All these new 'big megapixel' cameras actually neccesary?
Discussion
There seems to have been a glut of big megapixel Nikons released recently.
From the 36.3 MP D800 at the higher end of the range right down to the new entry level consumer model the D3200 at a whopping 24.2 MP.
I thought the 'megapixel race' was over a couple of years ago?
Where is it going to end? Entry consumer models with 40 MP and staggering file sizes?
I shoot with a D90 and a selection of nice glass, which I am extremely happy with, but at 13 MP... I'm starting to feel inferior, and I'm not even sure the inferiority complex is justified!
It isn't helped by the fact that Joe Public thinks unequivocally that more megapixels means better camera and better photos. This was clearly demonstrated a few weeks ago when I had been asked to shoot a car show for the organisers, and I spent the morning snapping away, using my best technique and a few different lenses to get the shots I wanted, when I got chatting to a girlfriend of one of the organisers who was wandering around behind me taking similar photos to me on her D3100 and 18-55 kit lens.
She proceeded to tell me that she wanted to be a photographer, and that there wasn't really any need for me to have been asked to take the photos because she too had a DSLR and her camera was better than mine because it was "one of the new ones with 14 megapixels".
I tried to give her some advice on lenses but she seemed to deem them an unnecessary expense.
I recently watched a youtube video that GFWilliams posted, where he stated frankly that whilst he wouldn't say no to a D800, he had no intention of rushing out and buying one to replace his D700 as he simply didn't want the enormous images it would produce. They much be slower to copy, transfer, load and save.
I fear they will also simply be too big for speedy processing and editing.
I talked to a photography teacher yesterday who confused me even more by discussing the issues of new high resolution sensors actually making a number of previously decent lenses look bad! He cited the D7000 and 'too good for most of the DX lenses'... I'm still a little baffled by this!
Out of interest I compared the spec of the new D3200 with my D90, and pretty much the only area that is improved over my camera is the number of pixels. Nothing else of importance. Frame rate and number of AF points are all the same etc. in fact the D90 has things that are far more useful to me such as the in body AF motor and the top LCD screen.
I don't think I'll be changing for a while yet unless the D7000 came down in price a little.
File sizes are must be a real concern for some heavy shooters who need to store and process thousands of shots?
What do you think?
From the 36.3 MP D800 at the higher end of the range right down to the new entry level consumer model the D3200 at a whopping 24.2 MP.
I thought the 'megapixel race' was over a couple of years ago?
Where is it going to end? Entry consumer models with 40 MP and staggering file sizes?
I shoot with a D90 and a selection of nice glass, which I am extremely happy with, but at 13 MP... I'm starting to feel inferior, and I'm not even sure the inferiority complex is justified!
It isn't helped by the fact that Joe Public thinks unequivocally that more megapixels means better camera and better photos. This was clearly demonstrated a few weeks ago when I had been asked to shoot a car show for the organisers, and I spent the morning snapping away, using my best technique and a few different lenses to get the shots I wanted, when I got chatting to a girlfriend of one of the organisers who was wandering around behind me taking similar photos to me on her D3100 and 18-55 kit lens.
She proceeded to tell me that she wanted to be a photographer, and that there wasn't really any need for me to have been asked to take the photos because she too had a DSLR and her camera was better than mine because it was "one of the new ones with 14 megapixels".
I tried to give her some advice on lenses but she seemed to deem them an unnecessary expense.
I recently watched a youtube video that GFWilliams posted, where he stated frankly that whilst he wouldn't say no to a D800, he had no intention of rushing out and buying one to replace his D700 as he simply didn't want the enormous images it would produce. They much be slower to copy, transfer, load and save.
I fear they will also simply be too big for speedy processing and editing.
I talked to a photography teacher yesterday who confused me even more by discussing the issues of new high resolution sensors actually making a number of previously decent lenses look bad! He cited the D7000 and 'too good for most of the DX lenses'... I'm still a little baffled by this!
Out of interest I compared the spec of the new D3200 with my D90, and pretty much the only area that is improved over my camera is the number of pixels. Nothing else of importance. Frame rate and number of AF points are all the same etc. in fact the D90 has things that are far more useful to me such as the in body AF motor and the top LCD screen.
I don't think I'll be changing for a while yet unless the D7000 came down in price a little.
File sizes are must be a real concern for some heavy shooters who need to store and process thousands of shots?
What do you think?
