Does SIZE really matter???

[jks]

hi,


just wanted to know how you guys feel about "mega pixels".


There is this site that says that somehow a 6mp dslr is as good as any dslr including the high end 20+ mps bodies we have now. and that we the "ordinary" person [ read as non profesional] don't need to go and buy a high megapixel camera. As doing so would just be somehow wasting money.


what do you guys think???

[elmo_2006]

In my humble opinion, and I'm sure others may elaborate further, megapixels alone will not help you take a better picture, though a higher
resolution will enable one to make larger prints. Better image quality
really comes down to sensor size.


You may find that 12MB camera may have the same size sensor as a 8MB camera, cramming more pixels into the same-sized sensor means that pixels
are actually getting smaller and thus capturing less light, resulting
in noisy images but I'm sure this is debatable.


'Bigger is better - I'm a sucker for mega-pixels'!


[H]

[Fast Glass]

6mp dslr is as good as any dslr including the high end 20+ mps bodies

Don't believe them. Thats not true.


John.

[Keith B]

I know this falls into the "pro" realm, but I've seen book publishers reject 12.8MP 5D images because they weren't large enough. I didn't agree with but somewhere someone laid down the law and some people can only follow directions and don't want to hear otherwise.

[btaylor]

As with anything in photography, I think you need all the facts before making a decision on how well a camera will perform.


I don't believe megapixels alone can ever be used to define the quality of photos that will be generated by a camera. Other factors include sensor size, (and thus pixel density), dynamic range, noise qualities etc etc.


It's certainly nice to have more megapixels, but there's always a trade off.

[wickerprints]

hi,


just wanted to know how you guys feel about "mega pixels".


There is this site that says that somehow a 6mp dslr is as good as any dslr including the high end 20+ mps bodies we have now. and that we the "ordinary" person [ read as non profesional] don't need to go and buy a high megapixel camera. As doing so would just be somehow wasting money.


what do you guys think???

By your definition--and by my own reckoning--I count myself as an "ordinary" person. Photography is not my profession and it is highly unlikely it ever will be. Yet I have what would be considered by many to be "professional-level" gear. Why?


Because it's the best imaging device I can afford, and every photo is an opportunity to capture a moment in time that will never come again.





I don't care if all you want to do is take family snapshots, or be a tourist and take vacation photos. A photograph is a representation of time suspended, recorded for posterity. It doesn't have to be gallery quality. It just has to be the view through your eyes.


So if this is the case, why not just be happy with a cheap point-and-shoot? Or even a cameraphone? Well, if that's your vision, so be it. But I believe that if you want to capture something, do it as well as you are able to--which means investing in your gear, learning how to use it, and understanding how to convey your vision through it.





There are a lot of so-called "photographers" who amass some very impressive bits of equipment--rare lenses like the EF 50/1.0L or 200/1.8L, or who regularly switch out for the latest 1D body. But for all the money and time they spend buying and selling their gear, they don't invest time developing their personal vision and their expression of it through those remarkable tools. They can talk to you all day about sharpness or camera features, but are dumbstruck if asked what idea they were trying to communicate through a particular photo. As such they are more aptly described as collectors than photographers.


On the other hand, there are people out there who shoot with low-end equipment, who are creative and have a keen understanding of what they want to say through their photos. But it is naive to think their gear does not hold them back to some extent.


The rest of us fall somewhere in between. Yet, of the two extremes, which one do you think is "wasting" more money?

[btaylor]

There are a lot of so-called "photographers" who amass some very impressive bits of equipment--rare lenses like the EF 50/1.0L or 200/1.8L, or who regularly switch out for the latest 1D body. But for all the money and time they spend buying and selling their gear, they don't invest time developing their personal vision and their expression of it through those remarkable tools. They can talk to you all day about sharpness or camera features, but are dumbstruck if asked what idea they were trying to communicate through a particular photo. As such they are more aptly described as collectors than photographers.


On the other hand, there are people out there who shoot with low-end equipment, who are creative and have a keen understanding of what they want to say through their photos. But it is naive to think their gear does not hold them back to some extent.

I like this statement.


I've always said that just because you own a DSLR, doesn't meanyou are a photographer - but more a DSLR owner. Not until you spend every moment looking through an "imaginary viewfinder" and think about conveyinga story with your images are you a photographer. Just my thoughts.

[jks]

By your definition--and by my own reckoning--I count myself as an "ordinary" person. Photography is not my profession and it is highly unlikely it ever will be. Yet I have what would be considered by many to be "professional-level" gear. Why?


Because it's the best imaging device I can afford, and every photo is an opportunity to capture a moment in time that will never come again.


You nailed it for me with that line wickerprints

[Jordan]

Megapixel certainly isn't everything, in fact on cropped bodies I almost think a higher MP is a BAD thing... but 6MP is pushing it. I'd say that 12MP is a good number. Above that, you really need to be doing major studio or large print stuff... commercial stuff... for it to matter. Below that, you won't be too bad off, but 10-12MP is a good number. I was using my 50D for a while and then I upgraded to a 7D. My 50D I still own, just a "second camera" but yet I feel it has less noise. Why? Because of the smaller sensor. Sheesh, my Rebel XSi was pretty nice when it comes to noise!


I also agree with the statement made that if you're going to take a photo, take it right! I live in Waikiki Hawaii and I see tourists with their iPhones out or REALLY old point-and-shoots taking sunset photos and stuff.... even flip-phone camera phones and I think "WTF?!" I mean... is that photo really going to even turn out?! I like having good equipment but as was just said above, that doesn't mean you'll take a good photo. There is a young kid in the UK who does landscape and modeling photography. He's just starting out but his photography is REALLY good. He shoot with a Rebel XSi and the 18-55 kit lens, and the 50mm f/1.8 (mainly that lens). That's it. And his photography is EXCELLENT. He's been in magazines and his work looks very good.......

[Madison]

It matters depending on what your needs are.


If you want to produce higher quality museum or gallery prints at of certain dimensions: lower pixel counts will make that impossible.


If you want to publish in certain books: lower pixel counts will make that impossible (art books require different resolutions than magazines and newspapers require even less).


If I want to publish a huge print for a fashion ad: megapixels is a must. You end up without details and with pixellated images if you dont have enough image data to print at that size.








There is no right or wrong answer: it depends on you, your needs, and what your clients (if you have them) or gallery wants from you. So the one thing to do is ask YOURSELF what you need and what people need from your photography and then act accordingly.