Is 10 megapixels enough?

<p>I'm considering on moving up to a Canon 1D Mk III. I now have a 20D (8mp)and a Canon G9 (12mp). I see the 1DMkIII has 10mp. All the companies seem to be going higher and higher on mp and I was wondering what is "sufficient enough" mp to get good 11x14's and the occassional 16x20. It seems there is a mp race going on but the 1D series seems to address other quality issues as well. I like the ruggedness of the 1 series and I need the 1DMKIII for the speed as I often shoot sports events. I also do some portrait work and parties. Any 1DMKIII (or 40D which has similar 10 mp) users here that can share some info? Thanks. Steve</p>

<p>Steve, as you suspect, the megapixel race is marketing folly.</p>

<p>For your intended uses and print sizes, 10MP is plenty.</p>

<p>Remember, over half of the shooters on the sidelines at the Olympics, NBA, NFL, and MLB are using the 1DMkIII.</p>

<p>My 6mp digital rebel prints (to my eyes) fine at 16x20. I've had a few printed online.</p>

<p>The SLR sensors are much bigger physically than p&s cameras so the resulting data is much less noisy so can be enlarged more at the same resolution.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick responses guys. That's what I thought because I now get decent results from my 8mp 20D with just a little tweaking in Photoshop and the 1DMKIII is a couple generations of technology newer. I don't mind investing in a solid quality product if it will last me a good long time despite "newer, better" products continually showing up. In my film days I would have a camera typically last 10 years or more. The advertisements like to make you feel inept unless you have the latest product.</p>

<p>Yes, 10 megapixels is plenty, as Brent says.</p>

<p>But the Mk IV is likely to be announced later this year, and buying a camera new near the end of its product cycle isn't always advisable unless you get an absolute steal of a price. If you're buying used, there are some good prices out there, but if you're buying new, you <em>might </em> consider waiting. (Yes, I know, plenty of good photos can be had before the replacement model is delivered, but I assume OP's 20D will continue to serve him well.)</p>

<p>Obviously you're not a slave to the marketers' "newer, better" pitch (shooting as you are with a trusty 20D), but one could argue to that if you plan to hang on to the camera for years and years (as opposed to flipping it each time a new model comes out), it's worth getting technology that won't be significantly improved upon anytime soon.</p>

<p>For example, if the 1D Mark IV is announced in a few months and has the 4x-higher resolution LCD, the video, and the dust-cleaning capabilities of the 5DII - and offers both a resolution (12-15mp) and speed improvement over the 1D Mark III - will you regret the decision to purchase now? Only you can answer that. If you're buying used <em>and </em> get a great price <em>and </em> will really get a lot of use out of the camera in the next few months it may be worth it, but if any of those things isn't true it may be worth shooting with the 20D for just a little bit longer. Even if you decide to pass on the Mark IV once it's announced, Mark III prices will be falling fast at that point.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This camera is capable of producing excellent prints in the sizes you describe.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>"what is "sufficient enough" mp to get good 11x14's and the occassional 16x20"<br>

I thought my 6.3 MP 10D was plenty adequate for 20x30 prints. I once even did a wall-sized print that looked quite alright. You could see the individual pixels on close inspection (a bit smaller than 1/16"), but it wasn't objectionable, and there was plenty of detail. I recently went to an exhibition at a museum, where one very large, prominently featured photograph had about the same pixel size, albeit from a much lower resolution camera (probably an early 1.3 MP model). It looked very impressive.</p>

<p>There are advantages to lower MP cameras, not the least of which is higher ISO performance and lower noise. Of course advancing technology levels the playing field to some extent.</p>

<p>If OP shoots sports, he's likely to <strong>crop </strong> more than a landscape photographer will because framing during sports shooting is often very imprecise.</p>

<p>To me, <em>crop-ability </em> is the biggest advantage of more megapixels, not the capability of making larger prints when using the full capture area. I'm amazed at the quality of photos that can be cropped out of a relatively small section in the middle of a 5DII photo when it was shot with a good lens.</p>

