megapixel war.

[pinakibaidya]

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?

[russellsnr]

Hi, JMO. Mega Pixels? well depends I suppose on what you are going to do with the photograph once it comes out of PP, as to is there any relationship between increasing pixels and increasing resolution and beauty of a photograph?
The photograph is taken by you the photographer so you only get out what you put in, If you have camera of say 16MP is it worth going to 21MP again IMO, NO, I am not an expert but I don't believe 5MP will make that much difference to a photograph taken in good light with a quality lens and good composition unless your going to put it on a billboard and who gets that close to a billboard?
Have a look on this site and others at older postings of photographs and see if you can see much difference.
Russ

[Boatman]

It's always nice to have the latest gadget or technology, but it comes at a cost and often times doen't really buy you much other than bragging rights. (Which for some, is very important.) As russellsnr noted, what really matters is what you are going to do with your images. If you are only going to display them on a computer screen or print 4x6 prints, the D60 will be good forever. I had a 2MP camera and its images are as good as anything I have from 8MP and 16MP cameras - as long as you don't try to blow them up too much.

If you want to print 16x20s, it might be time to invest in newer technology.

[lightdrunk]

Sometimes I think pixel count is a form of penis measuring. Marketers know this. It also depends on the camera. I don't think there's much point in a bazillion pixels in a point and shoot. My D800 is big enough and is engineered well enough that the pixels don't get crowded, and the photos it produces are near medium format in their richness, even shooting JPEG. I've ordered CS5 so I can load RAW files. Can't wait.

I think the D60 may be limited in the number of Nikon lenses you can mount.

[Sunray]

On this site is a very good explanation why more megapixel do not make better pictures. It's was made from a company that designs and sells image quality test equipment. They say that image quality on a camera with a small sensor (physical size, not pixels) like a point-and-shoot pocket camera gets worser if the sensor has more than 6MP. Compared to an APS-C size sensor in a DSLR that break even point would be around 37MP.
Have a look. http://6mpixel.org/en/

Bye
Robert

[lightdrunk]

Yup, agree with you about the point 'n shoots. I think the Canon G12 actually came down in pixel count from the G11, which has 14. But a big sensor can handle it. The Leica M9 has 39 MP. I think Hasselblad has more. My D800 has 37 and I'm delighted with the results. I can blow shots way up and still have them be sharp.

[rpcrowe]

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...

[Dizzy]

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?

I don't think so in the least.

Consider that even the poorest of brushes can paint a masterpiece in the
hands of it's artist.

If you master the capabilities of the camera you have, and use it to
capture the same composed image of a subject as you would with the
megapixel camera then the difference would likely be negligible. You are
the artist, and your current camera is damn fine "brush", therefore I would
not be concerned in the least about the latest in megamega pixel doo-dads
hitting the market these days. If you can afford them, then no reason not
to upgrade, especially if the shot-count is ringing the final bell. If not, then
get the best out of what you have. I think we've all seen some incredible
shots taken with a D60.

JMHO, of course...

Mike (who proudly shoots a D90, but have considered selling a body-part
for a D800 because, whether rank amateur or Pro, I'm currently taking
pictures for a living, and want/need a full frame body that can better handle
the workload. Secondly the increased DR would be of great benefit to my
landscape images. Still, I can do just as well without it until the budget
allows it.)

[lightdrunk]

Very funny, Mr. Crowe. I know what you mean.

[Colin Southern]

I think the Canon G12 actually came down in pixel count from the G11, which has 14.

Hi Doug,

The G12 & G11 are both 10MP - but the G10 was 14.7MP.

[xpatUSA]

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?

Do remember that doubling the pixel count does not double the resolution - it's a square root factor, so going from 6MP to 12MP only gets you 40% more res. which most of us could get just with better framing and less cropping, right folks?

I myself have just returned a D90 and reverted to a 3MP Sigma, quite adequate for what I do.

Ted

[Shadowman]

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?

I have the same camera and what concerns me is what happens if my camera needs repair, will there be parts available? Until that day comes I don't see it becoming obsolete anytime soon. What had me nervous for a while was the opinion that I can only get quality images at 19"x11" (for a 10megapixel camera) and I would need a higher end camera to be able to product larger sized prints. I've been doing some experimentation with upsizing images and I don't think I am limited by the camera's megapixels as much as I thought.

[Colin Southern]

What had me nervous for a while was the opinion that I can only get quality images at 19"x11" (for a 10megapixel camera) and I would need a higher end camera to be able to product larger sized prints. I've been doing some experimentation with upsizing images and I don't think I am limited by the camera's megapixels as much as I thought.

Hi John,

What everyone always seems to (conveniently?) forget is that as the size of the print increases, so does the viewing distance. I can never understand why someone would print a photo 10 feet wide and 6 feet high - and then inspect it from a distance equal to the length of their nose (and then proclaim "Bah - I can see individual pixels!"). Crazy.

[Shadowman]

Hi John,

What everyone always seems to (conveniently?) forget is that as the size of the print increases, so does the viewing distance. I can never understand why someone would print a photo 10 feet wide and 6 feet high - and then inspect it from a distance equal to the length of their nose (and then proclaim "Bah - I can see individual pixels!"). Crazy.

Colin,

Yes, I've seen it firsthand and if the image isn't very sharp to begin with, upsizing only makes the imperfections more visible and distance from the image doesn't help much.

I would ultiize this very convenient tool as a guide to resizing.
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...nlargement.htm

Thanks

[Destructor]

Pinakibaidya,

I would recommend forgetting about megapixels. At all. This is pure "marchitecture". Any DSLR manufacturer will calculate necessary pixel density for desired matrix size. Matrix size contributes to image quality most. The rest will be done for you by Nikon/Canon/Pentax/AnyBrandYouLove engineers.

Regards,
Pavel

[xpatUSA]

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

[Colin Southern]

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 big problem as I see it Ted is that folks have their attention diverted by something that only makes a small difference (pixel size) and as a consequence, completely miss something that has a far far far far bigger impact on the image (like sharpening).

My Rolex image was probably a good example; sure - it's shot with a more than capable camera and more than adequate lighting, but the image produced by the camera isn't a patch on the final image that you see.

[Momo]

What about those of us who print LARGE. If I can get spectacular quality at 36 MP, as in the D800, then what's everyone going on about?

[Colin Southern]

What about those of us who print LARGE. If I can get spectacular quality at 36 MP, as in the D800, then what's everyone going on about?

I've got 22 x 44" prints hanging on my gallery walls shot with an 8MP camera side by side with those shot with a 21MP camera and they don't look any different from normal viewing distances. When you get "upclose and personal" though ... they still don't really look any different.

Keeping in mind too that print resolution is a square-law function; it one wants to double the resolution coming out of my 21MP camera then they're going to need an 84MP camera.

[Momo]

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.