Will resolution always win?

[soufiej]

I'm of two minds on this one. First, I'd say most "serious" shooters would say, yes, resolution is why you invest in greater quality in the gear. On the other hand, I have to ask, what is resolution? Is it not the ability to convey the concept behind why the image was captured? I was just looking at a thread which asked for shots taken with "lower fidelity" equipment like cell phones and P&S cameras; It's not the camera, it's the photographer: Photo Assignment | Photography Forum

There are some amazing shots in that thread! No doubt shots that can be criticized for not having sufficient this or that technical ability on display. But, never the less, the images are intriguing to see.

I'm in the middle of deciding on a small camera to carry with me on a day to day basis. It needs to be rather compact though not necessarily a compact camera. I want to be able to use it on a moment's notice without considering lenses and filters and so on. At the moment, I'm in between a Canon G-1X which all reviews agree has excellent resolution for the (refurbished) price due to the large sensor provided; Canon U.S.A. : Consumer & Home Office : PowerShot G1 X Even on my tablet's screen the sample images are pretty impressive for an all in one camera.

However, the G-1X isn't great for macro work due to the somewhat less than great lens. And its zoom power is ... "mediocre"(?) for the type of photography I see myself doing with this camera.

The alternative at this point is a "super-zoom" point and shoot/compact/bridge camera (ya'gotta love the marketing terms, eh?). I'm still sorting through which of these I would select but all trade zoom capacity for absolute resolution. A tiny, tiny sensor with all of its inherent drawbacks and a relatively slow lens is average for these cameras. They do, however, have that zoom and most do macros rather well given all the limitations they have otherwise. Sample images from this style camera are this group; canon sx50 sample images - Google Search

Or I can take an older DSLR (Rebel XT) that has depreciated in monetary value, stick one half way decent lens on it and carry it. Not as compact and spec-wise mostly inferior to the new cameras but overall a better camera "experience" I would guess.

I have some near 60 year old photos which my aunt took in Havanna just before the country was shut down to Americans. These would have been taken with a Kodak Brownie is my guess. Great photos! Really. Great photos and not just because they were taken by my aunt.

One of my favorite shots I've taken over the years was done with a $10 Kodak plastic camera I had it blown up and it hangs over my mantle.

I understand I have to handle the cameras and decide which is best for me. And I understand "resolution" depends on more than just numbers on a page. I know all the arguments and points for deciding which camera to buy. However, for the purposes of this thread, would the "higher resolution" camera always be your choice in most comparisons? Or, is this just another Canon vs Nikon type question? I'm thinking large sensor vs tiny sensor is not the same chicken and egg discussion.

 

[jsecordphoto]

Id rather have more dynamic range, better ISO sensitivity, etc. than some huge megapixel camera. I do a lot of printing so resolution matters, I wouldn't be able to do much with say, 10mp, but resolution is only one factor of many when deciding on a camera.

 

[photoguy99]

Resolution is only one of perhaps a dozen important buying criteria. Virtually all cameras have "enough" resolution for virtually any needs, however.

If you plan to sell crisp 16x20 or larger prints, you're going to have to worry about resolution. If 8x10 prints is as big as you can imagine going, or if your larger prints need not be sharp for whatever reasons, then any contemporary camera (including a lot of phones) has sufficient resolution.

 

[soufiej]

Id rather have more dynamic range, better ISO sensitivity, etc. than some huge megapixel camera. I do a lot of printing so resolution matters, I wouldn't be able to do much with say, 10mp, but resolution is only one factor of many when deciding on a camera.

A MegaPixel alone spec doesn't impress me. IMO it's like that 250 watt AV receiver that can't actually drive a real world speaker without shutting down. Or a cheap guitar made with "select tonewoods" meaning laminated plywood. On paper specs are there just for the less educated salesperson to point to. I think my question is more about the "resolution" limits of that tiny sensor in the zoom cameras vs the large sensor in the other cameras. The zooms have an appeal because of factors (Flexibility?) other than their ultimate resolution.

 

[Light Guru]

If resolution was the most important thing then why aren't more photographers using 8x10 view cameras?

