Megapixel Question

To my mind you only have to look at the professionals, regardless of all the
clever rationalisations, no professional photographer is still shooting
with his old 2MP DSLR.

It's kind of like the old argument about how fast a PC needs to be, I
remember all the discussion on how no one needs to move to a 12MHz machine
when the 8MHz ones can do everything just fine !!!

D

Crow T Robot wrote:

I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found
there indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for
opinions.

Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality?
Noticeable? I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is
preserved from the original?

Pete D wrote:

Why the condescending tone? I was responding to a question about how much
of a difference a couple of additional megapixels would make, and you have
turned it into an occasion for insults.


LOL.



That will make it better Pete.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Ray Fischer wrote:
Pete D wrote:
Very well and good and I am sure you are more than happy using your 2MP
camera, personally I need all the help I can get.

A 50MP camera won't make you a good photographer and won't make your
pictures sharp or interesting.

You could just as well say using good fine grain film would not make
you photos sharp or interesting, and yet would you really want to use
ISO 800 print film? I don't know about you but I used slow film when I
shoot film to allow me to get a fairly sharp image.

If the number of pixels does not matter why not use a cell phone for
all your photos? The number of pixels does matter if you make large
prints and want them to look sharp, or is there something wrong with
wanting sharp prints?

Scott

"D Russell" wrote in message
...

To my mind you only have to look at the professionals, regardless of all
the
clever rationalisations, no professional photographer is still shooting
with his old 2MP DSLR.


I shoot primarily film. I have over a dozen 35mm bodies and 18 prime
lenses. I am reluctant to chuck all that and try to reproduce it with
digital equipment. For one thing, the cost would outrageous. For another
thing, I like working with prime lenses, and they are not readily available
for digital cameras. Virtually everything is a zoom. Finally I really
enjoy my classic gear, and there is no compelling reason for me to start out
all over again.

I use my 2.3 mp digicam for snapshots and mundane stuff, such as home
inventory shots. For that purpose, it serves my needs just fine. For me,
the advantages of digital photography lie in the post-shoot digital darkroom
editing, not so much in the image capture stage.

So I am not in any way suggesting that a 2 MP camera would be appropriate
for serious amateur or professional applications. But in my case, my film
scanner has, in a sense, turned my film cameras into digital cameras, and I
have no intention of "upgrading."

There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. "Going digital" does not
necessarily represent the best alternative for every person.

Scott W wrote:

A 50MP camera won't make you a good photographer and won't make your
pictures sharp or interesting.

You could just as well say using good fine grain film would not make
you photos sharp or interesting, and yet would you really want to use
ISO 800 print film? I don't know about you but I used slow film when I
shoot film to allow me to get a fairly sharp image.

I often lust after some of the higher megapixel cameras like the
1DsMKII or even the 5D.
The perception is that if I buy one of these I'll automatically get
lots of awesome shots.
To combat this feeling I pretend that I have these cameras out in my
car. Then I ask myself what kinds of great pics will I get with them
that I can't get now? That usually pacifies my lust for a short time.
The truth is that having one of these cameras wouldn't guarantee me
great pics, but it would make every shot I take from now on
incrementally better.

For the shooting I do, a big sharp telephoto like a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4
would probably benefit me the most. And I'll continue to lust after the
85mm f/1.2L II, as well.
For portraits, ya know.
Someday .....

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
.. .
Pete D wrote:

Why the condescending tone? I was responding to a question about how
much
of a difference a couple of additional megapixels would make, and you
have
turned it into an occasion for insults.


LOL.



That will make it better Pete.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0



Couldn't make it worse. You did read his originnal post?

And lo, Annika1980 emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

Scott W wrote:

A 50MP camera won't make you a good photographer and won't make your
pictures sharp or interesting.

You could just as well say using good fine grain film would not make
you photos sharp or interesting, and yet would you really want to use
ISO 800 print film? I don't know about you but I used slow film when I
shoot film to allow me to get a fairly sharp image.

I often lust after some of the higher megapixel cameras like the
1DsMKII or even the 5D.
The perception is that if I buy one of these I'll automatically get
lots of awesome shots.
To combat this feeling I pretend that I have these cameras out in my
car. Then I ask myself what kinds of great pics will I get with them
that I can't get now? That usually pacifies my lust for a short time.
The truth is that having one of these cameras wouldn't guarantee me
great pics, but it would make every shot I take from now on
incrementally better.

