Megapixel obsession

prodigy2k7 · Sep 2, 2008

You dont gain any focal length, you lose FoF which has the same FoV as a larger focal length.
Ex:
50mm on 1.6x crop sensor has the same field of view as a 85mm on a FF sensor.
Its not real "zoom" as Bi says, but it basically looks like it..

ksmattfish · Sep 2, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
Its not real "zoom" as Bi says, but it basically looks like it..

We could call it "print zoom". If you enlarge your photos more they look bigger.

Moglex · Sep 2, 2008

prodigy2k7 said:
You dont gain any focal length, you lose FoF which has the same FoV as a larger focal length.
Ex:
50mm on 1.6x crop sensor has the same field of view as a 85mm on a FF sensor.
Its not real "zoom" as Bi says, but it basically looks like it..

Yes, I meant effective focal length.

You mean he's saying that with e.g. a prime the crop has the same effect as some zoom.

Not sure why that's an advantage.

Surely you buy the lens with the FOV you require.

Bifurcator · Sep 2, 2008

Village Idiot said:
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:

I'm kinda drowning with 8mp 16bit now - I dunno what I'd do with 21mp 16 bit files. Take allot less pictures I guess. Back to the days of film again where you needed to consider cost with every shutter release.

I know we can set them to record lower but who would? If I had 21mp I'm likely going to shoot in 21 always.

I think the ideal cam would be 4/3 at 6 or 8mp with 14 (or 16

) bit RAW recording - unless I didn't mind dishing out the big bucks for multi-thousand dollar lenses - which I may end up doing.

I want camera manufacturers to focus on different things now and stop with the MP increases at every round. I want focus "range" technology, fractal assisted vector enhanced images and pure HDR recording. :thumbup:

ksmattfish · Sep 2, 2008

I have been concerned about the megapixel race too, but it's starting to look to me that it isn't just quantity over quality. My 40D image quality is a smidge better than my 20D, and if the 50D lives up to the hype it'll be slightly better than the 40D. The megapixel counts keep going up, but overall image quality is too, at least with the DSLRs.

I want a 75mp 35mm-ish DSLR with a couple of different shot options. The first would just be what we are used to except 75mp. The second would create 3 bracketed 25mp exposures with a single shutter opening. The sensor could map out sort of like it does with the Bayer pattern, and every third pixel would be part of a different exposure. How about 6 bracketed 12mp exposures? Talk about dynamic range!

Hard drives are cheap, like $0.25 a gb.

Village Idiot · Sep 2, 2008

Bifurcator said:
I'm kinda drowning with 8mp 16bit now - I dunno what I'd do with 21mp 16 bit files. Take allot less pictures I guess. Back to the days of film again where you needed to consider cost with every shutter release. I know we can set them to record lower but who would? If I had 21mp I'm likely going to shoot in 21 always.

I think the ideal cam would be 4/3 at 6 or 8mp with 14 (or 16 ) bit RAW recording - unless I didn't mind dishing out the big bucks for multi-thousand dollar lenses - which I may end up doing.

I want camera manufacturers to focus on different things now and stop with the MP increases at every round. I want focus "range" technology, fractal assisted vector enhanced images and pure HDR recording. :thumbup:

I could car less about most of that stuff. Resolution with increased image quality is about it. If the new 5D comes out with the latest printed specs from DSLR magazine (I think that's the latest puclication), then it's going to be an amazing camera. The article also stated that they're working on DIGIC V processing already.

prodigy2k7 · Sep 2, 2008

Well with the 50D they have increased megapixels without loss of quality because there is little to no space (less than the 40D) between each pixel. So in this case a gain in MP isnt really a bad thing. I am glad they did something with the sensor instead of just giving it more MP...

Bifurcator · Sep 2, 2008

Village Idiot said:
I could car less about most of that stuff. Resolution with increased image quality is about it. If the new 5D comes out with the latest printed specs from DSLR magazine (I think that's the latest puclication), then it's going to be an amazing camera. The article also stated that they're working on DIGIC V processing already.