 

[TCampbell]

There's a point where the resolution becomes less important. If you had a low resolution camera (say, under 10 megapixels) and you compared to it a camera that had, say, 15 to 20 megapixels, then you'd notice that the higher resolution camera has an advantage. Once the resolutions get fairly high (say 15 megapixels or higher) then it starts to not matter as much. Due to the physics of light diffraction, there's even a point where it cannot matter anymore (when the pixels are smaller than the "Airy disk" it's no longer possible to focus light onto just one pixel anymore.

I have a Canon G1 X. I use it for occasions when it's either impractical (for a variety of reasons) or simply not permitted (some venues, concert halls, etc. will not allow you to bring in any camera that has a "removable lens"). The thing is quite rugged (it's a metal body -- not plastic, and my partner actually dropped it from a height of about 3' onto a hard sidewalk. Not only did the camera not break, the "damage" consists of a scratch, and a very tiny dent in the corner of the body. Everything actually works great!)

But you're right... no native close-up photography with the G1 X. You can buy a couple of accessories that change this. The Canon FA-DC58C is a small bayonet mounting ring that clips onto the front of the G1 X lens, but gives it 58mm filter mounting threads. You THEN get the Canon Close-up diopter "250 D". It's an extremely good close-up diopter on the market because virtually all close-up diopters use a single-element lens. Canon uses an achromatic "doublet" lens (which is really two lenses). The purpose of the doublet configuration is that as light passes through a prism (and the edges of lenses do behave like a prism) you get separation of the colors of light which causes purple and red "fringing" on objects as you get farther from the center axis of the lens. The "doublet" is designed to reverse the prism so that it recombines the light (mostly) and this minimizes that fringing for a better looking result. Canon also makes a 500 D but the difference is the focal length of the lenses for which these are intended to work and on the G1 X the 250 D is the one you want.

The G1 X isn't cheap. You can get a basic DSLR with a kit lens for about the same price and while that price would probably just get you one lens, the DSLR is really the start of a "system" -- meaning you can add to your list of lenses over the years. Ultimately the DSLR is far more versatile.

The G1 X is categorized as an "advanced point & shoot". The bridge cameras are also advanced point & shoot... a bit bulkier and usually they come with a more all-purpose lens. But again... whatever that lens is, it's not removable. If at some point in the future you wish you had a lens that could capture your subjects in lower light, offer you a shallower depth of field, etc. etc. then it's not as flexible as having the DSLR. The DSLR's down-side is that it's the bulkiest of all. Suppose you've invested in 3 or 4 nice lenses and down the road you find your camera technology is lagging behind an you'd like a new camera. With a point & shoot or a bridge camera you buy a whole new camera. But with a DSLR you only buy a new "camera body" because your existing lenses can still be used with the new camera (as long as it's in the same lineage... e.g. if your original body was a Nikon then you'd need a newer Nikon. If your original body was a Canon then you'd need a newer Canon.)

One thing I always want in any camera I get is a hot-shoe for attaching external flash. The built-in pop-up flash on any camera will be very wimpy, but moreover, it's stuck to the front of the camera. With a hot-shoe on the camera, you can attach an external flash and "bounce" the light off the ceiling or walls, or configure it to trigger off-camera flash for SUBSTANTIALLY better lighting than you could ever do with an in-camera flash. The better bridge cameras and top-end point & shoots tend to have the hot-shoe.

I would rather have even a low-end DSLR vs. either of the point & shoots you mentioned. I have one, but it's primarily used for those times when I can't bring my DSLR (and Canon pretty much acknowledges that this is the market for the G1 X.) If I'm allowed to use a DSLR where I plan to shoot, then that's what I'd rather use. It's just more versatile and adaptable due to it's more modular nature of having removable lenses.

 

[robbins.photo]

Well, a lot depends on what your shooting and how your viewing the final product. Take a picture that doesn't require cropping on a 12 mp camera and a 24 mp camera in good lighting and view it on your average computer monitor and you probably won't see a huge difference.

Take those same to images and crop them heavily, and suddenly that difference becomes a lot more pronounced. So if you shoot a lot of telephoto and end up cropping a lot of images then a higher MP sensor can make a big difference. If you don't shoot a lot of telephoto or crop, then the higher MP sensor probably wouldn't be as big a benefit.

There are also a lot of other areas that can make a big difference in the final product. I used to shoot a D5200, now I have a D7100. I get better results from the 7100 even though the sensors in both are 24 mp. On paper there may not be a huge difference between the two cameras, but in real life there really is a big difference between the two.

