Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Why Megapixels Are More Important Than You Think
PeachBlack
Posts: 141Member
I was going to post a rant on a different thread, but I decided to open a new one since it really was unrelated. Also, there was an old thread on this topic, but it contained a lot of no longer relevant information due to its age. This thread is also directed at newer members who may have been told by some wise mentor that they don't need more than 6mp.
.. so onto the rant.
The more megapixels I have, the better. I'll take as many as you can give me *up to* the resolving power of the very best lens that is theoretically possible, and that's why I always just want to choke chickens any time anyone says "but you don't neeeeeeeeeeeed that many megapixels." This tiresome argument is still repeated ad nauseam is predicated on the assumption that what your camera spits out is perfectly framed, that all you care about is some final printed image, and that you're not going to print billboards. All of these arguments are just wrongheaded.
Main point: megapixels + ultrasharp lens = crop for days = better final image.
The truth is, *most* of the times, having a lot of MP and an ultrasharp lens has the potential to make your final images a lot better. Consider that the Canon 5Ds resolution is 8688 x 5792. Now, assuming that my lens resolves that kind of resolution, I could chop away a full 2/3 of that image and STILL have more than enough for most clients and large enough to send to most magazines for printing. Think about it: 66% of what you shot gone, and yet the final image is perfect.
The creative possibilities this opens up are tremendous, and to me it's all about creativity and all about the final image. I absolute DO NOT CARE about what my photo looks like coming out of the camera as long as it gets me to where I want to go. Indeed, I often shoot "wrong" because I know that will take me to my happy place in post. This includes not just framing, but also exposure.
An example that I will reiterate: I used to shoot beauty (basically super closeup shots of the face, or parts of the face, showing off makeup) with a 105/2.8 micro lens at about ƒ11-ƒ16 because getting in super close means you're killing your depth of field. A few weeks ago, though, I decided to shoot beauty with my 85, stand back, shoot ƒ6.3, and just chop the hell out of the files. And yet, I was still able to give files that were twice as big as what the client required. Bonus, I could make the picture tall, wide, square, whatever—I wasn't constrained by the original composition. It just didn't matter because the files were just that robust.
Thus, another bonus of megapixels is that you can save a bunch of money on lenses because the robustness of your files allows you to achieve equivalent final images with fewer lenses.
Imagine if you had a 60mp camera that shot 14fps. If you had an ultrasharp long zoom lens, you could shoot that bird as widely as you wanted, or that quarterback as widely as you wanted, make sure you had as much of the scene as you wanted, hack and slash in post, and still have great images. Heck, maybe you see something in post that's off to the side that you suddenly realize is super cool. Win!
As a corollary, pairing an unsharp lens with a high megapixel camera truly is just a waste. I have a good friend who owns (and loves) the 58mm/1.4g from Nikon. It produces *very* pretty pictures, but is not anywhere near sharp wide open. I used one for a couple of different photo shoots when it just came out and I thought that there was some kind of problem with the focus fine tuning because when I looked at the photos, they weren't at all sharp, and in post I couldn't crop much without ending up with a blurry image. Sure the photos were pretty, but I was trapped to nearly my original composition. Add to this the fact that if you're shooting at ƒ1.4, you need to catch an eye in focus, and to catch an eye in focus, sometimes the highly centralized focus points require you to compose for a crop in post. It's a catch-22. Point is, if you're shooting an unsharp lens, you might as well use a Dƒ because high resolution sensors really *are* a waste.
If you have a high megapixel camera, you *need* ultrasharp lenses to take advantage of them.
My goal right now is to end up with a final image of at least 5120 × 2880, because that's the resolution of a 5k monitor, but yeah, that's a bit overboard. I'm more than happy with 3840 x 2160, which is 4k, though. With a D810, I can almost about chop a file in half and still have a 4k image, but most clients are just fine with 3000 on the long end, and that's all I usually submit for magazine publication
Megapixels are a game changer, it's just many people are still thinking about them in the wrong way.
.. so onto the rant.
The more megapixels I have, the better. I'll take as many as you can give me *up to* the resolving power of the very best lens that is theoretically possible, and that's why I always just want to choke chickens any time anyone says "but you don't neeeeeeeeeeeed that many megapixels." This tiresome argument is still repeated ad nauseam is predicated on the assumption that what your camera spits out is perfectly framed, that all you care about is some final printed image, and that you're not going to print billboards. All of these arguments are just wrongheaded.
Main point: megapixels + ultrasharp lens = crop for days = better final image.
The truth is, *most* of the times, having a lot of MP and an ultrasharp lens has the potential to make your final images a lot better. Consider that the Canon 5Ds resolution is 8688 x 5792. Now, assuming that my lens resolves that kind of resolution, I could chop away a full 2/3 of that image and STILL have more than enough for most clients and large enough to send to most magazines for printing. Think about it: 66% of what you shot gone, and yet the final image is perfect.
The creative possibilities this opens up are tremendous, and to me it's all about creativity and all about the final image. I absolute DO NOT CARE about what my photo looks like coming out of the camera as long as it gets me to where I want to go. Indeed, I often shoot "wrong" because I know that will take me to my happy place in post. This includes not just framing, but also exposure.
An example that I will reiterate: I used to shoot beauty (basically super closeup shots of the face, or parts of the face, showing off makeup) with a 105/2.8 micro lens at about ƒ11-ƒ16 because getting in super close means you're killing your depth of field. A few weeks ago, though, I decided to shoot beauty with my 85, stand back, shoot ƒ6.3, and just chop the hell out of the files. And yet, I was still able to give files that were twice as big as what the client required. Bonus, I could make the picture tall, wide, square, whatever—I wasn't constrained by the original composition. It just didn't matter because the files were just that robust.
Thus, another bonus of megapixels is that you can save a bunch of money on lenses because the robustness of your files allows you to achieve equivalent final images with fewer lenses.
Imagine if you had a 60mp camera that shot 14fps. If you had an ultrasharp long zoom lens, you could shoot that bird as widely as you wanted, or that quarterback as widely as you wanted, make sure you had as much of the scene as you wanted, hack and slash in post, and still have great images. Heck, maybe you see something in post that's off to the side that you suddenly realize is super cool. Win!
As a corollary, pairing an unsharp lens with a high megapixel camera truly is just a waste. I have a good friend who owns (and loves) the 58mm/1.4g from Nikon. It produces *very* pretty pictures, but is not anywhere near sharp wide open. I used one for a couple of different photo shoots when it just came out and I thought that there was some kind of problem with the focus fine tuning because when I looked at the photos, they weren't at all sharp, and in post I couldn't crop much without ending up with a blurry image. Sure the photos were pretty, but I was trapped to nearly my original composition. Add to this the fact that if you're shooting at ƒ1.4, you need to catch an eye in focus, and to catch an eye in focus, sometimes the highly centralized focus points require you to compose for a crop in post. It's a catch-22. Point is, if you're shooting an unsharp lens, you might as well use a Dƒ because high resolution sensors really *are* a waste.
If you have a high megapixel camera, you *need* ultrasharp lenses to take advantage of them.
My goal right now is to end up with a final image of at least 5120 × 2880, because that's the resolution of a 5k monitor, but yeah, that's a bit overboard. I'm more than happy with 3840 x 2160, which is 4k, though. With a D810, I can almost about chop a file in half and still have a 4k image, but most clients are just fine with 3000 on the long end, and that's all I usually submit for magazine publication
Megapixels are a game changer, it's just many people are still thinking about them in the wrong way.
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
I also understand that there's some sense of satisfaction and pride that one gets when the image that's shot comes out perfectly right from the camera. I get that. But here are a couple of things.
First, if that's your goal, and if that's the reason you take pictures, then YOU don't need megapixels. You are obviously not shooting with the idea of maximizing the probability of getting to the final image that you want; rather, you're shooting because you love the challenge and satisfaction of getting a great image straight from the camera. But don't be telling me that just because you enjoy a style of taking photos that everyone should shoot this way, and that somehow megapixels are useless.
Secondly, when you're working for a client, you leave your warm-fuzzies at the door. You do whatever you can to do the best job that you possibly can, and lots of megapixels makes that job a lot easier.
You can get away with what Peach is doing if a) you are very, very good, and b) you have the ability to accurately judge the quality of your lenses (and, perhaps to a lesser extent bodies) and wherewith all to acquire them. To be sure, lenses have a lot to do with sharp images, but the technique to use them plays a large role as well. I can see someone (and have seen people - as, I suspect have we all) become consumed with the latest tech and find that their results don't measure up. So, what would you advise a relative neophyte or journeyman photographer?