Sounds good, but what's "DIGIC V processing"? Is that the face detection thingy?

davebmck · Sep 2, 2008

I tend to agree that 10-12 mp is plenty for most purposes. What I would really like to see is higher ISO capability without noise and greater dynamic range. Imagine a camera that would shoot at ISO 1600 and higher with no noise and double the current dynamic range. That would get me more excited about an upgrade that more mp.

Joves · Sep 2, 2008

davebmck said:
I tend to agree that 10-12 mp is plenty for most purposes. What I would really like to see is higher ISO capability without noise and greater dynamic range. Imagine a camera that would shoot at ISO 1600 and higher with no noise and double the current dynamic range. That would get me more excited about an upgrade that more mp.

I agree. I too think they need to get what they have now right then move up to the next level. Anythingelse is just fluff.

prodigy2k7 · Sep 2, 2008

I disagree, the more MP in the case of the 50D would help with more cropping ability without a huge loss of quality... As compared to lets say 8 or 10 MP

Village Idiot · Sep 3, 2008

Bifurcator said:
Sounds good, but what's "DIGIC V processing"? Is that the face detection thingy?

It's the image processor in the Canon. It controls the noise in the end file and also is what "limits" the speed of the file from shutter actuation to storage on the CF card.

So if the new 5D can manage 5fps at 21mp and very low noise at 3200 ISO, the Digic V they're developing may be able to acheive 7.5fps at 21mp and even less noise at 3200 ISO.

davebmck said:
I tend to agree that 10-12 mp is plenty for most purposes. What I would really like to see is higher ISO capability without noise and greater dynamic range. Imagine a camera that would shoot at ISO 1600 and higher with no noise and double the current dynamic range. That would get me more excited about an upgrade that more mp.

It's totally dependent on the sensor size. A full frame sensor is 864mm² A Canon APS-C sensor is 329mm². Compare an 8mp 4/3 sensor to an 8mp APS-C sensor to an 8mp full frame sensor. Completely different monsters.

TamiyaGuy · Sep 3, 2008

I would agree with you there. IMO, the only reason there is a megapixel "hype" is that there is almost nothing else in a camera that is (supposedly) related to its image quality than megapixels. In a computer, for example, there is the processor, the amount (and speed) of RAM, graphics card, Operating System, the list goes on. Now in a camera, there is the quality of the image sensor/processing system, but can that be measured and easily read in cold, hard numbers? Not really, no. Lens quality is exactly the same. highest ISO means nothing if the images look like a smudge of what is roughly the background colour of your shot.

Ah, end rant. Phew.

Bifurcator · Sep 3, 2008

Village Idiot said:
I could car less about most of that stuff.

TamiyaGuy said:
I would agree with you there. IMO, the only reason there is a megapixel "hype" is that there is almost nothing else in a camera that is (supposedly) related to its image quality than megapixels.

I can't bring myself to agree with these presumptions. Yeah there's more crop room but if we learn how to frame an image almost never is 20mp of crop room needed! :blushing:

There are other factors and technologies besides megapixel count!! It's just that the consumer-centric manufacturers aren't brave enough or generous enough to implement them or even enter the discussion. I almost feel like they are suppressing technology.

Here's some links to the things I mentioned ("light range" technology, fractal assisted vector enhanced images and pure HDR recording):

etc. etc.

Moglex · Sep 3, 2008

Bifurcator said:
I can't bring myself to agree with these presumptions. Yeah there's more crop room but if we learn how to frame an image almost never is 20mp of crop room needed!

It's not just learning to frame, though, is it?

There are occasions where you simply cannot get near enough with the lens(es) you have available.

It's just that the consumer-centric manufacturers aren't brave enough or generous enough to implement them or even enter the discussion. I almost feel like they are suppressing technology.

As I said earlier, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. The higher the pixel count (all other things being equal) the larger the print you can make for a given quality. That is an aspect of the flexibility of the camera and that is something that photographers understand and, often, want.

The problem arises when people simply buy high MP count cameras without understanding why the might need them (and in fact, don't). As long as people are doing that it discourages manufacturers from developing the technologies to which you allude as these are a lot harder for the average buyer to understand and therefore be prepared to shell out money to buy.