Megapixels...

[lennon33x]

I can't seem to find the answer when I google the question, so I figure I would throw it up on here.


I know that megapixels, sensor size and exif all matter to image quality. Is there a number that megapixels don't matter to IQ?

For instance the EOS 1d has a 4 mp sensor, but is 1.3 and is not CMOS. But, it apparently produces amazing images. Likewise, its successor the 1Ds us FF, 8 mp(I think) and is CMOS.

Im just curious if there is a magic number that MP doesn't matter anymore...i.e. 8 mp and anything greater doesn't significantly increase IQ.

 

[480sparky]

EXIF has zip to do with IQ. EXIF is just data about the image for the benefit of use lowly humans.... shutter speed, ISO, camera make & model, etc.

Theoretically, there's no limit to the number of pixels an image can contain. GigaPan.

 

[lennon33x]

Easy killer. I meant that exposure settings - aperture, ISO and shutter speed (and therefore the info contained in exif info) are used in IQ. If an image is underexposed because one of the components of the exif info not correct, then it has everything to do with the quality of the image.

Regardless, I'm looking for a general rule of thumb that says "any number of megapixels above [x] megapixels will not drastically increase your IQ"

 

[KmH]

There is no such rule of thumb.
Exif is just information about the camera, camera settings, and other information about the photo.

MP count relates to image resolution. The more pixels there are the more detail a digital image can record.
Lenses also have a resolution limit, and with fewer MP the image sensor is the limiting factor, not the lens.
At some point an image sensor has enough pixels that the lens becomes the resolution limiting factor.

A digital camera processes the information the image sensor records in several ways before we get to see an actual photograph.
Most of the gains in image sensor low light performance are a result of better in the camera software rather than increasing MP counts.

Camera makers use CMOS image sensors instaed of CCD image sensors for several reasons:
CMOS image sensors cost less to make
CMOS image sensors use less power so Li-ion batteries last longer between recharges.
Because CMOS uses less power they generate less heat, which reduces thermal noise in digital photos.

Note that astronomers make images of very faint objects and use CCD image sensors instead of CMOS image sensors.
But astronomers are making long exposures of several hours each, and to combat thermal noise cool their CCD image sensors with liquefied gas.
Nitrogen is a liquid between -196°F and -210°F.

 

[lennon33x]

There is no such rule of thumb.
Exif is just information about the camera, camera settings, and other information about the photo.

MP count relates to image resolution. The more pixels there are the more detail a digital image can record.
Lenses also have a resolution limit, and with fewer MP the image sensor is the limiting factor, not the lens.
At some point an image sensor has enough pixels that the lens becomes the resolution limiting factor.

A digital camera processes the information the image sensor records in several ways before we get to see an actual photograph.
Most of the gains in image sensor low light performance are a result of better in the camera software rather than increasing MP counts.

Camera makers use CMOS image sensors instaed of CCD image sensors for several reasons:
CMOS image sensors cost less to make
CMOS image sensors use less power so Li-ion batteries last longer between recharges.
Because CMOS uses less power they generate less heat, which reduces thermal noise in digital photos.

Note that astronomers make images of very faint objects and use CCD image sensors instead of CMOS image sensors.
But astronomers are making long exposures of several hours each, and to combat thermal noise cool their CCD image sensors with liquefied gas.
Nitrogen is a liquid between -196°F and -210°F.

So, if someone Is shooting with the Nikon d800 (I think it's the one with the monstrous 36 mp image), it then limits itself to the resolution limit of the lens it's shooting through?

the main reason I ask is that I want to switch to a low budget full frame (like the EOS 1D II) from a Rebel T3. The Rebel is right around 11.5 MP, but the 1D II is 8mp but full frame. I want to make sure that I'm getting the same, if not better quality, even though the 1D is much older.

 

[KmH]

So, if someone Is shooting with the Nikon d800 (I think it's the one with the monstrous 36 mp image), it then limits itself to the resolution limit of the lens it's shooting through?

Yep! See Nikon's list of lenses they recommend using with the D800/D800E so that all 36 MP get used to full effect.

 

[lennon33x]

I shoot Canon though. Is an older FF 8 mp slr going to produce better quality images than a 12 mp 1.6 crop sensor?

 

[Garbz]

Note that astronomers make images of very faint objects and use CCD image sensors instead of CMOS image sensors.
But astronomers are making long exposures of several hours each, and to combat thermal noise cool their CCD image sensors with liquefied gas.
Nitrogen is a liquid between -196°F and -210°F.