And for most people, an APS-C camera with interchangeable lenses is enough. Fuji is a good choice.
I assume by journeyman, you mean a relatively advanced hobbyist who takes photos mostly for fun, right? Well, for this it's all about the kind of pictures that you plan on taking. Do you like to take pictures of animals? landscapes? people? football games? concerts? Do you want to occasionally try to publish a photo or two? There are just so many variables involved, including the depth of your pockets, that it really is impossible to say.
To this day nobody has come out with a camera with more pixels than the D810 and with better quality of pixels. The 5Dsr's 50 million pixels are junk, they are last generation APSC pixels. The 42mpix Sony gives you more pixels but no quality increase.
To be fair, the Sony A7RII is the highest scoring 35mm sensor camera in the DxO Mark database, and the low light performance is noticeably better. Add to this the fact that Nikon does have a way of tweaking Sony sensors to get the most out of them and I'm sure it would be a solid upgrade for the D810. It's just a "oh that's nice" upgrade, not something that would turn heads.
And maybe megapixels are the be all and end all for you @PB_PM, but they are for me they are super important. If you'd rather have more hard drive space and a zippier time in post instead of maximum leverage, that's cool. I just hate being told that I don't need them.
PB has hit a stride with his stylistic images and his imposing manifestos such that I invite him to start his own blog and Facebook account where he will have full control of content including bringing controversy where none be created.
It's one thing to invite others to mimic their style or technique; quite another to challenge others thinking for choosing not to follow their well determined directives.
For some it is important to be right and superior. For me, images alone speak for who we are as artists.
PB, you have my attention, but not for the right reasons. Show us by your continued efforts in image making, and bring your rhetoric to your site (maybe you can develop one like Steve Huff's or Ming Thein's, expanding your following by insisting os using Sigma art lenses and greater MPs.)
I look forward to checking your new blog with instructive examples of your work. Obviously not all of us buy into your overbearing diatribes.
I also invite you to check out the website of York Hovest, a fine fashion and nude photographer who showed his expansive photo skills by bringing back exceptional images from 100 days in Tibet. This shows depth of sensitivity to what imaging can bring.
And it was a Leica S2, not Sigma or Nikons that rendered these images. It's not the price of the tool (or the size for that matter) , but how one uses it.
May you find a better way of spending your inexhaustible energy than offering condescending remarks on this site. I look forward to you reaching a greater degree of personal maturity and with it purely altruistic motivations.
I will rant a little and that is on "right out of the camera". The statement thrown around a lot and it can and depending on the person does have a different meaning. To the purist 'right out of the camera" would mean that they would not do any post processing. I know a purists and I hear this from him all the time. I have never taken a shot that I did not post process, granted some more than others but according to the purist I have never produced a "right out of the camera" shot and I honestly don't care. To me "right out of the camera" means that you have capture the image that you visualize when you took it. It also depends on your style if you like shooting tight and do not want to crop and you capture that image then you have been successful. If your style is to shoot with some extra space around the subject and you capture the image you visualized and you have the room you need to crop you were successful. Unfortunately, I have seen to many examples of the tight shots that get tossed because the photographer missed something when taking the shot and it is obvious in the image and cannot be fixed. I exclusively shoot with the extra space and crop as needed. I am not a big believer of the rules or maybe it is that I like breaking them but having the ability to crop or move you subject can have dramatic effects. Being able to move you subject to one of the rule of thirds points/planes can make the subject stand out more than the original image. If you do not have the space to make that change you never know what you could have created. I take losing a few MP to get a better image. Having more MP makes that possible.
What does "right out of the camera" mean to you? Thoughts anyone?
I wish him continued success with his career and challenge him to raise his own creative bar.
PB knows what I am talking about. He's capable of responding. His images speak for themselves.
This has nothing to do with morals but the audacity of overselling everything he does. In my book self promotion tis not.
Enough said.
I do find it disappointing that PeachBlack does seem to be sometimes negative about Nikon products, however, the same criticism is put on other manufactures forums by other people. So it evens out in the end.
Is that not the object of the forums.
Lenses are a problem my Samyang 14mm uses 27 of the 36 but the 28-300 only 11.
Lenses are a bigger problem than sensors unless you like changing lenses.