How important are mega pixels?

[Idahophoto]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Idahophoto]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

Or you could just get something like this...

 

[DennyCrane]

/thread

 

[Derrel]

[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]

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.

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

skieur

 

[Derrel]

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

 

[usayit]

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.

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

skieur

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]

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.