<p>Granted, 6 megapixels is enough to make decent-sized prints, but those 6 megapixels can be taken from a full-frame capture with a 6mp camera or they can still be had after chopping off the irrelevant half of a hurried 12mp capture.</p>

<p>I agree with the others: MP do not matter as much as other functionality. Partially, that depends on what you are planning to do with your pictures later, though, too. My Canon xTI has 10 MP, which is alright for most of the stuff that I do, and I can print them out up to 16x20.</p>

<p>there is just no way you can get decent results with anything less than 24mp -<br>

kidding - as the others have said the 10 is more than enough for everything up to 13 by 19 and sensor on the 1dIII is a degree better in every way than even the other cams that came at the same time such as the similar 40d 10MP sensor...<br>

I printed 11 by 14 for two years with my 1d (mark I) without ever seeing an issue - of course I like having extra but the truth is that unless you are going to poster sizes you won't notice much difference between 10 and 15 or so...</p>

 

<p>I have 14x22 (double truck in an 11x14 portfolio) that look pretty damn good from a 20D. I was just inspecting them with a magnifying glass and while they aren't as sharp as the 11x14s they still look great from regular viewing distance.</p>

<p>Keep in mind normal viewing distance is roughly the print diagonal.</p>

<p>These all came from a 20D handheld at 100-400 iso and there is one 11x14 that was shot @ 1600 by modeling lights.</p>

<p>Of course everyones standards are different but we tend to be even more critical when it comes to image quality than most customers.</p>

<p>Steve, I am still in my "film days" (although I'm now straddling the film/digital divide), and I still use bodies (F-1's and F-1N's) that are 30-40 years old. As some of the other posters have suggested, try to ignore the built-in obsolescence of the DSLR and get the body that'll do the best job for you now. <em>Any</em> DSLR will be worthless in 10 years, regardless of what the camera companies will have us believe.</p>

<p>Ralph - do you think a MKIV will be coming out soon? I know the MKIII was released in March 2007 so if Canon has a two year cycle then something should soon be announced. An upgraded product at the old products price is always nice. And no, I plan on purchasing the camera new to those that wondered. Generally a used 1D will have been "well" used.</p>

<p>Alas, I don't know any more than anyone else does! So that's the always the guessing game that must be played. A lot of 5D owners were "100% certain" that a 5DII would be released in mid-2007 on the original 5D's second anniversary, and it was more than a year and a half later before the 5DII was available in large enough numbers for supply to meet the demand (i.e, Feb.-March 2009).</p>

<p>Your guess is as good as mine, but if I were in your shoes and was happy with the 20D, I'd sit tight until summer rather than buy a <strong>new </strong> Mk III right now. (If you were open to buying <strong>used, </strong> the equation would change, but I can understand why you're leery of buying used.)</p>

<p>Consider, too, that used 50Ds in excellent condition are selling in the $950 range over at fredmiranda.com's Buy&Sell forum. That might be an option if (compared to your 20D) you want the 50D's larger and much-sharper LCD (which is great), LiveView, dust cleaning, 6.3fps instead of 5.0, and 15 megapixels instead of the 8 you now have. You could buy a 50D to "tide you over" for a year, reassess things then, and if the Mark IV is out and you find it appealing, you'd only lose a couple of hundred selling the 50D.</p>

<p>I bought a 40d when a 20d got tired to tie me over while waiting for a 5d2. It was a huge leap forward, not in IQ but in usability. The 50d even better, LCD bigger clearer and easier to read, LV aids MF, 6.5 f/s not a huge diff from d3. cept for build size and weight. maybe all you need till the D4. Also a D3 will shorten the lens aspect as its a x1.3 crop, so if your lenses are setup for x1.6 you may need to dip into the pocket again.:) BTW 5d2 was so long coming I got a 5d1 anyway..did not but D3 cause of the AF blurbs, problably should have</p>

<p>I like to compare the pixels of the sensor with the intended resolution of the print. The 1D Mk III will give you a resolution of 3888 x 2592 and an 11 x 14 print at 300 dpi requires a resolution of 4200 x 3300. Not technically enough, but unless you intend for the viewer to examine your prints under a magnifying glass 10mp should be fine. Resolution is only as important as you are close to the image.<br>

Kevin</p>

<p>There is no rush to do anything. Digital cameras are only going to get better and better, and prices are going to keep dropping in terms of what one gets for the money.</p>

<p>My own work does not require speed, and so I bought the 1DsII when the 1DsIII came out, saving myself over three thousand dollars.</p>

<p>I now look at the Canon 5D II as well as other digital cameras, and, although I feel the tug to buy, I know that there is absolutely no rush. Those cameras that are presently considered top of the line will soon be second or third best again in their own product line.</p>

<p>I do shoot film as well, however, and so I picked up some older Hasselblad equipment for very little. I will enjoy working with the Hassy, but I know that most of my shots will continue to be made with a digital camera.</p>

<p>When will I need another digital camera? Maybe never. Mine are all still functioning perfectly, even my old 5 MP Olympus E-20 that I bought seven years ago. Claims about digital obsolescence are vastly overstated.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Hey, I've got a 20D and it's just fine. A lot has to be said about HOW you use it - attention to composition can mean far less cropping, and there ARE PS plug-ins that can upscale the image without pixellation. (Genuine Fractals, for one.) And yes, I've seen a LOT of bigger prints that pixelize or are grainy. (Even 35mm film has limitations!)</p>

<p>Interpolation software is the key to large prints... not matter what MP your camera is. If you want REALLY large prints... that's what medium format is for. There ARE limitations to physical resolution of the 135 format size that have to do with physics and not just hype... diffraction as well as lens resolution are those limiting factors. There will never be wall size flawless prints from a sensor the size of a 135 negative regardless of what marketing would have you believe. For that, large format is needed and expected. </p>

<p>THEY ARE ALL TRUE MAN! I've shot for over 2 years with the 10mp Sony Alpha A100 and freequently do 20x30 wedding prints with it. In fact, I will without hesitation tell you that Since I got my A700 I often shoot at 6.5mp setting jpeg when shooting studio and outdoors. I only max out and go RAW or full camera capability when shooting something that truely requires "ultra-stick-tack-sharp-fine-razorblade-crisp" details. I have the Sony Alpha A900 on order for these jobs. Example: When I shoot family portraits I need every inch of every person in focus. This is where having 24 megapixels and F11 and a wide angle lens comes into play. Other than that, my Alpha A700 will do ok and its only 12mp. However if I want meduim format quality of resolving power I'll have to use the 24 with a sharp lens good fstop great light low iso. So from the looks of what you are planning on shooting. You will be MORE than in good hands! Get your camera... did you forget that the 1DS Mark III N is closer to full frame than the APS-C stuff? This means that you will have EVEN LOWER NOISE in lower light! Meaning that your ISO 1600 shots at F2.8 at 1/125th a second will still be killer! Get it man! I wish Sony had a 10mp, Full Frame, 6fps, ultra low noise monster for about 1100 in the works... but I can keep on dreaming!</p>

<p>Probably around 6-7mp make great 16x20.<br>

If you want to crop half of the image away though, then 10 is fine.<br>

Honestly, MP's are the least important factor to consider when you buy a new camera.</p>

<p>I have a Canon EOS-1D Mark 3. and make really gorgeous 14x21 prints from the raw files it produces. That isn't just my opinion, although I am pretty picky. The bottom floor for input resolution to a high quality Canon, Epson (And presumably HP) pigment ink printer is 180 dpi. Any input resolution of 180ppi or higher will make a fine print, especially if you understand how to sharpen well. I'll get to that in minute. I also tend to shy away from interpolating photos upward (using Genuine Fractals or just Photoshop's built in tools ) unless absolutely necessary. Assuming you mean a "live area" in the print of 16 x 20 and not just the outer dimension of the paper you will have to interpolate slightly however.</p>

