STATISTIC:how many megapixels enough for you?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tiresia2@hotmail.it, Jul 30, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
    And you?

    (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
    , Jul 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> wrote in message
    news:...

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


    4.1
    Adrian Boliston, Jul 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

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


    5,984,187 no more and no less.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Jul 30, 2006
    #3
  4. Rutger Guest

    <> schreef in bericht
    news:...
    >
    >
    > I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
    > And you?
    >
    > (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
    >


    I've got 8, and nothing to be desired of (in terms of Mp)

    Rutger


    --
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/zwaarddrager/
    Rutger, Jul 30, 2006
    #4
  5. Hebee Jeebes Guest

    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


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
    > And you?
    >
    > (Ah,excuse me...Copiryght by phil askey)
    >
    Hebee Jeebes, Jul 31, 2006
    #5
  6. Bill Hilton Guest


    > wrote:
    > I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
    > And you?


    Two more megapixels than the guy next to me and I'm happy ...
    Bill Hilton, Jul 31, 2006
    #6
  7. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
    >> And you?

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


    That only works at the 4MP level.

    You need about a 25% increase in linear resolution to make a noticeable
    difference; for example, I can't tell the difference between 5D (12.5MP) and
    1Dsmk2 (16MP) prints. Next to each other on the screen at 100%, the 12%
    increase in linear resolution is noticeable, but it doesn't translate into
    noticeably better textures or detail in prints. (I was irritated that Canon
    shortchanged the cheapskate 5D users and didn't give us the same sensor they
    used in the 1Dsmk2, so I spent a lot of time with my nose on the prints.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Who never misses a chance to write something nerdy in response to light
    humor in
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 31, 2006
    #7
  8. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:38:29 GMT, Joseph Meehan wrote:

    >> I prefer max 6 megapixel (but no noise).
    >> And you?

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


    Oh my. I hope that your camera is one that can map out bad pixels
    if and when they eventually appear. True pixel purists wouldn't
    even tolerate that operation.

    :)
    ASAAR, Jul 31, 2006
    #8
  9. 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).

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 31, 2006
    #9
  10. On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:28:26 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:

    > 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
    Raphael Bustin, Jul 31, 2006
    #10
  11. "Raphael Bustin" <> 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
    David J. Littleboy, Jul 31, 2006
    #11
  12. ASAAR Guest

    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) :)
    ASAAR, Jul 31, 2006
    #12
  13. Annika1980 Guest

    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
    Annika1980, Jul 31, 2006
    #13
  14. In article <>,
    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.
    Kevin McMurtrie, Jul 31, 2006
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter Guest

    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
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> 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?
    Ron Hunter, Jul 31, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    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.
    , Jul 31, 2006
    #16
  17. Helen Guest

    "Joseph Meehan" <> wrote in message
    news:Fxazg.60116$...
    > 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.
    Helen, Jul 31, 2006
    #17
  18. On 30 Jul 2006 13:38:36 -0700, 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/
    John A. Stovall, Jul 31, 2006
    #18
  19. Raphael Bustin wrote:

    > On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 20:28:26 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark)" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> 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
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jul 31, 2006
    #19
  20. Bill Hilton Guest

    >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
    Bill Hilton, Jul 31, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    500
  2. Silverstrand

    Are You a Gaming Statistic?

    Silverstrand, Oct 6, 2006, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    605
    Silverstrand
    Oct 6, 2006
  3. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    330
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    723
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page