Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: (Megapixels) War...what is it good for....

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,254
    The classic trade off .... more (smaller) pixels which are more sensitive to proper sharpness technique and don't perform as well in low light but under the right conditions will excel at providing extreme detail, very large prints and more "crop-ability" versus less (larger) pixels which will perform much better in low light and will be a bit more tolerant of less than perfect technique and usually will image at a faster frame rate. It's all about the basic physics .... you have to choose the best tool (camera) for your purpose. Maybe have one of each

  2. #12
    Senior Member Dave Throgmartin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    1,040
    Cat fur is very demanding for resolution

    Dave

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    946
    Haha, it actually does make for a good test of resolution.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    946
    Another thing is, more resolution technically doesn't increase noise per say, beyond the limits of the each pixel well's ability to collect light efficiently of course. It's the sensor size that is giving you more "Light gathering" ability. The smaller pixels allow you to magnify the already existing noise, but it's not increasing noise of the whole image. If you were to print the image the higher resolution image will be overall better than the lower res one. Although I'm sure there is a point if diminishing return because once your hitting 100,000 ISO I don't think your gonna see much difference when the whole thing is a mess of noise anyway!

    The more pixels you have it loses a small amount of efficiency. Gapless micro lenses help a lot along with other modern advances in sensor technology but there is still some loss. So in that sense smaller pixels are adding noise. But usually Cannon offers little tweaks to the sensor to try and midigate that difference with modern high res sensors.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; 05-10-2020 at 03:17 AM.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    946
    In other words just buy a dam camera and shoot!

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,254
    Quote Originally Posted by Fast Glass View Post
    In other words just buy a dam camera and shoot!
    There you go .... the best camera is the one you have in your hands!

  7. #17
    Senior Member Zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    230
    Indeed! Iíve been using the same camera since 2014 (the canon rebel t5) itís the most basic starter camera canon has, itís just got the 18 MP and itís ISO noise is super bad if it goes over 800, but I still get good shots with it!


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    John 3:16

    Canon T5(1200D) Canon EF40mm f/2.8 STM, Canon EF100mm f/2.8 MACRO. Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM

  8. #18
    Super Moderator Kayaker72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    4,573
    It is very interesting that we really do seem to be in agreement. I do not think anyone has argued for more megapixels.

    I will say, I have found a minor niche for more resolution these last 8 weeks (gulp, they have added up). But, as I have shot small birds with my 5DIV, I am occasionally finding myself cropping to ~1/9th the frame (so 1/3 horizontally and vertically). On my 5DIV that gives me a 2240 x 1493 image, or about 3.3 MPs. Playing with the math I used earlier, that would be 93 ppi if I wanted to print at 24 inches (so many people would be able to see pixels, most labs would caution against this print), at 150 ppi my max size would be 15x10 inch print and at 300 ppi my max print would be 7.5x5 inches.

    What is impressing me here is that this still is not that bad. I can crop down to 1/9th of my frame and still print an 8x10. I am still downsizing for posting on the web for anywhere other than flickr. But, somehow, if I wanted to print larger than 15x10, really, I am starting to get into trouble if I crop by that amount.

    So, there you go. A niche.

    Interesting to me, but playing with the math, the rumored 45 MP of the R5 is not that much of an improvement (1/9th of frame at 150 ppi = 12 x 18 inch image rather than 15x10 in). Really, you would have to go to the scaled up M6II resolution (FF is 82.7 MP) and then a 1/9th of a frame at 150 ppi gives you a 24x16 in print.

    I do find, with the small birds, that having room in the frame to work with helps while trying to track them as they move. So, this is a niche....someone who needs to crop to 1/9th of the frame and is printing up to 24x16 prints.

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    3,254
    I would agree completely

    No doubt the biggest challenge with small birds is getting more pixels on the subject.

    The higher megapixel sensors help to some degree as you have clearly explained....that's why I used the 5D MKIV almost exclusively in Ecuador.

    Two other factors that are perhaps even more beneficial in this particular niche situation are increasing lens focal length and reducing distance to your subject.

    Another approach is using software to "up-scale" an image.

    Both On One Resize and Topaz Labs AI Gigapixel are products that work very well at performing this task.

    I have successfully converted 8x10 images up to 16x20 with excellent results.

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B'ham WA
    Posts
    946
    I am kinda weird with birds, I do not crop. Ever. If it's not to my liking I sit around till I get what I want. Even with the 18 MP I used to have significant cropping definitely took a large impact not only in resolution but reducing contrast and snap to the image. And because I quite often shoot at higher ISO's that quite often was the worst thing about cropping.

    But to each there own, I tend to not crop.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •