaper sports images shot on a 4.2 MP D1h...and I would crop a bit if I needed to. And that is the real issue: MOST images will be seen way below the shooting resolution, as 900-pixel tall verticals, or 2,400 wide max width JPEG images smushed down to 300k...so...we're right back to 4.2 MP being fine.
The older the camera, and the crappier it was, the more likely it'll be obsoleted by newer models--but being "obsolete" does not make a thing useless. Just as a 1955 Chevy is "obsolete", or a '67 Mustang is "obsolete", they can still be useful as cars. The issue you raise is pixel-peeping, on a big monitor. People now see many (most?) images on smart phones. The issue you seem to be bringing up is, specifically a
50 inch 4k screen.
Not sure what peoples' expectations are on that, and it might vary quite a bit. My kid HATES to watch 480p video on YouTube. I dunno...I can handle that. I think "newer screens" depends on the viewer, and the exact size of the screen. And you are not taking into consideration the easy up-rezzing of images, and working on them HUGE...this can be done pretty easily, and was done a lot, a decade ago.