What upper limit for megapixels?

What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe 20?
and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were taken
as well as time and date.

SS wrote:

What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe 20?
and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were taken
as well as time and date.



That mostly depends on the biggest print you want. I've had surprisingly
good 8x10's from my 3.3 MP Nikon995; so, I'd say (only slightly facetiously)
that if 8x10's are as big as you want, then every camera on the market has
more MPs than you need.

Camera vendors are in a MP race because MPs are cheap. And camera vendors have
convinced consumers that more MPs are valuable, even though -- for most P&S
users -- they are nearly worthless.
--
Cheers, Bob

"SS" wrote in message
...
What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe 20?
and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were
taken
as well as time and date.

You can't be too:

1/thin
2/rich
3/popular
4/intelligent

"Charles" a écrit dans le message de
. ..

"SS" wrote in message
...
What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it
is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe
20?
and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were
taken
as well as time and date.

You can't be too:

1/thin
2/rich
3/popular
4/intelligent

yes you can be too thin ...

Warning !!!!!!!! Nude picture (back) for an ad against anorexia (she is a
french actress btw)
http://tinyurl.com/3xk9wu

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
SS
], who wrote in article :
What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe 20?
and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were taken
as well as time and date.

In a foreseeable future, a reasonable limit for quality of shots made
by 24x36mm sensor (with an EXCEPTIONALLY good lens) would be about
equal to average shots made with 5x7in film. It is your judgement
call whether YOU need this. [*I* would.] Thats in the ballpark of
100MP.

One needs a significant change in technology to make larger sensors
affordable for amateurs. If not, then the above is as far as it gets
with the current generation of lenses, or, at least, with lenses
foreseeable in near future.

[On the other hand, with film, and with current sensors with
insanely large sensels, one does not NEED lenses which are
exceptionally sharp at their best settings. So, maybe, when a need
arises, affordable lenses will improve too.]

One data point: I would never print a poster when I was shooting with
film. With digital, ALL I print is posters (about 20M "live" pixels;
approximately what you can get with a 35MP camera).

Hope this helps,
Ilya

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:36:24 +0000, SS wrote:

What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe 20?

IMHO - about 6.


and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were taken
as well as time and date.

Price and features would be my guess - except that more MP seems to sell,
so - the sky's the limit.

On Sep 25, 2:36 pm, "SS" wrote:
What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe 20?
and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were taken
as well as time and date.

there are cameras out there with GPS built in. go look around.

[A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
Scott W
], who wrote in article :
One data point: I would never print a poster when I was shooting with
film. With digital, ALL I print is posters (about 20M "live" pixels;
approximately what you can get with a 35MP camera).

You might want to articulate just what you mean by "live" pixels.

About half of the pixels in an unprocessed digital image are "dead":
you can scale the image down to 70%, then scale it back to the
original size, and see practically no difference.

So "live" pixels measure the minimal size of a resized image which
contains "practically the same" information as the initial image. Do
you know a better term to describe this metric?

Yours,
Ilya

On Sep 25, 11:36 am, "SS" wrote:
What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography).

5mp, although I can imagine point and shoot cameras reaching 100mp
down the road.

On 2007-09-25 14:19:40 -0700, Bob Willard
said:

SS wrote:

What is going to be the reasonable limit of megapixels beyond which it is
pointless going (for amateur photography). I would have thought maybe 20?
and where then - what sort of technology? Lower noise, higher ISO etc? I
would like to see built in GPS that stores the location pictures were taken
as well as time and date.



That mostly depends on the biggest print you want. I've had surprisingly
good 8x10's from my 3.3 MP Nikon995; so, I'd say (only slightly facetiously)
that if 8x10's are as big as you want, then every camera on the market has
more MPs than you need.

Camera vendors are in a MP race because MPs are cheap. And camera vendors have
convinced consumers that more MPs are valuable, even though -- for most P&S
users -- they are nearly worthless.

I was showing a Nikon L5 to someone who was shopping for a new camera.
She made the statement "last time I bought [on the basis of Mpx]; this
time I want the [greatest optical zoom range]."

When you're more concerned with how the image actually LOOKS-- rather
than being impressed by the 12x number, or the Carl Zeiss name on a
Sony lens--it can be hard to relate to the desires of a non-critical
shutterbug, but the marketing departments are so attuned.
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic