megapixel war.

[Manfred M]

R N Clark finds here that his definition of picture quality (AIQ) is best with a pixel size of 5 to 6 um (taking the simple view that size = pitch, which he does address elsewhere). The implication is that , by his definition, the ideal MP for any camera is purely a function of the sensor size, actually it's area.

For example, a 24mm x 14mm APS-C best has about 11MP and a 36x24 full frame about 28MP.

A follow-up to that link shows example images.

Clark makes the most compelling arguments, IMHO.

Ted

The article makes a good read and we do have to remember that he is doing some modeling here, and he does state that he feels he is accurate to about ±10% on larger sensors. The 5 µm pitch he writes about is darn close to the 4.88 µm pitch in the D800; certainly well within the measuring error. It seems to me that the Nikon sensor design team has reached a similar conclusion.

It's nice to know that we are getting darn close to having a mature design with the current generation of high end cameras. But then, I would have always agreed that sensor size is what matters more than pixel count.

[Colin Southern]

What's the PPI on that 8MP image after being printed to 22 x 44?

Between 80 and 106 depending if it's a crop or a stretch or something in between.

[pinakibaidya]

Thanks a lot John.Your words are inspiring.

[Glenn NK]

Gee Whiz...

You all are missing out on the latest bulletin from Nikon which says that all Nikon cameras stop functioning seven hours and fourty five minutes after a new model comes on the market. Canon claims that their camera are guaranteed to last at least nine and a half hours after a new model is offered before the sensor completely shuts down. However, I am not sure that Canon may not be exagerating that claim...

I posted on another forum about my old model being out of date when the new one was announced (albeit a bit more cryptically/sarcastically), and someone took it seriously.

Incidentally, the pixel density of the Nikon 800D is (36 MP/24/36) = 42,014 pixels per mm2, the Canon 7D is (18MP/22.3/14.9) = 54,173 pixels per mm2. If the 7D was made FF, it would have approx. 46.8 MP.

I'm afraid that the war will never be over.

Glenn

[lightdrunk]

No, but 11 x14, etc., is greatly enhanced.

[Arlene Lowry]

Ack! What's the PPI on that 8MP image after being printed to 22 x 44? We do this on rare occasion at the office and I have never seen it look good. Do you use any resizing software? Or, just blow it out to the printer and print 18 PPI out to 300 DPI? (er, whatever) I assume that if I print something that large, I am going to be at least 5 ft away. I can tell the difference with my prints. I have printed single images blown up and, lately, I have printed panos consisting of several stitched images so that the actual PPI is 300 (or 240) and my print DPI is the same or higher. (600 DPI on the HP FB700)

I may as well say it, I want people to get good and close if they want to.

[Arlene Lowry]

Hello, I am new to photography as well as this forum....In regards to the above post, I am wanting to know if it advisable to purchase a 24mp DSLR over a 14mp DSLR if you are wanting to blow up photos to 22.44? The difference in price of the two Nikon's I am considering is $150 USD. Thank you for your response!

[Glenn NK]

Hello, I am new to photography as well as this forum....In regards to the above post, I am wanting to know if it advisable to purchase a 24mp DSLR over a 14mp DSLR if you are wanting to blow up photos to 22.44? The difference in price of the two Nikon's I am considering is $150 USD. Thank you for your response!

Not everyone with a high pixel count camera is a winner, but sometimes someone with a low pixel count camera is a winner.

Have a look at this one of the loons; using an 8.2 MP Canon 20D (one model older than my 30D):

http://www.naturescapes.net/forums/v...p?f=3&t=227822

I didn't need reminding that my 30D is still quite capable, but the image helped in this regard.

BTW, the image is an "editor's pick".

G

[Manfred M]

Hi Arlene - Welcome to CiC. Short answer is no, but then the short answer may not be the best one to give you. When you are looking at cameras and lenses, you are making certain tradeoffs, looking for the best solution for what you are planning to do. My first question would be, which two camera models are you looking at buying and what lens(es) are you looking for? What type of pictures are you looking at taking and what in particular are you looking at printing at 22" x 44". Answering these questions might help narrow down things a bit.

