Who's for 50 Megapixels?

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 22:38:04 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

and, espcially with 50MB
files it would not be long before whatever I bought now would be too
small. That's why I referred to it as "soon-to-be-obsolete".

a 4 tb drive holds around 80,000 50mb photos.

if you shoot 16,000 photos per year, you'll fill that in about 5 years.

i don't know what you consider 'not be long' but in 5 years, you'll be
wanting to replace the drive anyway because the chance of a drive
failure starts to go up dramatically.

Agreed.

But I'm not made of gold you know.

you just bought a d750. you can afford a few 4tb drives.

someone who can afford a 50 mp camera can certainly afford the drives.

Your logic is flawed.

I have just bought a D750. I can't afford *anything*.

then you should not have bought a d750.

Why on earth do you say that?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , philo
writes:

50 MP camera might be good for producing ten-foot-tall prints.

But only if you view (part of) them up close.

In article , Alan Browne
says...
24 - 50MP is only 44% more resolved detail

It's more than twice the pixel count.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Eric Stevens
says...
I am running out of room on parts of the 970 GB I have on my main
computer

Then get a 2TB drive. Seagate has one (2.5", 9.5mm height i.e. should
fit into most notebooks except the very slim ones).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Alan Browne wrote:

Davoud:
Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

Eric Stevens:
I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the
D810 (36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't
want all those humongous files filling up my system when they
didn't give me anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion
applies in spades to 24MP vs 50MP.

Quite agree.

24 -50MP is only 44% more resolved detail

How did you do the math to arrive at that percentage?

--
Sandman

Sandman wrote:
In article , Alan Browne wrote:
24 -50MP is only 44% more resolved detail

How did you do the math to arrive at that percentage?


I imagine he did the same as anyone else who knows how.

You divide the square root of 50 by the square root of 24.

Peter.
:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Alan Browne
says...
24 - 50MP is only 44% more resolved detail

It's more than twice the pixel count.

Actually the resolution will be about 1.5 times. The
5D3 can resolve approximately 80 line pairs per millimeter,
while the new 5DS can resolve about 121 lp/mm.

Just for references sake, here is a chart of various cameras:


Mfgr/Model lp/mm
========== =====
Canon 5D3 80
Nikon D800 103
Nikon D810 103
Canon 5DS 121
Canon 7DII 122
Nikon D7100 128
Nikon D3200 130

There are several points worth noting. The Canon 5D3 is
a low resolution camera, relative to other recent
models. The Canon 5DS is significantly (~18%), but not
overwhelmingly, higher resolution than the two similar
models from Nikon. While the Canon 5DS is close to the
APS-C sensor in the Canon 7DII, neither are as great as
the recent Nikon APS-C sensors.

All of which suggests that while the 5DS is a break
through for Canon, it is not in terms of the entire
market. And we can almost certainly expect Nikon to
replace the D810 (shortly after the D5 arrives next
fall) with something that probably will have resolution
even greater than the D3200.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Alfred Molon
writes:

In article , Alan Browne
says...
24 - 50MP is only 44% more resolved detail

It's more than twice the pixel count.

Yes, but if one has twice the number of pixels, then the increase in
resolution in one dimension is the square root of two, which is
1.414..., so 44% more is not far off the mark.

On 2015.02.06 18:57 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 18:05:01 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2015.02.06 17:43 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 12:27:12 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Which of you will buy one of the new Canon 50.3 MP DSLRs? Why?

I have just bought a Nikon D750 (24MP). I thought abot the the D810
(36MP) but decided that (a) I didn't need it and (b) I didn't want all
those humongous files filling up my system when they didn't give me
anything extra that I wanted. That conclusion applies in spades to
24MP vs 50MP.

Quite agree.

24 - 50MP is only 44% more resolved detail so not really noticeable for
99% of photographs that 99% of photographers do.

One would also need the better lenses to take advantage of it all.

As to file size, I think storage per unit of money has outpaced pixel
density, generally, so no biggie there...

I am running out of room on parts of the 970 GB I have on my main
computer and the 1.8TB external drive is nearly full. The 500 GB
shared drive on my secondary computer has already overflowed and had
to have some stuff chucked off. It's getting to the stage with the
various backup strategies that my computers spends as much time
shifting stuff around as they do working. I don't to make things worse
and I don't want to spend money on soon-to-be-obsolescent network
storage.

I have 10 TB of external storage. And it's coming due for an update.
To be sure, some of that is redundancy (several backups, and Time
Machine alternates between two external drives each backup cycle - every
hour).

I have business files as well that are Dropboxed (at work), so they are
manually backed up here once a week to two drives and to another
computer. (slightly less than a GB).

Disk storage is cheap.

You can also look into cloud storage but that has issues of bandwidth,
at least for the first push out.

--
"Your net worth to the world is usually
determined by what remains after your
bad habits are subtracted from your good ones."
Benjamin Franklin

Peter Irwin wrote:
Sandman wrote:
In article , Alan Browne wrote:
24 -50MP is only 44% more resolved detail

How did you do the math to arrive at that percentage?


I imagine he did the same as anyone else who knows how.

You divide the square root of 50 by the square root of 24.

That does give how much area is increased, but it doesn't give
the right numbers for resolution.

The 5D3 produces an image with 5760 pixels across. The 5DS
image is 8688 pixels across. Dividing those two give 1.508x
the resolution.

Divide either number by 2 times the sensor width (nominally
36mm, which isn't exact but is close enough) to get the number
of line pairs per millimeter, which is the technically correct
measure of resolution.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)