Oh man I wish. I'm making do with a 60watt peltier cooler on the back of my CCD. I think I need an upgrade. :lmao:
Actually I want my own space telescope.

 

[gsgary]

I can't seem to find the answer when I google the question, so I figure I would throw it up on here.


I know that megapixels, sensor size and exif all matter to image quality. Is there a number that megapixels don't matter to IQ?

For instance the EOS 1d has a 4 mp sensor, but is 1.3 and is not CMOS. But, it apparently produces amazing images. Likewise, its successor the 1Ds us FF, 8 mp(I think) and is CMOS.

Im just curious if there is a magic number that MP doesn't matter anymore...i.e. 8 mp and anything greater doesn't significantly increase IQ.

What about the quality of the lens that is being used ? That has a big bearing on the end result

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[amolitor]

A useful rule of thumb, widely used, is that in the final print you want about 300 dots per inch.

So if you want to print 8x10, you need 8x300 dots on one side, and 10x300 dots on the long side, for a total of 7.2 megapixels. Given that your camera doesn't shoot in that exact shape of rectangle, you might want to crop a bit, etc, say 10-12 megapixels.

If you want to print 11x14, you're going to want more.

All this assumes that your lenses are good enough to render all the megapixels, which mostly lenses are these days, at these sorts of resolutions.

Also, digital cameras tend to lose roughly half of their resolution to color information, so maybe you really want 20-24 megapixels to shoot 8x10 prints. Maybe. Maybe not..

And so on, and so on. It's more rules of thumb and more caveats and details all the way down. Bottom line, get what you can afford comfortably. It'll do a lot of things, most of the things you are likely to want to do, just fine. If you find that you want to make bigger prints, or do something that whatever you bought legitimately cannot do, by then you'll probably know what you need to buy.

 

[SCraig]

There is no magic number above which resolution is meaningless however there may be one at which it becomes less of an issue based on what you shoot. If you find yourself cropping images significantly then you will probably see a difference since each pixel in the cropped area will cover a larger portion of the image and you will begin to see pixelation. If you seldom crop an image then you probably won't see a difference.

Older full-frame bodies typically had better image quality than comparable crop-sensor bodies however that gap has narrowed significantly over the past couple of years.

 

[gsgary]

There is no such rule of thumb.
Exif is just information about the camera, camera settings, and other information about the photo.

MP count relates to image resolution. The more pixels there are the more detail a digital image can record.
Lenses also have a resolution limit, and with fewer MP the image sensor is the limiting factor, not the lens.
At some point an image sensor has enough pixels that the lens becomes the resolution limiting factor.

A digital camera processes the information the image sensor records in several ways before we get to see an actual photograph.
Most of the gains in image sensor low light performance are a result of better in the camera software rather than increasing MP counts.

Camera makers use CMOS image sensors instaed of CCD image sensors for several reasons:
CMOS image sensors cost less to make
CMOS image sensors use less power so Li-ion batteries last longer between recharges.
Because CMOS uses less power they generate less heat, which reduces thermal noise in digital photos.

Note that astronomers make images of very faint objects and use CCD image sensors instead of CMOS image sensors.
But astronomers are making long exposures of several hours each, and to combat thermal noise cool their CCD image sensors with liquefied gas.
Nitrogen is a liquid between -196°F and -210°F.

So, if someone Is shooting with the Nikon d800 (I think it's the one with the monstrous 36 mp image), it then limits itself to the resolution limit of the lens it's shooting through?

the main reason I ask is that I want to switch to a low budget full frame (like the EOS 1D II) from a Rebel T3. The Rebel is right around 11.5 MP, but the 1D II is 8mp but full frame. I want to make sure that I'm getting the same, if not better quality, even though the 1D is much older.

The 1D mk2 is not full frame get your fact right

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2

 

[astroNikon]

All the early Nikons and Canon top of the line pro cameras were crop. They transitioned to FF later on.
The 1D 2 is a 1.3 crop sensor
The 1Ds is their FF equivalent

see chart
Canon EOS-1D Mark II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nikon
Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lennon33x]

@gsgary - don't be a douchebox.

I realized right after I posted the reply last night that the eos 1 line was 1.3x cropped. My bad.

And technically, I would need to "get [my] FACTS right."

 

[lennon33x]

@astronikon

Thanks for the info.