Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?

Reply
Thread Tools

STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?

 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006

"Raphael Bustin" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username) wrote:
>>
>>200 MP
>>
>>(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
>>film to digital mosaics).

>
> I love my 10D but you know, there's nothing like 100
> million pixels from scanned 4x5" film.
>
> This doesn't diminish my lust for a Canon 5D.


You'd get to 100 or 200 MP a lot faster if you start with 12.7 than if you
start with 6 or 8.

The incremental number of pixels per frame would be a lot larger, since you
could use only slightly more pixels in the overlap, thus putting the
majority of the added pixels into the total. (I think, anyway.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:22:20 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>> Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...

>
> That only works at the 4MP level.


You're not working at Bill's level. One of you is thinking about
discernable quality differences and the other, oneupmanship. But
it's not clear which is which, who is who or whom is whom.

> David J. Littleboy
> Who never misses a chance to write something nerdy in response to light
> humor in
> Tokyo, Japan


Oh. Now it's so clear that it's utterly pellucid!
(and I do hope that your pun was intentional)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
> 200 MP
>


"I have a map of the United States.
It's actual size.
Maybe you've seen it?"

-Steven Wright

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kevin McMurtrie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)


The more the better. The problem is that the lenses become more
expensive, quality sensors become more expensive, and the optimal
operating conditions become more restrictive. Many people were
disappointed when the Digital Rebel first came out and nobody could beat
a 4MP quality image. That kit lens wasn't so great, people's shaking
hands generated motion blur, and use of the aperture is completely over
some people's heads.

4-6MP seems good for an novice, 6-10 for a enthusiast, and the pros will
never get enough.

I'm happy with the 8MP of my Canon 350D but I wouldn't mind having more
in my next camera. I'd buy more fixed lenses because I can't afford
ultra-sharp zooms.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ron Hunter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Hebee Jeebes wrote:
> If it was up to me 15 to 20MP. Moderate amount of noise would be fine. Makes
> the images look more real and film like.
>
> R
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
>>
>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?
>>
>> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>>

>
>

Sigh.
Now that is just what I need, to make the image more 'filmlike'. If I
wanted film, I would USE it. You probably have an old tube-type
amplifier on your stereo to provide that comforting hum and ping don't you?
 
Reply With Quote
 
mark.thomas.7@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
> And you?
>
> (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)


Forgive me but I don't get the Phil Askey bit?

Anyway, it is all about what you shoot and how big you print.

Portraits and macros look gorgeous at 13" x 19" or even larger, from
8Mp. But a detailed landscape? Nope.

If we are staying within reasonable but high expectations from 35mm
equipment, then 16Mp would be nice, but 20-50 would be nicerer. (That
may sound over the top, but as has been stated by others, to see much
of a difference you pretty well need to double the megapixels...)

And while it's very close, I still don't think the 1DSMkII quite
matches what I could do with Kodachrome 25 or the better black and
white films, in terms of pure, detail-grabbing resolution. Don't get
me wrong, in other areas it runs rings around film.. and I am talking
about projected (or drum-scanned) images here... And yes I know that
is getting much more into the realm of medium format.

But can they get =20 decent Mp out of a 35mm film frame? I dunno,
but given what Fuji manage to extract from their octagonal and
double-sensor designs, I think it's possible.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Helen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006

"Joseph Meehan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Fxazg.60116$(E-Mail Removed). ..
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>> And you?
>>

>
> 5,984,187 no more and no less.
>


I wonder what sort of camera has nearly 6 million megapixels?
I wouldn't like to try hand-holding that beast.


 
Reply With Quote
 
John A. Stovall
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
On 30 Jul 2006 13:38:36 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>
>
>I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>And you?
>
>(Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)


Unless you specify the size of the sensor this is a meaningless
question. For a 35mm film size sensor 12 in the 5D is OK but I would
like to at least go to 22. For an MF back at least 46.

For a 1.6 CMOS 8 is fine and I'll never buy another one.

Also 10 is fine for the Leica Digital M but it's a full 16bits of
color.


--
************************************************** ****

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
Raphael Bustin wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:28:26 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
>>>And you?
>>>
>>>(Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
>>>

>>
>>200 MP
>>
>>(now experimenting with changing from scanned 4x5
>>film to digital mosaics).

>
>
>
> I love my 10D but you know, there's nothing like 100
> million pixels from scanned 4x5" film.
>
> This doesn't diminish my lust for a Canon 5D.
>
>
> rafe b
> www.terrapinphoto.com


Rafe,
You know I have been a large format photographer for
about 20 years. But since May, I have done a number of
trips, including to Hawaii, the Tetons, western France,
Canyonlands and I just got back from doing Colorado wildflowers,
ALL without my 4x5! I have been doing digital mosaics,
and while there is a learning curve, which I think
I am well up on now, I can confidently say not only
can I surpass 4x5 quality both in spatial resolution
but the signal/noise and dynamic range of digital is
so much better, that I can get better images.
Also, I can get images where I couldn't with 4x5!
With the long exposures needed for 4x5, typically 1 second
or so, often there is too much movement due to wind
(especially wildflowers in the mountains). With digital,
since the field of view is small in each frame, the f/stop
can be opened up (I'm typically shooting f/16 to f/22 with
digital versus f/45 with film), and I can increase ISO
and still have less noise (e.g. ISO 200 or even 400 on my
1D Mark II), and get exposure times down to 1/20 second
and faster. It takes me only a couple of minutes to get
a picture, and my day pack weighs a lot less (32 pounds
versus 45 to 55 pounds with the large format + digital
gear I was carrying--this includes water, rain gear,
emergency kit, etc, plus a CF tripod + pano head: my
custom made head). I'm able to take "large format"
images faster (no manual focus and adjustments for
tilts) so I get more images in the field.
The downsides: 1) changing light during the couple of minutes
can cause problems. 2) large post processing effort
(I need a faster computer).
I'll be preparing an article for my website in the next
month or so. I will not get rid of my large format
gear, but I'll certainly be using it less.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2006
>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
> 200 MP
>
> Roger
> http://www.clarkvision.com


If you have 200 then I want 202 Mpixels ... see my earlier post for my
detailed explanation why ...

Bill

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Megapixels - An Explanation of Megapixels and How They AffectPhotos Rob Digital Photography 0 10-17-2012 11:31 PM
Re: Megapixels - An Explanation of Megapixels and How They AffectPhotos jdanield Digital Photography 0 10-17-2012 06:56 PM
Is 3, 3.1 megapixels enough? gerryhandke@hotmail.com Digital Photography 18 02-07-2006 08:27 AM
39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ... Bill Hilton Digital Photography 7 07-18-2005 08:37 PM
New to digital cameras: would 5.1 megapixels be enough for my needs? success_ny@yahoo.com Digital Photography 13 03-24-2005 02:50 PM



Advertisments