Edited by NinjaPower on Thursday 19th April 10:50
I have a D800 on order. It should be good for what I do (landscapes). It'll also mean I can crop an image down significantly, but still have a decent res file to use.
Both my cameras are full frame, and I have the best glass Nikon sell, which does make a big difference.
I do however regularly tell people (who brag about 8 mp camera phones) that if they had half the pixels, the resulting image would probably be better, not worse. Pixels have been a marketing ploy for a long time now.
Both my cameras are full frame, and I have the best glass Nikon sell, which does make a big difference.
I do however regularly tell people (who brag about 8 mp camera phones) that if they had half the pixels, the resulting image would probably be better, not worse. Pixels have been a marketing ploy for a long time now.
Short answer, yes. Even these resolutions are not quite up to the level of detail you can achieve with film, although it is getting there.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153....
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153....
GetCarter said:
I have a D800 on order. It should be good for what I do (landscapes). It'll also mean I can crop an image down significantly, but still have a decent res file to crop down
I can definitely see the point for people such as yourself that wish to photograph landscapes and panoramas, and have the option to crop and print large sizes, but for the average consumer I'm not so sure.NinjaPower said:
I shoot with a D90 and a selection of nice glass, which I am extremely happy with, but at 13 MP... I'm starting to feel inferior, and I'm not even sure the inferiority complex is justified!
Pfffft! Look at you showing off with your 13mp! Some of us only have 8 and 11!
nellyleelephant said:
NinjaPower said:
I shoot with a D90 and a selection of nice glass, which I am extremely happy with, but at 13 MP... I'm starting to feel inferior, and I'm not even sure the inferiority complex is justified!
Pfffft! Look at you showing off with your 13mp! Some of us only have 8 and 11!
I'm "stuck" with 12.1 too, well it's the same sensor
It's inevitable resolutions will get higher. Still, that was a pretty funny comment from the girl with her better camera = better pictures attitude, she probably went home and told all her friends how much better she was than you, then set up a "photography business" page on facebook, haha
It's inevitable resolutions will get higher. Still, that was a pretty funny comment from the girl with her better camera = better pictures attitude, she probably went home and told all her friends how much better she was than you, then set up a "photography business" page on facebook, haha
Canon seem to have left the megapixel battle with their latest top end SLRs and I hope they continue to stay out of it. I'd much rather they focus on other areas such as further improving high ISO performance.
For my work the 21 megapixels from a 5D mk ii is plenty with lots of scope for cropping if needed. It does take quite a while to get a couple of thousand raw files from a shoot transferred from flash cards onto the hard drive though, so more megapixels (50% more from a D800) is just going to slow down transfer times further and probably result in needing a more powerful editing computer so that the workflow doesn't slow down.
It will be interesting to see what happens for the next generation of top end SLR's - will Canon feel the need to jump back in or will Nikon say they gone far enough?
For my work the 21 megapixels from a 5D mk ii is plenty with lots of scope for cropping if needed. It does take quite a while to get a couple of thousand raw files from a shoot transferred from flash cards onto the hard drive though, so more megapixels (50% more from a D800) is just going to slow down transfer times further and probably result in needing a more powerful editing computer so that the workflow doesn't slow down.
It will be interesting to see what happens for the next generation of top end SLR's - will Canon feel the need to jump back in or will Nikon say they gone far enough?
davepoth said:
Short answer, yes. Even these resolutions are not quite up to the level of detail you can achieve with film, although it is getting there.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153....
Erwin Puts is a well respected expert in the field but that analysis - now 3 years old - based on Leica's first large sensor digital camera clearly requires some pretty seem pixel peeping after an extended and complex process that seems to involve a number of variables.http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153....
For practical purposes unless undertaking Fine Art archival work or planning to print very large indeed for an intricately detailed subject I doubt his finding matters much even for top of the pile Pro photographers. At least not for practical commercial purposes.
I suspect that things may have moved on. It's interesting none the less.
NinjaPower said:
File sizes are must be a real concern for some heavy shooters who need to store and process thousands of shots?
What do you think?
Yep, file sizes when shooting large numbers of images are indeed a concern. Maybe less so if you're not shooting high volumes and not attempting large panoramas/stitches or extended HDR processing.What do you think?
I suppose one could throw extra money at the problem and buy bigger disks, more powerful computers and the latest greatest card readers to go with whatever software has the fastest file ingestion methods.
Of course this really only concerns RAW shooters and more recently, perhaps, those who insist on Large Fine JPGS. I would imagine the young lady with her DSLR and kit lens may be using a 'social media' size settings for her jpgs so many of these consideration will be of little consequence to her. This would also be true for probably over 90% of camera buyers. In fact for about 80% of camera buyers the whole question is probably moot on the basis that they may never take more than a few shots during their ownership of the camera.
Just my observations, others may see things differently.
And then there's HD video .....
GetCarter said:
nellyleelephant said:
NinjaPower said:
I shoot with a D90 and a selection of nice glass, which I am extremely happy with, but at 13 MP... I'm starting to feel inferior, and I'm not even sure the inferiority complex is justified!
Pfffft! Look at you showing off with your 13mp! Some of us only have 8 and 11!crmcatee said:
GetCarter said:
Out of interest I just looked, and in the past week I have taken over 1400 photos and about 20 mins of 1080i vid.
I need to stay in more!
Is your shutter still stuck down. I'd get that fixed if I were you I need to stay in more!
I have the same problem with cars... just can't take my finger off the 'buy' button.GetCarter said:
Out of interest I just looked, and in the past week I have taken over 1400 photos and about 20 mins of 1080i vid.
I need to stay in more!
But hang on, you would probably shoot just as many from your lounge and bedroom ....! I need to stay in more!
At a race meeting I probably (excessively) rattle up about 3000 frames per day, +/- a few.
10Mp sensor giving file sizes between 10Mb and maybe 15 Mb depending on content and ISO settings. 32Gb or more per day.
When I tried an 18Mp Canon 7D the files were up to about 24Mb (from memory). Copying the cards for storage and backup in the evening (and freeing them for re-use the next day) took all evening using USB2. It was a factor in my decision not to go down that route. Plus I would have needed to spend another £200 or more on fast CF cards and about double the total effort if shooting the same number of images. PP times increased as well of course.
It's all a bit of a balancing act if one is shooting high(ish) volumes.
LongQ said:
davepoth said:
Short answer, yes. Even these resolutions are not quite up to the level of detail you can achieve with film, although it is getting there.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153....
Erwin Puts is a well respected expert in the field but that analysis - now 3 years old - based on Leica's first large sensor digital camera clearly requires some pretty seem pixel peeping after an extended and complex process that seems to involve a number of variables.http://www.imx.nl/photo/technique/page153/page153....
For practical purposes unless undertaking Fine Art archival work or planning to print very large indeed for an intricately detailed subject I doubt his finding matters much even for top of the pile Pro photographers. At least not for practical commercial purposes.
I suspect that things may have moved on. It's interesting none the less.
I don’t really get it myself. Yes it would be nice to be able to crop the crap out of a snap without losing too much quality but realistically the only reason you would ever need to do that was if you cocked up the composition in the first place. Also the file sizes are rather large, (according to a quick browse on Google) shooting in RAW at full resolution will leave you with file sizes ranging from 40mb to 80mb. That’s a maximum of 25 photo’s per GB of memory, that’s a lot of memory cards for a full days shooting. This also has a negative effect on FPS, transfer time etc. Blah, blah, blah anywho for me personally, the cons outweigh the pros.
However I do see the point, and can understand why Landscape photographers and Pro’s who need to go big etc would benefit from it. I certainly don’t think it’s a bad thing, it’s progression and that’s always a positive. Hell you could always turn the settings down and shoot at a lower resolution if it becomes a problem.
Each to their own, but for me, there’s just not enough of a benefit.
However I do see the point, and can understand why Landscape photographers and Pro’s who need to go big etc would benefit from it. I certainly don’t think it’s a bad thing, it’s progression and that’s always a positive. Hell you could always turn the settings down and shoot at a lower resolution if it becomes a problem.
Each to their own, but for me, there’s just not enough of a benefit.
I went from my first SLR (D50) with 6.1 to a D7000 16.2, mainly because I wanted to be able to print larger than I thought would work from 6.1. Seeing the images from my D7000 on a 46" HD TV has pretty much confirmed I made the right decision, I just want to get some printed now! I'm not sure I would ever need more than 16.2 but I'm far from a pro.
nonuts said:
I went from my first SLR (D50) with 6.1 to a D7000 16.2, mainly because I wanted to be able to print larger than I thought would work from 6.1. Seeing the images from my D7000 on a 46" HD TV has pretty much confirmed I made the right decision, I just want to get some printed now! I'm not sure I would ever need more than 16.2 but I'm far from a pro.
You realise that your HD TV is showing you roughly a 2mp image right? Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff