Megapixels surely I'm wrong ? Are we being suckered ?

[Terrywoodenpic]

Even a 26 mpx sensor produces sharper and more detailed images than one cold ever have expected from film
And lenses for digital cameras have had to be considerably upgraded to take advantages of even this pixel count.
Once again lenses are having to be re-optomised for the newer 40 and 50+ sensors.

However for most photographers this is all academic, and they will never make full use of these capabilities, nor need to.

One can expect more attention to be placed on other aspects of sensor and image quality. Especially tonal quality and dynamic range. And speed of read out to enable the use of global shutters.

As sensors are already capable of capturing single photons, there is less options for improving low light capture, however there is considerable scope for advances in low light processing using Ai.
Captured photons at that level are in the realms of quantum effects, and will always be random in nature and difficult to distinguish from electronic noise.

 

[artyman]

Who remembers 1600 ISO film with grain the size of golf balls

 

[ancient_mariner]

Who remembers 1600 ISO film with grain the size of golf balls

I'd used Tmax 3200 for some band work. For high ISO I'd normally use medium format, but even at 100, 35mm never felt good enough for anything bigger than 10x8. That was in the late 1980s.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

100, 35mm never felt good enough for anything bigger than 10x8. That was in the late 1980s.

In the late 1960s I did some 6 foot prints of staff members for a company lobby.

Using Tri-X in a Nikon F, printed on grade 5 paper, they were mostly a blur but from 8 or 10 feet away, they achieved the art director's intention.
If you can remember the 'sixties, you may well have been there but you might wish you weren't!

 

[ancient_mariner]

My father had a Fuji half frame camera because it was more cost effective. This was unfortunate, because image quality, even on 5x3.5 enprints was terrible. It makes going through family photos so disappointing when someone's face isn't clear or you can't make out details.

The 1960s were fine at the time, but technology has moved on a long way, and I wouldn't want to treat what was acceptable then as a standard against which to assess what is acceptable now. That's NOT a jab at you, Andrew, so much as appreciating how much better image quality is now. One could get away with a lot of things that wouldn't be ok any more, and in many areas outside photography too.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the late 1960s I did some 6 foot prints of staff members for a company lobby.

Using Tri-X in a Nikon F, printed on grade 5 paper, they were mostly a blur but from 8 or 10 feet away, they achieved the art director's intention.
If you can remember the 'sixties, you may well have been there but you might wish you weren't!

We regularly made 3 meter square prints for department store window displays from 5x7 film. On occasion I also achieved the same size from Rollie negs using Ador R14 roll film. From the pavement they looked sharp and full of detail.
Developed in Neofin blue compensating developer this single coated thin film emulsion could achieve astonishing results . This was in the late 50's.
The Adox R17 was more versatile and my favourite film at the time, also developed in Neofin blue.

 

[swanseamale47]

I think a lot of it is marketing hype. Our Sonicaon XYZ is better than the Olyfuji A43 because it has 50mp, and they are dual this and quadruple that type of pixel.
Being honest most people dont print big (really big) and even then 20mp is enough in most cases. Its the same with phones, the new whatsit has a 108mp compared to the 65mp mine has, it must be better... No consideration to other factor like lens or sensor.
Yes the extra is handy for cropping in.
Brad, I'm courious, have you tried shooting at the smallest jpeg setting on your camera and comparing the results downsized to 800 for the forum? I wonder how much if any difference it makes.

 

[woof woof]

Even a 26 mpx sensor produces sharper and more detailed images than one cold ever have expected from film

I remember an article years ago on Luminous Landscape (it may still be there) in which they talked about the then new Canon 50D and how they were for the first time seeing the fine detail from digital which they'd get from film although they did bemoan things they saw when pixel peeping and they also worried about lens resolution keeping up.

I think from the very start when I got my Fuji S602 pro zoom (it didn't last and I moved to a Canon 300D) I thought that digital was the better choice for me.

The only real annoyance with digital for me now is sensor contamination. I wish they could bring out some technical Voodoo which would make it all somehow go away.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

One could get away with a lot of things that wouldn't be ok any more, and in many areas outside photography too.

Very true.

Remember the plethora of cheap magazines, often "typeset" on an electric typewriter (the slightly upmarket versions using an IBM Golfball), with the headlines added in Letraset and the pictures all "litho-ed" because half tones were too expensive? I don't know about other places but London was (almost literally) awash with those things, often just dropped in the streets. Mind you, it could be fun if you were young and "cute" (the Scottish accent helped a lot there).

I'm neither now.

 

[jimmyjamjojo]

A 4K TV is around 8MP. I can tell you that my photos look incredibly sharp on my 49" TV even after the heaviest of crops from my 26mp sensor.

Ultimately, it comes down to how you view, but unless you're printing LARGE or wanting to crop a lot, then yeah you don't need much resolution at all.

 

[Erty]

The whole megapixel thing on phones is a bit of a con. My (admittedly crappy android) phone makes 48 MPixels from a 12 MPixels sensor (I looked up the chip) and it's photos have much less detail than a 6 MPixel D40. The tiny cheap lenses can't compete with a mighty 18-70 dx lens.

