cmphoto1 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I asked this question back on April 11 of last year. I am kind of wondering if anything has changed. I ask here because I am less likely to get the "I'll be less unhappy with gigapixels, maybe" answer. So, is 6mp enough for what your clients need, or do they need 8? How about 10? If you use 8 or 10, do you find yourself downsizing or shooting at a lesser resolution at all? Thanks chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelmowery Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Its all in the detail. If you want alot of detail go for as much megapixels that you can afford. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hector_montalvo Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 the largest i printed is a 16x20... shot with an 8mp canon 20d in raw format, everyone seems to love them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timcorridan Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 the ability to crop even more, is what you'll be dealing with on high meg cameras i would think. tim -film user Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjogo Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Will stay at 8-12 meg --more than enough for my clients..the larger pixel will just require more storage & "ump" from your computer ...a 50 meg file .. upload to be printed, is time consuming enough, already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Remember that once you get up to 10 megapixels lens quality becomes the dominant factor. I went up from a 6 to a 10, but had to upgrade my glass to go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phototogomanny Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Hi, I shoot a Nikon F5 DCS 760 at 6.3mp and my 16x20 are amazing ! It al has to to with Sharpness whick also means Glass, not only mp. Manny D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_rubinstein___mancheste Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I personally felt that I hadn't reached/surpassed 35mm resolution until the 1Ds, the 5D surpasses. Of course for cleanliness of files (no grain) my 10D beat my Mamiya 645 Velvia scans on an Imacon 868. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Depends on what you're shooting, how much you like to crop, etc. More megs equals more options. Handling file size and storage is of little concern to me. Computers are evolving quite quickly with faster and faster processing. RAM capacity has increased and has reduced in price, and big scratch Disks to supplement PhotoShop are a dollar a gig or less. CF/SD cards are increasing in transfer speed and capacity, while dropping in price per meg. Hard drives for image storage are less than a dollar a gig and dropping When Canon hits the streets with the 22/24 meg camera, I'll get it because I can use every meg I can get. However, that doesn't mean I have to use it. PS ARC allows you to select the size while processing, but retains the full RAW file for any future use. RAW files like DNG provide lossless reduction in size, and I believe similar technology will be further developed in future for even smaller RAW file storage. My current meg champ is a H2D 645 22 meg. sensor dedicated digital camera, that will be upgraded by Imacon to 39 meg in March. It's for commercial applications, but since we have it, we'll use it for weddings also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 BTW C JO, I answered your question concerning the use of your external hard drive as a Scratch Disk for PhotoShop ... it's under that thread about "Is Medium Format practical" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_rubenstein Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 There were and are lots of folks shooting with 4 & 6 mp cameras. What a lot of people ignore is that as the mp goes up, and the pixle pitch on the sensor goes down, it gets much more difficult to reach the theoretical maximum resolution. Less than excellent lenses, slight amounts of camera shake and anything other than perfect focus (which AF often doesn't produce) any you don't get the sharpness the camera can deliver. Landscape photographers working on tripods may get the most out of a camera, but the way a lot of wedding photography is shot it won't matter. 12mp is probably the point of diminishing return with APS-C sized sensors, and 16-18 mp with FF sensors. We would benefit much more with sensors that had greater dynamic ranges that would make good use of 16 bit depths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Another thing to consider is what size prints will you be making. If most of what you print are album size 5x7 and 8x10 then you may get on just fine with 6mp. I have seen studio shots from a Canon D30 printed to around 11x16inches and I was very supprised at how good they were. I have also seen similar sized wedding portraits from the Canon 10D and the 20D and they have also been very good. Remember also that a close portrait of the B&G will hold up much better than a 40 person group shot because the details are much small in the group shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_rubinstein___mancheste Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 As Bruce says there is more to the equation than just megapixels, whatever you get, couple it with the best lenses you can buy and if