Too many mega pixels ???

sevencrossing

Time and time again "Too many mega pixels" is given as the reason for not buying or wanting a certain camera ( quite often a D800)

It is something I cannot get to grips with

Why do people not want the best possible image

Most of my photos only get as far as FB but I do like the option of blowing up my five star photos really big

I can understand not buying a D800 because it is big , expensive or to heavy but "Too many mega pixels" does not make sense

or are some of you still using a black and white CRT monitor

heartyfisher

LOL ..

Golf007sd

To much of a good thing is not the solution for those that are novice. Having said that, I truly believe it is the lack of fully understanding their needs that leads to just remarks as an easy way out; thus, making the individual saying it thinking he or she is knowledgeable on the subject of photography.

NSXTypeR

You know, I was happy with 6 mp until the D40 died on me. I don't print, but boy was I wrong. I like the flexibility of cropping now. Before, I only had very little leeway and now if I get focus right I can sort of get a macro view with my 18-135 slow zoom. It was really helpful when there was a change in plans and my parents decided to go to the Botanical Gardens, because I really would have wanted to bring my macro lens. 16 mp on the D7000 is great, and I guess 36 would be awesome too, but I'd have to add more hard drive space and probably upgrade my computer too.

donaldejose

It is not that people don't want the best possible image. It is more that 16 to 24 mp seems to be all that most people really can use (or see) since very few of us are printing larger than poster size (24 inchs x 36 inches), 16 to 24 megapixels does that size just fine. In a sense, the additional megapixels are "wasted" or "unused" and just cause more time downloading images, post processing images, take more space storing images and cause slower fps while the camera is writing to SD or CF card. Once you are shooting a D4 or D600 very few people feel limited by their megapixels and desire more. Please remember that your computer monitor displays only about 2mp and even a 56 inch HDTV will be displaying only about 2 mp. Some super HDTVs are now on the market which will display about 4 megapixels. So when you view the photo you took you are already seeing a downsized version which does not show you all that was in the original image captured. People who don't want 36mp are not saying they don't want the best possible images. They are saying they don't want all the negatives which go with a 36 megapixel sensor and they realize that for their use they will not really see any improvement in the image which offsets the negatives.

Nikon should be marketing a 12mp D600s (using the D3s sensor, a better AF module and more buffer), a 24mp D600x (the D610?), a 16mp D800s (using the D4 sensor - the real D700 replacement?), a 36mp D800x, a 16mp D4 and a 48mp D4x (using a new sensor with the highest mp available in full frame from any manufacturer). And Nikon should have a 12 and 24mp D400. The lower mp version of each body would be built for speed (designated s for speed version) with at least 8 fps. The higher mp version of each body would allow for larger prints (desingnated x for eXtra high quality) at the cost of about 4 fps slower speed. A "pro" or "semi-pro" could have two bodies with exactly the same controls: one for speed and one for higher quality. It would not be that hard to do. The sensors already exist (except for the D4x which likely will be out soon). Below the D400 in the DX line will be all 24mp sensors; not because those mp are needed for quality but because "snapshot" consumers don't realize they will not be needing more than about 6 to 8 mp for viewing on computer monitors, printing to 8x10, posting to facebook, viewing on cellphones, viewing on HDTV etc.

see http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/whither-nikon.html

sevencrossing

.....very few of us are printing larger than poster size (24 inchs x 36 inches), 16 to 24 megapixels does that size just fine. In a sense, the additional megapixels are "wasted" or "unused"

some one, with more technical know how than me, please correct me

but I don't think mps is just about resolution
I had no resolution issues with my D700
but the thing I love about my D800, is the dynamic range and color fidelity, which is in a completely different league to my D700

Yes I know, I should get the framing right in camera, but I don't; so I tend to shoot wide
and crop e.g. the final image is rarely 36mp

Vipmediastar_JZ

I wanted the D4 as it was perfect for me but not my wallet. I got the D600 but upgraded to the D800 and I have a constant battle with my storage space. Every so often I delete all the bad files since 2007 to present. Until I can afford a raid storage or find another solution that is what I will be doing.

So that's my gripe with the d800 but I welcome the pixels.

I'm not a cropper but now I crop with confidence.
The dynamic range is awesome that I don't even do HDR anymore ( 9 shot bracketing) unless I want that effect.

I been cropping with the sigma 35mm for the times where I have a random foot or head on the edge or even yesterday pic on the PAD. I Cropped the space in the front and made a better composition.

The megapixels gives you a lot of room to play with and I'm glad I have them.

proudgeek

I'm not a cropper but now I crop with confidence.

Spend a little time shooting birds in flight and you'll crop like a champ. 36mb images is an incredible luxury.

Emcee

.....very few of us are printing larger than poster size (24 inchs x 36 inches), 16 to 24 megapixels does that size just fine. In a sense, the additional megapixels are "wasted" or "unused"

some one, with more technical know how than me, please correct me

but I don't think mps is just about resolution
I had no resolution issues with my D700

Resolution is all about pixels. Zoom in to 3000% each dot represents a pixel (generalization).

The number of pixels (and the size of the pixel) in a sensor determines how well the sensor can resolve details. Sure you didn't have resolution issues with your D700, it has plenty but if were not pixel peeping you won't notice the difference.

Also, lenses affect resolution. If your lenses can't resolve what's in front of the camera the sensor can't make heads or tails of what's out there and thus you won't be using all the resolution of the your 36MP.

Beso

I'm not a cropper but now I crop with confidence.

Spend a little time shooting birds in flight and you'll crop like a champ. 36mb images is an incredible luxury.

+1

donaldejose

Yes, the newer sensors do have better dynamic range but I am not sure that is due to the additional pixels or to better sensor efficiency and better software: i.e. I don't think more megapixels is what gives the new sensors more dynamic range. I tend to think dynamic range is different than resolution but I am not sure about that. I could be wrong.

Ade

You are right. In theory, all else being equal, more pixels can actually means less dynamic range and less high-ISO performance.

With the D800 Nikon managed to up the resolution and dynamic range, while keeping excellent high ISO performance. Very impressive feat of engineering.

PB_PM

You mean Sony manged to do that. I'm sure Nikon's firmware helps though.

Dynamic range and ISO range have nothing to do with resolution, so lets get that out of the discussion. Evidence? 2MP (1080p) video cameras have improved from generation to generation in that area without increasing the number of pixels/resolution. Dynamic range and ISO performance are improved due to greater sensor efficiency (read noise), improved micro lenses on the sensors along with improved in camera processors.

newfoundlander61

Most photographers will do just fine with 8-12MP.

PB_PM

Most photographers would be fine with film, does that mean we should all go back to film? :-?

tc88

For me, I'm waiting for the next 50+ MP camera. The sooner it comes out, the better.

Still I'm a little bit surprised that even when setting the image size to small or medium, the raw is still the full size. Nikon should be able to downsample the raw to small and medium. That seems to me not a difficult task at all.

PB_PM

There is no such thing as downsized RAW. Canon has sRAW, but those are not true RAW files, they are actually downsized TIFFs taken from the original full sized RAW. RAW by definition means all the original information. Downsizing would mean it would no longer be RAW.

Ade

Dynamic range and ISO range have nothing to do with resolution, so lets get that out of the discussion.

That is not entirely correct.

All else being equal (i.e., within the same technology generation), dynamic range and ISO are inversely correlated with resolution (pixel density at a given size).

That's because both dynamic range and ISO are strongly affected by the physical size of each sensel ("pixel"). For a given size sensor, increasing resolution means a corresponding reduction in sensel area.

PB_PM

@Ade Yes that is true. I was speaking more in a general sense. Considering that no major sensor manufactures are putting modern tech into low resolution sensors (less than 14MP, video cameras aside), it really is a non-issue for the sake of this discussion.

haroldp

My D800 images downressed to 12 mp appear to have better resolution than my D700 /D3 images using the same lenses, and much lower noise at high (6400) ISO.

This is not scientific , but an impression formed from thousands of images shot in theaters, in the same venue and lighting.

A 4 TB external hard drive is USD $ 169 (double for backup and $69 for a 1TB portable, enough or any single trip I can conceive of so I do not see how the space discussion is serious in context of the cost of entry to be in this level of hobby or business.

regards ... H

tc88

There is no such thing as downsized RAW. Canon has sRAW, but those are not true RAW files, they are actually downsized TIFFs taken from the original full sized RAW. RAW by definition means all the original information. Downsizing would mean it would no longer be RAW.

PB_PM, What you said is technically correct. Still there is a difference of fidelity between RAW (12 or 14 bits) and JPG (8 bits). There should be an intermediate version to allow downsampling to a lower resolution, but keep the same DR as RAW. That's what's missing in Nikon. For people wanting a smaller size, they can just use that.

PB_PM

Nikon does give (at least higher end bodies) the ability to shoot TIFF's, so basically the same thing as sRAW for Canon, if that is what you are looking for. Not as good as RAW, as you suggest, but it is the next best thing for anyone who does not wish to get stuck with 8bit JPEGS. Of course the downside of TIFF's is that they are huge, a 36MP TIFF is larger than a RAW.

Emcee

There is no such thing as downsized RAW. Canon has sRAW, but those are not true RAW files, they are actually downsized TIFFs taken from the original full sized RAW. RAW by definition means all the original information. Downsizing would mean it would no longer be RAW.

PB_PM, What you said is technically correct. Still there is a difference of fidelity between RAW (12 or 14 bits) and JPG (8 bits). There should be an intermediate version to allow downsampling to a lower resolution, but keep the same DR as RAW. That's what's missing in Nikon. For people wanting a smaller size, they can just use that.

But once you downsample, you've lost information, and once you eliminate part of the information, you can't keep the resolution or the DR.

Now you could do it less so than JPG and that's what I think the larger JPGs are but to what extent do you draw the line?

[Deleted User]

I thought the S-raw option on canon binned pixels at the sensor which would still mean you get a raw image..

Anyways. I have a D800 - I am not that happy with it. 36 Mpix is too much for me. just overkill.

snakebunk

Isn't it true that you can capture different size NEF (RAW) images from the D800? I read this on the Nikon site:
"FX format (36 x 24): 7,360 x 4,912 (L), 5,520 x 3,680 (M), 3,680 x 2,456 (S)".

PB_PM

RAW is only 36.2MP. Those sizes are for JEPGs and TIFFs.