I have two Nikon DSLRs; a D90 (12MP crop frame)and a D800 (36MP full frame). I would probably never use the D90 if I were going to print 22" x 44", but would not hesitate at all with images out of the D800; but would take a lot of care in taking the picture and use my best lenses to ensure that it is razor sharp. I do a lot of 17" x 22" prints and have no issues at all using the D90 for that size.

[xpatUSA]

Hello, I am new to photography as well as this forum....In regards to the above post, I am wanting to know if it advisable to purchase a 24mp DSLR over a 14mp DSLR if you are wanting to blow up photos to 22.44? The difference in price of the two Nikon's I am considering is $150 USD.

Hello Arlene,

To an extent, it depends whether you are going to view your prints at a proper distance or pore over them with magnifier in hand. What kind of printer do you use and did you mean 22x44"?

A "proper distance" in the context of the above is when the angle from your eyes to each side of the print is about 60 degs. For 44" wide (landscape) you should stand about 75" away (but I'm not sure anybody actually does that).

So, another way to look at it is to consider the limits of human vision. People can distinguish, at the very most, about 180 dots per degree (varies by gender, age, lighting and contrast). So, at the same distance of 75" you'd want 180 x 60 dots, spread across 44" = 180 x 60/44 = 245 dpi. And people with average vision (60 dots/deg) could approach the masterpiece to about 25" and still see a good print.

245 dpi is close both to 300 dpi and to 200 dpi. Let's say you go for broke - 300dpi: your camera will need to have at least 44"x300dpi horizontally = 13,200 pixels. I'm not sure they make them yet.

How about 200dpi? 44"x200dpi = 8,800 pixels. But your camera will probably make a 3:2 aspect ratio image and that works out to 52MP at 8800 pixels wide. And I haven't even mentioned cropping yet. So, big prints are hard and the printing software will have to up-size your image, more so for 12MP.

You don't really have to follow any of the above. But, for that size of print, you would prefer the 24MP DSLR, IMHO.

[Arlene Lowry]

Hi Arlene - Welcome to CiC. Short answer is no, but then the short answer may not be the best one to give you. When you are looking at cameras and lenses, you are making certain tradeoffs, looking for the best solution for what you are planning to do. My first question would be, which two camera models are you looking at buying and what lens(es) are you looking for? What type of pictures are you looking at taking and what in particular are you looking at printing at 22" x 44". Answering these questions might help narrow down things a bit.

I have two Nikon DSLRs; a D90 (12MP crop frame)and a D800 (36MP full frame). I would probably never use the D90 if I were going to print 22" x 44", but would not hesitate at all with images out of the D800; but would take a lot of care in taking the picture and use my best lenses to ensure that it is razor sharp. I do a lot of 17" x 22" prints and have no issues at all using the D90 for that size.

Thank you so much for your response! I do find it helpful, I am planning on printing stitched landscape photos, possibly on canvas. I just wondered if the D3200 Nikon was worth the extra investment. It sounds like it obviously wouldn't hurt the image quality, I just wanted to hear a better educated individual's opinion on whether it was necessary to have the higher 24mp. It sounds like if I went a little smaller on the print size it may work better if I go with the D3100 (14mp) camera, is that correct?

[Arlene Lowry]

Thanks so much Ted, as I said, I'm new to it all, but have an idea of printing landscape photos on canvas. Sounds like the higher mp is the way to go for clarity. I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate.
Arlene

[Manfred M]

Thank you so much for your response! I do find it helpful, I am planning on printing stitched landscape photos, possibly on canvas. I just wondered if the D3200 Nikon was worth the extra investment. It sounds like it obviously wouldn't hurt the image quality, I just wanted to hear a better educated individual's opinion on whether it was necessary to have the higher 24mp. It sounds like if I went a little smaller on the print size it may work better if I go with the D3100 (14mp) camera, is that correct?

If you look at the DxOMark ratings of this camera, it scores considerably better than the D3100. That being said, printing on canvas does not give the same image quality as you would on high quality paper, so having a better camera will have less of an impact for the use you are looking at.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pub...iew/Conclusion

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200

[Colin Southern]

Thanks so much Ted, as I said, I'm new to it all, but have an idea of printing landscape photos on canvas. Sounds like the higher mp is the way to go for clarity. I appreciate you taking the time to elaborate.
Arlene

It really doesn't make a lot of difference - especially with canvas. I've got dozens of canvas prints hanging on my gallery walls - some shot with a 8MP 20D - some with a 10MP Canon 1D3 - some with a 21MP Canon 1Ds3 and some with a 18MP 1DX - and you really can't tell them apart.