you can't afford it, buy borrow or beg. Using a substandard lens on a 10 megapixel body can easily reduce it to the equivelent of a great lens on a 6 megapixel body. Added to that, for formals and portraits use a monopod or tripod. Yes I know that it goes against the grain for so called PJ photographers but what can you really handhold on a 12 megapixel camera for a 40+ family group or when a 20X30" enlargement might be wanted? When you can use one, do so. If you can't then up the iso slightly and use a higher shutter speed. Remember there is no grain to hide the little imperfections anymore. Most of the time photographers are not maximising the resolution of their cameras due to technique and upgrading to higher resolution doesn't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlin Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Today's 10MP cameras, i.e. the D200 equal and sometimes surpass 35mm film. However, I would take a 6mp camera with good glass any day over a 10mp camera with a kit lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 I completely concur with what Ben R. just wrote. For posed stills the single best thing you can do in improving your output is use a tripod. After that it is your lens (and then of course the lighting which I think is the hardest to master).<p>For sure shoot in Raw and do all of your conversions with something at least as good as PS ACR (Adobe Camera Raw, now at version 3.3 to support all the new cameras released since Nov. 2005). (ACR 3.0 was released when PS CS2 was released, almost one full year ago aleady, time flies.)<p>Canon's new 10MP 20D replacement upgrade ($1500) will be announced in less than 2 weeks. Failing that the $2900 Canon 5D rocks (assuming Canon makes you happy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron_lee___minneapolis__m Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Depends. You didn't ask what you wanted to use your pixels for. My mentor printed a 10ft by 20ft banner with a portrait of 4 bartenders on the side of a bar. Looks great from 50 feet in the air! It was shot with a 6MP Nikon D70. ~Aaron Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 People view albums from less than arms length away. The more tonal gradation and detail the print has, the more dimensional it looks ... as in "looks more real" The eye mixes digital gradational edging from a distance. Up close is another matter. I've shot weddings with a Nikon 1Dx and a Canon D30, and they were fine. I look at the files now and they don't look so good anymore. Clients didn't care. But my expectations of myself have become more critical and demanding concerning digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James G. Dainis Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 All that the MP indicates is size. A 10MP image would be about 3872 pixels wide by 2592 pixels high. It can be a sharp and clear 3872 x 2592 image or a dull, blurry off color 3872 x 2592 image. As others have said that all depends on the lens, camera construction, sensor, etc.<BR> Which do you think would deliver the better photo: <center><img src=http://www.geocities.com/dainisjg/canon1d_polaroid832a.jpg></center> James G. Dainis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografz Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 "Which do you think would deliver the better photo?" This?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_k. Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Cant wait for the Pentax 645D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmphoto1 Posted February 14, 2006 Author Share Posted February 14, 2006 Thanks for all the fascinating input. James, well made point. I am going to keep that in mind the next time I run into a "photographer" with a "pro-sumer" camera. About 10 months ago, the loose consensus was 10Mp was enough as long as you do not need to crop. Marx�s point about raising our own standards was interesting. Thanks chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattalofs Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 "Which do you think would deliver the better photo:" Strange but true, I've found that my tiny little Olympus SP-350 has better auto white balance and exposure than any of the mid range DSLR's I've used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_k. Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Whatever the newest MP count is tends to be enough. Not to long ago people shouted that 3MP was enough for weddings. People will say anything if they think it will save them a buck or two. Who would willingly tell clients that they were getting junk compared to what film is capable of delivering? I cant help but laugh at those �pioneers� who gave up 35mm and MF and switched over to digital with the old D1s and DCS620s. I wonder how many brides have albums full of pictures that look like they were shot with a coolpix! But really 5-8 MPs seem to be enough for albums and modest enlargements as long as no cropping is required. Having said that, more resolution, less noise, and more dynamic range is always a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik_escada1 Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 I own the D70s and the D200 and I dont see much diference in image quality but when it comes to cropping you will definetly notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now