How many MP do I need..?

[qleak]

I would like to be able to print pictures as big as 2*3 meters. How many MP do I need..? I tried to use a formula I found but I got 850 MP (seems a bit futuristic for now).

Okay I found this formula MP = (print area in square inches) × 23.6 ÷ (viewing distance in inches)²
Here

So if you got 850MP you wanted it sharp at a viewing distance of 16inches?

1 meter you probably need to be scanning large or medium format negatives because you need 140MP

2 meters you get 35.4MP which a D800 can do.

3 meters viewing distance you're to 15.7MP which you can do on your Olympus.

 

[The_Traveler]

While qleak's example and reference probably are correct arithmetically, the number that results is the number beyond which any more can't be resolved by a human eye.

That is truly a pixel-peeper definition.
And, tbh, if that's what you want, bring a tripod and shoot LF (which is doable at your budget.)
Look at most great photos and the resolution isn't terrifically important.

Secondly, if your budget is in the 1500-2000 range, you aren't able to do that with a FF and quality lenses.
I use an OMD 5 and mostly shoot with two lenses that each cost more than the body because they are great glass.
The limitations of my pictures are my skill and talent and not the equipment.

If the next Sony in A7 series has as fast focusing at the Olympus, then I'll switch because the form factor difference will be balanced by the Full Frame.
Until then, m4/3 for me.

 

[qleak]

While qleak's example and reference probably are correct arithmetically, the number that results is the number beyond which any more can't be resolved by a human eye.

The whole article cited is about what can be resolved by the human eye! If you're standing close enough to a 2 meter by 3 meter print much more can be resolved by the human eye than normally possible. You will lose global details, because you're too damn close, but you'll pick up smaller details.

Cite a source that says it's wrong and I'll believe you.

I agree with your points on price.

My point was that a 4/3 really is good enough even for very large prints because you have to be viewing it crazy close to make any difference. I'd say that's the opposite of pixel peeping.

 

[elemental]

I'm really having a hard time deciding whether to replace it or not. I'm using an Oly Om-d em-5, so as far as 4/3 go I'm pretty happy with it.

An E-M5 is a nice camera, and an excellent body for travel. Also, this is all sort of splitting hairs: Remember how groundbreaking the D700 was? DPreview was pumped that was "usable up to ISO 12800." My mind was blown at the time, since my D200 was ugly above 800. Fast forward a few years, and I've got printable images from my OM-D at ISO 12800 (and its sensor runs circles around my D200 in every way), and the new generation of full-frame cameras practically have night vision. There's always going to be a cutting edge, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

I made at least one poster-sized print from my D200, and it looked fine. In fact, I didn't think anything of it at the time - 10 megapixels was pretty decent not that long ago. Actually, I think it was from my K100D - 6 megapixels was pretty decent not that long ago.

 

[Solarflare]

My advice: keep your current camera. Its already a pretty good choice for your requirements, and you are used to the camera.

The marsrovers work with 3 Megapixel cameras, and can reach very high resolutions, if they want to. How ? Well, first of all, they use excellent optics - yes you can still see the difference, even with "only" 3 Megapixel. Second they use a technique called panorama - they take many pictures and then those are stiched together. Thus, simply shoot panorama series for high resolution landscapes. Using a telephoto lens and a good tripod, you can reach insane resolutions this way. Okay, 850 Megapixel would be indeed a lot of work, and the landscape might change a bit too fast in that case (moving clouds).

As others mentioned, 16 Megapixels is already plenty. As long as you nail focus, dont introduce blurr though subject movement from slow shutter speed or blurr from camera shake, use great optics, and so forth. And having 36 Megapixels isnt that much more, really. Granted, the D8x0 is without question the superior camera over the OM-D, in many respects. Also, while the optics for FourThirds are not too bad, quite frankly the image quality archieveable by such a sensor is limited by physics - namely diffraction. But the D8x0 also has the far "superior" weight, and it doesnt have in body stabilization, and the lenses will be much larger and heavier as well.

Also, especially for social photography, having a smaller camera is a good idea. People take you less serious if you dont wave a huge camera into their faces.

So my advice would really to get good optics going with your camera. My personal choice would probably be primes, because the primes for the Micro Four Third cameras have a really good name and prime lenses fit very well to mirrorless systems because they are so compact.

 

[sashbar]

One MP per constituency is more than enough.

 

[tsabary]

Thanks for all the advice..! I think I'm sold, I'll stick with my Om-d and start looking for better lenses.

 

[tsabary]

One more question. I really wanted to get a a 50mm f/1.4 lens for portraits with visible depth of field. Would a 20mm-25mm f/1.4 for my Om-d give the same effect..?

You can look at the pics by Lee Jeffries (No. 2) for the effect I'm looking for:

Top 10 Most Famous Portrait Photographers In The World | Bored Panda

 

[The_Traveler]

Rather than a 50 mm equivalent, you might go for an 80 equivalent.
That is routinely considered the best portrait length and there are truly excellent m4/3 portrait lenses.
The Olympus 45 1.8 Micro 4/3 Lens Review by Steve Huff | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

I have had this lens only a short while and not used it much but here is an unedited (except for cropping) shot of my granddaughter at f1.8, 1/100 f 500

 

[tsabary]

It sounds like a great lens, but that is not the effect I am looking for (maybe it's doable with that lens too, I don't know).

here's another picture taken by Patrick Roddie that might help explaining better. Look how is face are focused and his ears that are only a few inches away are completely out of focus. That is what I'm looking for.

 

[The_Traveler]

yes, that lens provides exactly the effect you want, which is a limited depth of field.

You should probably become familiar with the relationship between aperture and depth of field.

What is Depth of Field? How aperture, focal length and focus control sharpness | Digital Camera World

 

[pixmedic]

MP is a state of mind man...
when body, soul, and camera become one, your artistic vision will be realized.



or...you know...
learn about how focal length and aperture affect depth of field, and get the appropriate equipment.

realistically, pretty much any modern DSLR/mirrorless will do what you need if you get a fast portrait lens for it.

 

[KmH]

One more question. I really wanted to get a a 50mm f/1.4 lens for portraits with visible depth of field.

Depth-of-field (DoF) is controlled with several factors.
1. Camera image sensor size.
2. Point-of-Focus (PoF) distance.
3. Lens focal length.
4. Lens aperture.

The further behind background elements are the better, if you want a blurred background.
Short focal lengths tend to distort peoples faces, their noses in particular. Barrel distortion could be a problem with short focal length lenses.

Many pro portrait photographers opt for a 200 mm focal length and an lens aperture that is a stop or 2 smaller than wide open for the lens used. So many portrait photographers use a pro grade 70-200 mm f/2.8 zoom lens or a 135 mm prime.

My go to portrait lens was a Nikon AF-S 200 mm f/2 prime lens. However, a good used copy (if you can find one) of that lens still costs about $4000. New the lens is $5600.

 

[Solarflare]

Found a great link about Megapixels: How many megapixels do you need?: Connect

Theres lots more aspects to the issue, of course. But this link explains some of the central points about it, and it does it really well.

 

[sashbar]

If you are going to do mostly street photography, then things like motion blur, soft focus, coping with difficult light conditions, pp cropping etc, i.e. your shooting technique, will have much bigger effect than a difference between 16 and 35 MP. Do not think too much about megapixels, think about what camera will be easier to use, which camera you will feel confident with on a foreign street in some pretty alien environments and the camera that allows you to get good enough IQ. I gather from your question you are not a seasoned pro travelling photog, so going for an ultimate IQ may have a negative effect in the end.
I second The Traveller's advice.