<p>I do not completely disagree with Brent Reid in part about the megapixel race being complete "marketing folly" but I think the benefits of having a camera with greater native resolution are mostly misunderstood. That is a topic for another time.<br>

<strong><br /> </strong><br>

<strong>Scaling a file to print size.</strong> <br /> <br /> How do you determine what the maximum size a file for printing should be? Start with the EOS-1D Mark 3's native resolution: 3,888 x 2,592 pixels. At 360ppi that would make a 10.8 x 7.2 inch print; at 300ppi that would make a 12.96 x 8.64 inch print; and At 180ppi that will make a 21.6 x 14.4 print. Given that the quality floor for a high end Epson pigment inkjet printer is 180ppi a little interpolation will be needed to get the short dimension up to 16 inches and you'll need to crop the long dimension to get it down to 20 inches.</p>

<ol>

<li>In Photoshop CS3 or CS4 the first step (after your raw processing and any post processing steps) in prepping a duplicate of your master file will be to go Image > Image Size and turn off the Resample Image option. Doing so links Width and Height with Resolution.</li>

<li>Change the short side (width or Height) to the smaller dimension you want the print to be. As long as the resolution is at 180 ppi or higher you are good to go. In the case of the 1D Mark 3 at 16 inches on the short side this is not the case so let's move on to the next steps.</li>

<li>If the resolution is below 180, change it to 180 ppi.</li>

<li>Turn Resample Image back on.</li>

<li>Change the size of the short dimension to the size you need and leave the interpolation method as Bicubic.</li>

</ol>

<p><br /> <br /> <strong>Sharpening strategies.</strong> <br /> <br /> <br /> After much experimentation I decided to work with a multi-step Sharpening workflow: capture sharpening; sometimes localized or custom sharpening; and finally output sharpening once I know exactly how at what size the image will be reproduced in what media form and if printed, on what type of paper stock. This results in visibly better results in the print. For capture sharpening I use the sharpening tools in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw. Once the raw file has been processed into a TIFF file in Photoshop and if I am printing from Photoshop I use the Photokit Sharpener from http://www.pixlegenius.com. If you don't use that sharpener plug-in, try using the Smart Sharpen tool (Filter > Sharpen > Smart Sharpen) in Photoshop CS3 or Photoshop CS4. In either case apply the sharpening on a separate layer (this is done automatically in the Photokit Sharpener plug in.) the reason for doing it on a separate layer is that it leaves the result tunable by controlling opacity of the layer, and easily deleted if necessary. Sharpening should also be the very last thing you do to a file before sending it to the printer. If I am printing from Lightroom I use the sharpener in Light room’s Print module.<br /> <br /> <br /> Once last note about sharpening. You really have to judge output sharpening in the print itself, as what may look over-sharpened on your display may work out to be fine in the print. What you want to look out for in the print are visible sharpening halos or other artifacts. You want to sharpen just enough that these are not visible in the print on close inspection and at standard viewing distances for that size print.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I know the MKIII was released in March 2007 so if Canon has a two year cycle then something should soon be announced.</p>

<p>Given the current state of the world wide economy I think that relying on historic product update cycles as a predictor of near future trends may lead to suicidal levels of disappointment in armchair pundits.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know the MKIII was released in March 2007 so if Canon has a two year cycle then something should soon be announced.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Friend of mine heard through some Canon guys that they're thinking about March-June timeframe for releasing the MkIV... <em>supposedly</em> .</p>

Personally, I see no reason to wait for a MkIV that may or may not be announced in the near future. The 1D3 is a fine camera by all accounts and certainly allows you enough room to play with for the print sizes you're after. I made some (if I do say so myself) lovely 20x30 inch prints for a client for whom I did some interior design photography. I used my humble 400D which also has a 10MP sensor.

<p>For sports, I know of no finer body that the 1D3; AF speed, accuracy, frame rate, high ISO performance, dual memory card capability, etc.

<p>I think you'll be very happy with a 1D3, and to be honest I don't think its value will depreciate too much over the years.