For the shooting I do, a big sharp telephoto like a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4
would probably benefit me the most. And I'll continue to lust after the
85mm f/1.2L II, as well.
For portraits, ya know.
Someday .....

Unfortunately--and I speak from experience--the 5D will not
automatically give you lots of awesome shots. But what it *will* do is
make your 15mm fisheye suddenly look drop-dead gorgeous.

But that's neither here nor there. Let us not also forget the brand
new EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. Talk about lust. Only $1,500!

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

Aaron wrote:
Unfortunately--and I speak from experience--the 5D will not
automatically give you lots of awesome shots. But what it *will* do is
make your 15mm fisheye suddenly look drop-dead gorgeous.

But that's neither here nor there. Let us not also forget the brand
new EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. Talk about lust. Only $1,500!

I really don't see how anyone is going to need the f/1.2 lens, its MTF
curves look pretty bad and even at f/8, the 50mm f/1.4 looks much
better.

I can't see that less then 1/2 stop is going to be worth the loss in
sharpness and not even close to the $1500 the thing cost. But I am
sure some will buy it simply because it is the fastest.

Scott

And lo, Scott W emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
Aaron wrote:
Unfortunately--and I speak from experience--the 5D will not
automatically give you lots of awesome shots. But what it *will* do is
make your 15mm fisheye suddenly look drop-dead gorgeous.

But that's neither here nor there. Let us not also forget the brand
new EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. Talk about lust. Only $1,500!

I really don't see how anyone is going to need the f/1.2 lens, its MTF
curves look pretty bad and even at f/8, the 50mm f/1.4 looks much
better.

I can't see that less then 1/2 stop is going to be worth the loss in
sharpness and not even close to the $1500 the thing cost. But I am
sure some will buy it simply because it is the fastest.

Scott

It's true, the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L have very similar MTF
characteristics[1][2], but as an owner of the 50/1.4, I can attest to
its *pronounced* vignette, and unless you're willing to take your
wonderful full-frame images and crop them to APS-size or attempt some
post-production to reverse the effect, the 50/1.2 might be worth it if
you want a lightweight, sharp, very fast portrait lens.

I used the 50/1.4 happily on my 10D for a few years and took some of
my favorite photos with it, but with the 5D the effect is completely
different.

[1] EF 50mm f/1.4 - http://snipurl.com/14uxx
[2] EF 50mm f/1.2 - http://snipurl.com/14uxy

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

On 2006-11-28 00:06:20 -0600, "jeremy" said:

There is obviously SOME degree of difference, but it may be so slight
as to go unnoticed. The following piece hardly represents the last
word on the subject, but I found it to be thought provoking:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Thought provoking yes. I liked what he said about the Holgas, I hadn't
seen those before. They're funky! And I think he's right on the mark
with his basic idea, that it takes a *large* difference in pixel count
to be noticeable. In other words, the difference between a 6MP camera
and a 10MP camera is not much more than splitting hairs.

However, I also found some bits to disagree with.

Ignore me. Just look here for why a magazine like Arizona Highways
simply does not accept images from digital cameras for publication
since the quality is not good enough, even from 16 megapixel cameras,
to print at 12 x 18." Arizona highways doesn't even accept 35mm film,
and rarely medium format film; they usually only print from 4 x 5"
large format film.

Well now. Who has been arguing that their 6MP DSLR is better than
medium or *large* format film? Not I. I have no experience with
medium or large film formats, and am unqualified to even get into that
subject. However. . . I have seen opinions from other people who
found that 11+ MP digital cameras could rival medium format film.

Check this: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/News/Oct%2004/Bronica.htm

Furthermore, I should note that Texas Highways magazine accepts digital
images and apparently has no problem with them. Here's a quote from
their website:

Our first choice for many Texas Highways’ story topics will remain
color transparency film, particularly for landscapes, nature and other
similar subjects. Chromes are still easier for me to edit, quickly; and
they still allow us a target to aim at in the digital proofing process.
However, today’s high-megapixel digital cameras are capable of
delivering excellent reproduction when skillfully used; and in fact
will perform better than film in low-light and mixed-light scenes.

Additionally, many photographers like the instant feedback digital
cameras deliver, as well as the advantage of saving film expense. In
capable hands, there’s no reason a decent 5 megapixel or greater camera
should not deliver a comparable-to-film image for reproduction in our
magazine.

--
Tony Belding, Hamilton Texas