Re: I display my shots on the web. G+, my blogs and here. How many pixels do I need??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JBW
Hi,
As I wander through the minefield of camera stats I notice time and again the disparity in the number of pixels various cameras boast of having. Everywhere from 12MP to 20+.
I can see where the more the merrier makes sense if I am printing out my shots. But I only see my shots on G+, my blogs, here and my monitor when I use them as a background.
Is there a point where the pixel count simply turns into bragging rights for someone like me?
I hope the question makes sense?
Brian
Hi Brian, a post close to my heart! I don't know what G+ is but otherwise we view on similar stuff.
My main camera is 4.7MP and produces 2640x1760px images. That is perfectly adequate for my equipment and perfectly adequate for posting on-line at say 1280px wide. I do have a daily bandwidth limit of 350MB on my satellite connection out here in the woods and it ain't fast - 100Kb/sec on a good day.
To answer the question, 12MP is way more than adequate for your needs but that does mean that you could "legally" buy a D700, eh?
I hope you will join me in the non-conformist feeling that a lack of MPs gives us bragging rights over all those folks that have had to buy TB capacity drives, multicore-processor-powered computers, huge 4K monitors and the very latest 64-bit operating systems - just to edit and view their bloated image files. Not to mention the ultra high-speed internet connection needed esp. if you're a Cloud guy :)
Re: I display my shots on the web. G+, my blogs and here. How many pixels do I need??
Quote:
Originally Posted by
xpatUSA
Hi Brian, a post close to my heart! I don't know what G+ is but otherwise we view on similar stuff.
My main camera is 4.7MP and produces 2640x1760px images. That is perfectly adequate for my equipment and perfectly adequate for posting on-line at say 1280px wide. I do have a daily bandwidth limit of 350MB on my satellite connection out here in the woods and it ain't fast - 100Kb/sec on a good day.
To answer the question, 12MP is way more than adequate for your needs but that does mean that you could "legally" buy a D700, eh?
I hope you will join me in the non-conformist feeling that a lack of MPs gives us bragging rights over all those folks that have had to buy TB capacity drives, multicore-processor-powered computers, huge 4K monitors and the very latest 64-bit operating systems - just to edit and view their bloated image files. Not to mention the ultra high-speed internet connection needed esp. if you're a Cloud guy :)
We live on the side of a sleeping volcano in the Philippines. When we first got here we had a local wizard get us hooked up to the web with the longest wi-fi connection (for it's time) in SE Asia. We now have 512 through an antenna mounted on a coconut tree.
I certainly don't begrudge anyone a faster service or a better camera but it is amazing what can be achieved with less than state of the art stuff.
Re: I display my shots on the web. G+, my blogs and here. How many pixels do I need??
Brian, I have admired lots of pictures of yours for a long time.
A larger sensor, not necessarily more megapixels, does have advantages. Whether they outweigh the disadvantages (price, bulk, weight, complexity, file size) is a matter of judgement. It is particularly at low light the small bridge or compact sensor will display its weaker points. For insect close-up photography as yours, a bridge camera has advantages primarily in its small size, and if close-up lenses can be used, the ability to shoot small subjects from a somewhat larger distance than at the "macro" setting. It also has the advantage that it doesn't need a heavy tripod, as it will not vibrate at release as DSLR cameras do. With a DSLR system camera you will need a sturdier tripod, which adds to bulk, weight and complexity.
There are options not too different from what you now use, but with slightly more capabilities, and at a reasonable price. Raw can be shot with some bridge cameras, and many of them have manual capabilities. All newer cameras have more pixels than the old one, it's part of the never ending pixel race. For posting on the web, you don't need all those pixels, but if you wish to print pictures, more pixels may be a boon. However, with any newer camera, it makes sense to downsize images before posting to the web.
I don't think you'll find the computer a bottleneck, but your upload capacity sure is, and that, together with the size of the monitors where images are to be viewed, are the factors to govern upload image size. Images to be viewed on the web need not be larger than about two megapixels, as that's what will cover most of the screens out there. Storage space is rather cheap, so many megapixels, particularly in jpegs, is not a great problem for local storage. Raw files is another thing, and it is fully possible to fill several terabyte disks with raw images. If you stick to jpeg, one terabyte will last a long time.
The differences in image quality between system cameras and smaller sensor cameras are mainly due to the difference in size. Larger sensors are used with more focal length, which can capture more light and more detail. There is a difference in what you may possibly get from a µ4/3, APS-C or full frame sensor when downsampled, compared to a bridge camera. It also comes with a price, not only the price tag, but also in complexity and weight. If you are happy with the camera you have now, you might not really want all that added complexity with a larger system camera, compared to the present bridge camera.
If you think of getting another bridge camera, there are also a few caveats. It doesn't go only by how many times it will zoom and how "close" you can get. "Closeness" is not the same as reproduction size, and some of the more compact newer models cannot use any accessories over the front lens; those that have a lens that is retracted flat into the body, extracting it when you use the camera. With a camera that has a filter thread or a firm front end of the lens, close-up lenses can be used to take small objects at the long end of the zoom from a larger distance.
The pixel count is not a bragging point really. It is only a number, and when using the images exclusively at a smaller size, pixel count really does not matter. It can be more of a burden than a boon. You definitely will have to downsample when you post to the web anyway. I once made a few pictures to show the difference between smaller sensor compacts and a µ4/3 camera when downsampled, and they are at:
http://foto.ifokus.se/u2/9af56a7f4ef...ult/lva-03.jpg 2 Mp camera, Nikon Coolpix 2100 (original size)
http://foto.ifokus.se/u2/e4557d4014a...ult/lva-02.jpg 5 Mp camera, Nikon Coolpix 5600
http://foto.ifokus.se/u2/4658bdfc0b7...ult/lva-01.jpg 16 Mp µ4/3 camera
The main difference that can be rather clearly seen in these images is that the µ4/3 sensor gives a smoother image. The larger sensor has better capability to catch light, and the smaller sensors are noisier, particularly as there was rather low light when the pictures were taken. There is also somewhat more detail in the one taken with 4/3 sensor. With more light, the difference would not show as much.
Features that I would look for when it is time to get a new camera are primarily connectivity and remote capability, as those of Samsung cameras or some models from other makers. I think also Fujifilm has them. Remote operation with a smartphone or tablet where the image can be seen on a larger screen, and where focusing points may be set by touch is useful.
Re: I display my shots on the web. G+, my blogs and here. How many pixels do I need??
Urban, thank you for both your kind words and your well reasoned points. I was just reading about the upper end bridge cameras such as the Panasonic FZ1000 and the Sony DXC RS10 which come with a 1" sensor. They are intriguing and they keep me away from the complexity and cost of a dslr.