NR Blog NR Forum ebay Finds Nikon Deals Nikon Buying Guide Leica Rumors Pentax Rumors Photo Rumors Contact NR
›

Why Megapixels Are More Important Than You Think

13»

Comments

  • DenverShooterDenverShooter Posts: 416Member
    Like horsepower or lenses you can never have too many pixels...

    Denver Shooter
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • manhattanboymanhattanboy Posts: 1,003Member
    DenverShooter said:

    Like horsepower or lenses you can never have too many pixels...

    Denver Shooter

    I have to disagree with you here. For example, you can have too much horsepower leading to instability in the car's handling. Improvements in raw torque have to be met with other structural changes capable of controlling it. Likewise, if I swapped out the D750's sensor for an 80 megapixel one, the underlying pipeline of data and buffer would likely be overwhelmed, and incapable of adequately handling it. There needs to be multiple changes to get to higher MP sensors. Just think of all the problems that popped up with Nikon's move to 36mp or Canon's move to 50MP? Lenses needed to be changed, buffer's and card technology needed tweaking, the shutter mechanisms had to be redesigned to lower shock, electronic curtain's were introduced, low pass filter removed, etc., etc.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,192Member
    edited February 2017
    Nah we just put a high MP sensor in it..it will be ok.. The rest of the magic will just happen ... ;-)
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,451Member
    I was considering changing some of my lenses to "better ones " to get more out of my D 810 cameras...Spending much time on DXO looking at for instance Sigma 24 -105 I concluded that my crap 28-300 was just as good from 28-70 where the majority of wedding pictures are taken and when at 300 I was only interested in the central definition which was well in the DXO green.
    So I think I can carry on cropping that central region at 300mm containing the wedding rings and save some money .
    But of course to do this I need those mega pixels ...MP do count .
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,192Member
    edited February 2017
    Actually I was hoping that the samsung 28mp sensor would have had more success ... It had some nice technology.. but as we know better technology doesnt mean success ...

    Would have been nice if we had a 28mp D7xxx .. with a 200fps electronic shutter, no ? Just a touch more MP but a huge bump in FPS :-) And High ISO (with their ISOCEL tech) oh well .. Next is probably 36mp DX and 50+mp FX...

    Yeah MP is nice.. but I doubt Pulitzer prize photos and MP correlate at all ... if there is any correlation I would guess 0.6 to 2mp ?
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    edited February 2017
    @heartyfisher Not trying to be a smart$$$ but most Pulitzer prize photos have been shot with film from the early 1940's until digital cameras arrived on the seen. Most were shot with 2x3 or 4x5 film cameras such as a Speed graphflex, etc. Percentage wise digital makes up a small amount of the winners cameras. MP wise it is probably 20+ on the low end with 35mm film cameras and 60+ on the medium format film cameras.
    Post edited by vtc2002 on
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,192Member
    edited February 2017
    lol its me who is the Smart..... :-)

    The truth is I think MP in photography is relatively unimportant.. it is whatever camera you have... "...and be there"

    But I digress ... the thread has merit.. I was just being the Smart ... :-) Apologies to all ...
    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,866Member
    Also, it is not the past that matters. We live in the now and will live in the future. I would think most 2017 and later Pulitzer prize photos will be shot with a minimum of 20 megapixels simply because that is what the photojournalists will now be shooting. But I suspect we will see one exception: cell phone photos. With newspapers no longer using dedicated photographers and issuing cell phones to reporters it is more and more likely that the person on the scene at a dramatic and important moment will be a reporter with a cell phone. No photographer with a camera in hand will arrive before the dramatic important event is over. Whatever imaging device is in the hand of whoever is on the scene at that decisive moment in history will be one that takes the next Pulitzer prize photo.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    edited February 2017
    Pistnbroke said:

    I was considering changing some of my lenses to "better ones " to get more out of my D 810 cameras...Spending much time on DXO looking at for instance Sigma 24 -105 I concluded that my crap 28-300 was just as good from 28-70 where the majority of wedding pictures are taken and when at 300 I was only interested in the central definition which was well in the DXO green.
    So I think I can carry on cropping that central region at 300mm containing the wedding rings and save some money .
    But of course to do this I need those mega pixels ...MP do count .

    Heck if all you want is pixel density per focal length buy one of those 50+MP smartphones, a set of lens adaptors from Amazon and you're all set, they got chunk loads of pixels per inch and you won't need to carry an SLR anymore. :lol: I mean quality obviously isn't anything you or your clients care about, so why use DSLR at all?
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • vtc2002vtc2002 Posts: 364Member
    @heartyfisher No apology needed. You make a good point, having a lot of MP is not needed for every type of photography. I agree with Peachblack for his type of photography that the more MP the better. There are other types of photography where that may not be the case. I think most photographers would take a Pulitzer as a major accomplishment regardless of how many MP their camera had.
    "The truth is I think MP in photography is relatively unimportant.. it is whatever camera you have... "...and be there""
    I would add the person behind the camera as well. Some times capturing the decisive moment can be by being at the right place at the right time but having the skill to execute the shot usually requires some skill but certainly does not exclude the person capturing that one in a life time shot.
    @donaldejose I believe you are right concerning the cellphone. Cellphone cameras have will continue to improve in quality so it is a matter of time before some one is at the right time and place to capture an image worthy of a Pulitzer.
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,451Member
    PB PM said
    I mean quality obviously isn't anything you or your clients care about, so why use DSLR at all?

    How do you get these strange ideas? If the centre of my lens is sharp and I only need a 100% crop then clearly I need sufficient pixel density to hold the quality. Bit like bird photography.
    I was researching using a 24-105 and a 70-200 but 24 mm is not wide enough .I currently cover 14-300mm and have analysed how many times I use what focal length during a wedding .If I went with the 70-200 I would be carrying that weight for minimal number of shots while at present I only carry the light Samyang 14mm for about 50 shots
    Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.