An optimal sharpening workflow has a far far far far bigger influence on the final quality (and yet is sadly grossly mis-managed by a vast number of photographers / printers).

Having just said all that, there's no penalty for having higher resolution source files -- and it does allow one to be able to crop more aggressively (although the "A" answer to that is to strive for better composition in the first place).

On a final note, keep in mind that because printing is a 2 dimensional thing, print resolution is one of those "square law" things. ie if you have a 14MP camera and for a given canvas size your resolution is 100PPI - and you want to print the same size image at 200 PPI then you'll need a 56MP camera (so 14 -v- 24 isn't actually all that much better). If the difference in cameras is only $150 then it probably should be an easy decision (if $150 makes you think twice, I've got some bad news for you about what's to come!!!)

Hope this helps.

[Colin Southern]

That being said, printing on canvas does give the same image quality as you would on high quality paper, so having a better camera will have less of an impact for the use you are looking at.

I think you meant DOESN'T.

[jcuknz]

I am worried that my camera Nikon D60 will be obsolete in few years!Newer technologies like mirrorless camera and,megamega pixel camera are alluring us.My question is there any relationship between increasing pixels and increasing resolution and beauty of a photograph?

What is likely to want you getting a more recent camera is, based on my experience with several cameras over the past eight or nine years, is that my older cameras though still taking excellent pictures are a bit slow and when I go through my files and spot an image that I think I can do something with for a current need, I am happy to note it was taken on just a 5Mp camera.

the other reason is the maker thinking up something which appeals to you as a useful feature which may open up a whole new field of endeavour to you.

Increased Mp orginally when I changed from 3.3Mp to 5Mp meant that I could crop a bit and a similar freedom has arisen on changing from 10Mp to 16Mp and getting a bigger sensor to boot. It means I am reasonable happy with 280mm reach instead of 430mm or 950mm with a telephoto adaptor. Equivalent angles of view as if I was using a full frame DSLR.

[Adrian]

For the sake of comparison we have three SLRs in our family: Canon 40D
(10Mp) 7D (18Mp I think) and 5DIII (around 23Mp as I recall). Makes diddly squat difference to IQ in most real world applications, as we do not produce poster size enlargements.

What does make a difference though is general handling. For example 7D focuses a LOT more quickly than the 40D and hits focus reliably much more often. 5DIII is different as it is full frame and is new to us so we can't compare, but we have done test shots of all three cameras using the same L glass (and adjusted for cropping) and for keen amateur use megapixel differences are not crucial. Ability to "see" a picture and capture it counts for far more. Post processing skill using the software is also important.

It is nice to have the latest toys and that is part of the hobby / enthusiasm I suppose.

We also have a Leica M9. I can't recall exactly how many Mp it has - nearly 40? It is not four times as good as the Canon 40D ! It is a different beast and does a different job (at a different price).

I would not worry about the camera as much as the glass and then the work you do on your computer to extract the best from your images.

I should add that I am strictly an amateur and the real photographers in the family are my wife and son (better eye).

[Manfred M]

I think you meant DOESN'T.

Totally correct Colin - I noticed the same thing when I was re-reading my post, for the very reason you give. The texture in the canvas softens the image.

[blakemcguire]

While I agree and often inform my customers that megapixels often have little impact to a final print (I am a camera salesman), I wonder if having a higher pixel count can make the grain from noise smaller, given the same print size?

[Colin Southern]

While I agree and often inform my customers that megapixels often have little impact to a final print (I am a camera salesman), I wonder if having a higher pixel count can make the grain from noise smaller, given the same print size?

Hi Blake,

In "real world" prints it's not as issue because the grain is too small for the eye to resolve up close on small prints viewed at minimal distance, and too small for the eye to resolve on large prints viewed from a normal viewing distance.

It's only an issue when folks print large and then inspect up close (which to my mind is like vacuuming a carpet and then checking how clean it is by using a magnifying glass and going over every square centimetre on your hands and knees).

I might add that in the real world there's no particular disadvantage to having more pixels either, but it's a bit like having a V8 engine instead of a 4 or 6 cylinder; in theory it's "better" but in practice it usually doesn't make any difference due to other factors.