 

[swanseamale47]

Ok I just did a test out of couriousity. I shot the same pic on 18mp (the nearest I have to the 20mp Brad uses) at large jpeg, I dont know if Brad uses jpeg or raw so I just did jpeg for time sake. And again at the small jpeg setting 4.5mp claimed by Canon (I cant be arsed to do the maths)
One is 5184x3486 8.28 mb and the small is 2592x1728 2.5mb.
The results? Well at 800px resized for the forum I cant tell the difference. With a 100% I can see a small difference in detail, but it's not a fair comparrison as I had to resize the crop down to get it to the same size (my bad)
The large jpeg


The small jpeg

 

[ancient_mariner]

Ok I just did a test out of couriousity. I shot the same pic on 18mp (the nearest I have to the 20mp Brad uses) at large jpeg, I dont know if Brad uses jpeg or raw so I just did jpeg for time sake. And again at the small jpeg setting 4.5mp claimed by Canon (I cant be arsed to do the maths)
One is 5184x3486 8.28 mb and the small is 2592x1728 2.5mb.
The results? Well at 800px resized for the forum I cant tell the difference. With a 100% I can see a small difference in detail, but it's not a fair comparrison as I had to resize the crop down to get it to the same size (my bad)
The large jpeg
View attachment 432194

The small jpeg
View attachment 432195

There may be more difference if you start to manipulate the images, but perhaps not.

 

[swanseamale47]

There may be more difference if you start to manipulate the images, but perhaps not.

These have had nothing except my normal resize action. I might try pulling the shadows up later if I get chance and see if theres much difference. The more you edit, the more you tend to lose, so your probably right.

 

[justpix]

Hi, a few samples:

OLYMPUS PEN EP-1 (MFT 12MP)





LEICA M9 ("FF" 18MP)






SONY A7R2 ("FF" 42MP)





No ceteris paribus observed of course ... The pics show that in real life differences do not show clearly.

As stated above in this thread in real, normal traffic performance differences between cars do not make a great difference.

Beyond 200 hp, 300hp or 500 hp do not matter much ... ---

However, high resolution helped me when I planned poorly. I brought the wrong equipment for the location (SONY A7R2 - FE 1,8/35):






But the high MP SONY sensor allowed me to crop ... :

 

[snerkler]

In answer to the original question "are we being suckered...." I think the answer is some people are yes. Obviously there are many that are aware of the pros and cons of sensor resolution, and how much this resolution correlates to the final image. For these people some have a use for the high mpix and some don't.

However, I think it's fair to say based on conversations I have with non-enthusiasts that they invariably believe that image quality is a result of the mpix and the more you have the better the image will be.

 

[Erty]

I compared images from a D3S and a D850 raw, mraw and sraw all reduced to about the same size (sraw was slightly smaller). The D3S was very slightly less sharp, but it has an anti-alias filter which blurs things a bit. So I found that the extra megapixels gave me nothing compared to a naturally smaller resolution if it is being converted to smaller jpegs.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

Ok I just did a test out of couriousity. I shot the same pic on 18mp (the nearest I have to the 20mp Brad uses) at large jpeg

You beat me to it !

 

[Adam-G]

However, I think it's fair to say based on conversations I have with non-enthusiasts that they invariably believe that image quality is a result of the mpix and the more you have the better the image will be.

Same experience here. The majority of people like to have things simplified down to binary or numerical choice. They don't have the desire or inclination to dig into detail or weigh up all the factors.

A friend of mine watched a film at mine. 4K Blu-Ray feeding into a 65 inch OLED TV and through a 7.1.2 Dolby Atmos system.

His response was "That was amazing, I'm definitely buying your TV".

He almost exclusively watches dodgy low bitrate blu-ray rips from torrent sites and it took all my energy to persuade him an expensive TV might actually make his experience WORSE because it would be less forgiving of the poor source.

He couldn't fathom that the £20 disc was the key to the quality but was happy to throw £1000s on a TV in an instant.

 

[justpix]

Hi, looking at MP counts rationally :

Investigating the Medium Format Look

I've been a fan of digital medium format for a long time. 10 years in fact, first shooting with a Hasselblad H4-D50C, and then with the PhaseOne IQ250, only to be using my current camera with the Fuji GFX 100S. But my love for medium format has always been with the resolution available in medium...

www.lensrentals.com

A rational view can spoil the fun, of course. I am not going to buy a cam with higher MP count, because 40 MP is enough for my applications, the step to 60MP (SONY)
will not make a great difference for me, and 100MP (FUJI "MF") will entail heavy equipment.

 

[gman]

Perhaps more applicable to phone cameras, what with their integration with social media and easy online sharing. I do wonder if it would be better for a 48MP phone camera to be something in the region of 4MP instead, on the same sensor. Larger photosites for better low light performance on those tiny sensors?

 

[ancient_mariner]

Hi, looking at MP counts rationally :

Investigating the Medium Format Look

I've been a fan of digital medium format for a long time. 10 years in fact, first shooting with a Hasselblad H4-D50C, and then with the PhaseOne IQ250, only to be using my current camera with the Fuji GFX 100S. But my love for medium format has always been with the resolution available in medium...

www.lensrentals.com

A rational view can spoil the fun, of course. I am not going to buy a cam with higher MP count, because 40 MP is enough for my applications, the step to 60MP (SONY)
will not make a great difference for me, and 100MP (FUJI "MF") will entail heavy equipment.

I would like medium format, but for the look that a large sensor and longer focal lengths (and super-quality lenses) brings. 40/50mp resolution would also be nice in those circumstances, but would not be a big driver.

For me, sensor size will beat resolution, all else being equal.

 

[justpix]

1)I would like medium format, but for the look that a large sensor and longer focal lengths (and super-quality lenses) brings. 40/50mp resolution would also be nice in those circumstances, but would not be a big driver.

2)For me, sensor size will beat resolution, all else being equal.

Hi, ad 1) so do I, but I do not like the consequences, i.e. the size/weight of cameras and lenses. In my film days I had MF cameras, a ROLLEI 2.8 GX and a FUJI GS 645, I both used very little.

The same would happen to a digital "MF" FUJI, I am afraid, if I bought one.

ad 2) I agree, my wife's NIKON D700 still makes beautiful pictures.