The 7100's better AF system, lack of an AA filter, additional control wheel - on paper they don't seem like they would really make a huge difference in the final result but in my experience, they really do. it's not one feature on it's own, it's the combination of all of them together that really impacts the final result the most.

 

[enzodm]

First, I'd say most "serious" shooters would say, yes, resolution is why you invest in greater quality in the gear.

mmm... nowadays this is not really true. High ISO capability, dynamic range are often the reason for upgrade for "serious" shooters. Resolution is often a marketing tool for less serious cameras.

 

[Microbois]

Please remember the gold old days of laser printers... The first ones that come out were 150 dpi, then came the 300 dpi models. The difference between 300 dpi and the models with 600 dpi that came later was pretty hard to see. Anything above that, namely 1200 dpi or 2400 dpi and such doesn't make any difference to the human eye, we just can't see it.

Sensors are the same. I think we have reached a point where higher mpx will make less and less difference. So, unless there are some very specific circumstances like others have already pointed here, I think the race for more mpx is not where the future is...

 

[bratkinson]

So many times here and on other forums, people are (in my opinion) overly fixated on sharpness. Can lens A resolve 1mm lines 1mm apart at 100 feet, or some such silly comparisons. If that's what is driving the market (from the manufacturers point of view), then they will produce gear that satisfies that perceived 'need'.

But how much does it matter to YOU, the buyer?

For what it's worth, through the years, I've upgraded my digital gear from a Canon G3, to G5, 30D, 60D and now 5Diii. In some of my photographs these days, I had to decide during post processing whether or not I want the individual pores on someones' face to be so 'obvious' in the picture. I've learned the not-so-pleasant way that most women do not want that kind of photograph of them. On the other side of the coin, bird photographers want to be able to see the individual branches of each feather from 75 yards away. Low resolution isn't an option for them.

But, resolution is actually 2 parts, in my mind. One, does the lens produce sufficient resolution and two, can the camera properly record that high resolution. Mounting a $10,000 prime lens on a 3mp DSLR won't produce very sharp prints at 8x10. And as I found out a couple years ago, screwing a cheapo 'tele converter' in front of my entry level lens and camera produced unacceptably low-focus pictures.

I'm both very satisfied and somewhat surprised by the image quality produced by my Canon G15...an advanced point and shoot. As TCampbell remarked about his G1X, they're built like a tank. A 3 foot drop to concrete with my 5Diii and lens would likely not fare as well and require a trip to Canon to repair ($$$). But for the ability to shove it in my pocket for carrying and get unexpectedly good, sharp results under most lighting conditions make the camera invaluable. But when I want or need the flexability and capabilities of the 5Diii, I pack the big stuff.

Lastly, as the OP indicated, it's not the gear, it's the photographer. Perhaps 90% or more of the shots I take with the 5Diii could be taken with the G15 and the results sufficient for my amateur needs. And even that other 10% could mostly produce an acceptable shot with the G15, just without 200mm lens 'reach' or 1/2" DOF results. Note that the G15 is f1.8-2.8, so thin DOF should be achievable.

 

[jake337]

Content will always take the cake.

 

[Light Guru]

Content will always take the cake.

Sadly most photographers these days put more thought into their gear then they put into their photos.

 

[soufiej]

If resolution was the most important thing then why aren't more photographers using 8x10 view cameras?

I can think of several reasons but your point has been made. Thanks.

 

[soufiej]

There's a point where the resolution becomes less important. If you had a low resolution camera (say, under 10 megapixels) and you compared to it a camera that had, say, 15 to 20 megapixels, then you'd notice that the higher resolution camera has an advantage. Once the resolutions get fairly high (say 15 megapixels or higher) then it starts to not matter as much. Due to the physics of light diffraction, there's even a point where it cannot matter anymore (when the pixels are smaller than the "Airy disk" it's no longer possible to focus light onto just one pixel anymore.

I have a Canon G1 X. I use it for occasions when it's either impractical (for a variety of reasons) or simply not permitted (some venues, concert halls, etc. will not allow you to bring in any camera that has a "removable lens"). The thing is quite rugged (it's a metal body -- not plastic, and my partner actually dropped it from a height of about 3' onto a hard sidewalk. Not only did the camera not break, the "damage" consists of a scratch, and a very tiny dent in the corner of the body. Everything actually works great!)

But you're right... no native close-up photography with the G1 X. You can buy a couple of accessories that change this. The Canon FA-DC58C is a small bayonet mounting ring that clips onto the front of the G1 X lens, but gives it 58mm filter mounting threads. You THEN get the Canon Close-up diopter "250 D". It's an extremely good close-up diopter on the market because virtually all close-up diopters use a single-element lens. Canon uses an achromatic "doublet" lens (which is really two lenses). The purpose of the doublet configuration is that as light passes through a prism (and the edges of lenses do behave like a prism) you get separation of the colors of light which causes purple and red "fringing" on objects as you get farther from the center axis of the lens. The "doublet" is designed to reverse the prism so that it recombines the light (mostly) and this minimizes that fringing for a better looking result. Canon also makes a 500 D but the difference is the focal length of the lenses for which these are intended to work and on the G1 X the 250 D is the one you want.

The G1 X isn't cheap. You can get a basic DSLR with a kit lens for about the same price and while that price would probably just get you one lens, the DSLR is really the start of a "system" -- meaning you can add to your list of lenses over the years. Ultimately the DSLR is far more versatile.

The G1 X is categorized as an "advanced point & shoot". The bridge cameras are also advanced point & shoot... a bit bulkier and usually they come with a more all-purpose lens. But again... whatever that lens is, it's not removable. If at some point in the future you wish you had a lens that could capture your subjects in lower light, offer you a shallower depth of field, etc. etc. then it's not as flexible as having the DSLR. The DSLR's down-side is that it's the bulkiest of all. Suppose you've invested in 3 or 4 nice lenses and down the road you find your camera technology is lagging behind an you'd like a new camera. With a point & shoot or a bridge camera you buy a whole new camera. But with a DSLR you only buy a new "camera body" because your existing lenses can still be used with the new camera (as long as it's in the same lineage... e.g. if your original body was a Nikon then you'd need a newer Nikon. If your original body was a Canon then you'd need a newer Canon.)

One thing I always want in any camera I get is a hot-shoe for attaching external flash. The built-in pop-up flash on any camera will be very wimpy, but moreover, it's stuck to the front of the camera. With a hot-shoe on the camera, you can attach an external flash and "bounce" the light off the ceiling or walls, or configure it to trigger off-camera flash for SUBSTANTIALLY better lighting than you could ever do with an in-camera flash. The better bridge cameras and top-end point & shoots tend to have the hot-shoe.

I would rather have even a low-end DSLR vs. either of the point & shoots you mentioned. I have one, but it's primarily used for those times when I can't bring my DSLR (and Canon pretty much acknowledges that this is the market for the G1 X.) If I'm allowed to use a DSLR where I plan to shoot, then that's what I'd rather use. It's just more versatile and adaptable due to it's more modular nature of having removable lenses.

The old DSLR is a Rebel XT @ 8 Megapixels. Enough I would say for an 8X10 but not much more. I've stopped using this, my first digital camera, because I got tired of wading through the menus to take a photo. I purchased the body alone since I had several lenses from my analog Rebel. So most of my lenses, filters, teleconverter, diopter, etc. are rather old but all Canon or suitable for Canon. I could trade the XT body for a newer DSLR and have about $75 credit I would think. Still, with a two or three year old Rebel and a lens I could have not much more than, say, $500 invested, maybe less if I'm happy with one of my existing lenses. More if I'm not.

The purpose of this is to get myself back to wanting to take photos. I've often wanted my camera in the past few years and now I think is the time to take some shots. In another thread I mentioned illustrator's "gesture drawings" which are extremely brief capture the moment ideas put on paper. They can be used as warm ups or some use them to get back some freedom lost in overly tedious work projects or time outs. That's what I'm aiming for with this new camera. Spontaneity and not perfection. Do I really want to take photos again, or not? If I find I don't, then I won't waste any more money on the hobby. If I can't find a reason to see a subject in a new way, I won't bother taking snapshots in the same old way. If it's too much work for the results, then I'll know why. This is strictly for my pleasure and nothing more.

TCampbell, thanks for the detailed response. Your advice on the G-1X is great to hear. Though, the diopter/adapter puts me in the plus $100 or so range for the refurbished camera from Canon. So around $450-500 just to start. That means I'm at or near the cost of the older DSLR as my carry around camera. So I'm not sure the G-1X is where I want to head. Particularly since you haven't mentioned a way around the zoom limitations of the camera. I figured if, after about a year's time of these gesture drawings with my camera, I thought I wanted to get back into photography, I'd pursue a new DSLR and improve/update my lenses and so forth. At that point a good zoom lens to reach the bird feeders in the back of the yard or some piece of architectural detail five stories up would still be out of my price range as a first purchase.

Possibly you can tell me though, given the larger sensor and higher pixel count of the G-1X but lack of zoom power, would cropping the image from the G-1X be inferior to the image from the super zoom with the tiny sensor? Decent light and low ISO for the example. And maybe I'm asking the wrong question here as I'm asking for numbers and numbers, at some point, don't tell me much that's relevant to the subject of real world use. I know I run into this problem often when discussing things on the audio forums. I would think the shorter zoom range of the G-1X would mean less of its range would be critically "sharp" when compared to the super zoom's range. So maybe this just isn't a question that can easily be answered with absolutes.


If I go with the Canon SX50 (which is the direction I'm leaning now), I have RAW capture and a hotshoe. Two issues I'm having with the SX50 are; 1) though there's an EVF, it's very low resolution as is the LCD screen and 2) there is no real manual focus with the camera - which doesn't seem to matter since there's no great resolution through the EVF. (But I understand the G-1x's EVF doesn't do full frame imaging and would be a drawback to seeing the composition if I went with it.)

Here are some sample shots taken with the SX50; Photo Sharing. Your Photos Look Better Here. | SmugMug

The fellow who took these isn't giving away all of his secrets but I can find little to criticize in these shots and, for my purposes, I think I would be very happy to get close to the same results from a camera I can buy for under $250. It's also relatively small to carry which is important since I drive a Fiat and there's no space to conceal a DSLR easily.

I have no need for Wifi and video isn't that important to me.


Thanks though for your help so far.

 

[soufiej]

Well, a lot depends on what your shooting and how your viewing the final product. Take a picture that doesn't require cropping on a 12 mp camera and a 24 mp camera in good lighting and view it on your average computer monitor and you probably won't see a huge difference.

Take those same to images and crop them heavily, and suddenly that difference becomes a lot more pronounced. So if you shoot a lot of telephoto and end up cropping a lot of images then a higher MP sensor can make a big difference. If you don't shoot a lot of telephoto or crop, then the higher MThere are also a lot of other areas that can make a big difference in the final product. I used to shoot a D5200, now I have a D7100. I get better results from the 7100 even though the sensors in both are 24 mp. On paper there may not be a huge difference between the two cameras, but in real life there really is a big difference between the two.

The 7100's better AF system, lack of an AA filter, additional control wheel - on paper they don't seem like they would really P sensor probably wouldn't be as big a benefit.

make a huge difference in the final result but in my experience, they really do. it's not one feature on it's own, it's the combination of all of them together that really impacts the final result the most.

Understood, but, if I got that really, really great, great shot, after all this time without, I might be tempted to see just how much it would cost to blow it up to the size of my house! LOL!

Naw, I'm not looking for perfection as I said and the camera functions do play into how much I might enjoy working with cameras again. The G-1X seems to have far more "creative" control than the SX50 but, then, is that what I really want for this exercise? Possibly not. I want to express what I'm seeing in my mind (gesture drawing) rather than think about functions of the camera. In the analog days I'd meter and bracket and think about how to technically get what was in my head. The digital Rebel seemed to get in the way of all that and I got bored with photography that not only required menus in the camera but then menus in the computer before I could see what I had. I don't want to put the camera on Auto and forget about what I see and I want RAW so I'm not tied to the camera's jpeg image but I don't want to be slowed by the camera or the computer either.

So, does the more functional camera free me up some? Or, as with the thread I mentioned in the op, is doing more with less really my objective today?

At the moment, the SX50 seems to win. Even if I expand the DSLR equipment in the future, the SX50 might be the camera to keep in the car and always have that gesture drawing/bare bones approach as an option when I need something else.

Pondering, pondering, ...