Megapixel Question??

[CAJUNWDWFAN]

I had a question for you all.

currently I have a P & S Sony that has capability of 8.1MP. I currently shoot at 5MP setting to save a little space on my memory cards.

I'm looking at getting my first DSLR before the end of the year. The one I'm looking at has the capability to shoot at 18MP.

here is my question.

For you that shoot with a DSLR, do you shoot at the highest megapixel setting, for example 18MP or do you shoot at a lower setting (somewhere in the middle). I'm know the larger the megapixel setting the larger the file size.

also getting back to my P & S, should I currently be shooting at the 8.1MP setting?

thanks for any help you can give me.

 

[MICKEY88]

I have always shot at the highest possible setting, I currently shoot raw,

the reason being I want as much info as possible in my files, so if it was a tricky lighting situation or if I want to go crazy with post processing, I have the best foundation to start with

 

[photo_chick]

I'm an advocate of the highest setting as well. I'd rather have the pixels if I need them. Not just for more data when editing, but it leaves a lot more leeway to crop in and still have a printable image. With my tendency to tilt to the right I really need the wiggle room to straighten my images as well.

 

[DisFam95]

With my tendency to tilt to the right I really need the wiggle room to straighten my images as well.

Thought that was funny based on your avatar! But you look like a left tilter to me

 

[RBennett]

I've never been an advocate of "more megapixels = better" but I will definitely agree with the previous statements. My previous DSLR had a MP of 6.1 and now my new one has 12.~. I will always shoot at the highest for the same reasons as mentioned, but also in case I or DW want to blow a picture up to 11x14 or 16x20 now. That way I get the clearest image as possible at larger sizes.

 

[zackiedawg]

I agree with Rbennet that more megapixels definitely isn't always better - however I also agree that it is best to shoot at the maximum resolution setting of whatever camera you are using. More room to crop, correct, etc, and printing sizes are unaffected (an 8x10 is an 8x10, whether it's from a 8mp or 24mp camera). Nowadays with harddrive space being so cheap, I don't feel trying to save space on your computer is a reasonable excuse anymore...so I shoot whatever max resolution is, on both my P&S and my DSLR.

 

[ssanders79]

Memory is so cheap these days compared to 5 years ago, I would suggest using the highest quality your camera allows. It is easy to discard the pixels you do not need, but you cannot get back what you do not capture.

 

[seashoreCM]

The reason more megapixels does not equal better is that with smaller sensors on some point and shoots, the overall picture is softer compared with having a not so high megapixel sensor to begin with.

If your camera has the softness due to higher megapixels, intentionally shooting with fewer megapixels will not get back the sharpness.

 

[CAJUNWDWFAN]

Thanks everyone for the tips. I'm sure once I get my DSLR I'll have plenty of questions.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Has anybody found a formula for computing maximum print size at a given printer/camera resolution?

I have an E size older HP 755CM that does 300x300 in color and I get mixed results.

Admittedly, I just got back late last night from a 7 day trip with my new T2i and I have had time to try to print anything from that yet. My XSi did pretty good. I'm hoping this will be even better.

I can't wait to print my panarama of Epcot WS at 36x144 just to see what it looks like!

You should see the walls in my DD5's bedroom!

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

I'm looking at getting my first DSLR before the end of the year. The one I'm looking at has the capability to shoot at 18MP.

Another vote for "highest resolution it will go".

BTW, are you talking a Canon T2i or 7D? If so, wait until you start shooting RAW: I'm seeing ~33M per RAW file from my T2i! I was astonished by how fast my 2G cards were being used up (not even taking any HD video); especially after being used to a 6M Canon S3!

Before I go on my next vacation, I'm going to be getting a bunch of 8G or 16G cards! And, probably a new 1TB or 2TB external drive....

 

[ukcatfan]

If so, wait until you start shooting RAW: I'm seeing ~33M per RAW file from my T2i! I was astonished by how fast my 2G cards were being used up (not even taking any HD video); especially after being used to a 6M Canon S3!

This here is exactly why I think the MP thing is being blown out of proportion yet again. It is going to cost people a lot of money in memory. I had thought the MP war had slowed down some, but it seems to be renewed recently. I can see why a 7D user might need that much since there are many more professionals using it. I do not see where the normal hobby shooter needs even more than ~8MP. I was happy for three years with my 6MP K100D. I would say maybe one shot in five hundred shots I would wish I had more , say when I realized that I needed a huge crop. I have not once wished I had more than my current 12MP. I can even get a usable pic cropping portrait when I shot landscape.

 

[mom2rtk]

I actually wish they would slow down on the megapixel war too. I'm just starting to shoot in raw, and the thought of upgrading to a newer body with its way higher mp's is not appealing. EVERYTHING else (well.... besides the $$$) about the upgrade sounds great though!

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I actually wish they would slow down on the megapixel war too. I'm just starting to shoot in raw, and the thought of upgrading to a newer body with its way higher mp's is not appealing. EVERYTHING else (well.... besides the $$$) about the upgrade sounds great though!

With all due respect, you can forget the megapixel wars ending. Actually, they're likely just beginning in ernest.

Water fills the vessel available to it. I've been in the computer industry 30 years+ professionally and I've watched the progression of applications an OS's filling available hardware space for the entire time.

It's only going to get better. It's only going to get worse. It all depends on your perspective.

Sizes of cards will continue to grow and the prices will continue to go down. Same thing with storage devices whether it be discs or disks.

With the proliferation of affordable devices for printing large format, more megapixels will be even more important in the future for things other than just cropping and editing.

I fully expect to see a 50 megapixel camera sub-$1000 DSLR and mirrorless within the next 18 months. I can virtually guarantee it. Of course, it will come at a time when 128 gig cards are $25 too. Mark my words.

 

[ukcatfan]

I fully expect to see a 50 megapixel camera sub-$1000 DSLR and mirrorless within the next 18 months. I can virtually guarantee it. Of course, it will come at a time when 128 gig cards are $25 too. Mark my words.

Current chip technology is not there yet. They are squeezing almost every little bit left out of APS-C sensors right now. To go 50MP on APS-C is going to take longer than 18 months. Maybe in 3-4 years though. I say APS-C size b/c there is very little chance that manufacturers are going to get a full frame under $1K ever.

 

[photo_chick]

I think the race for megapixels slowed down some as they worked for less noise and higher ISO's, but now that they can surpass film in terms of ISO on an APS-C sensor I can see them adding more MP and finding more ways to reduce noise.

I just went from 8 to 15 earlier this year. On one hand it's nice being able to crop the snot out of my images and still get a usable print size. On the other, well, cropping that much makes me feel like a lazy photographer who didn't get it right in camera. Did you know the Rebel XT has a larger pixel size than the 5Dmkii? But really, I'd love those 8MP at ISO 6400 because with the size and density of that number of pixels on a sensor, compared to my 15, you just know the noise would be better.


I'm rambling and I've not had any caffine yet.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Current chip technology is not there yet. They are squeezing almost every little bit left out of APS-C sensors right now. To go 50MP on APS-C is going to take longer than 18 months. Maybe in 3-4 years though. I say APS-C size b/c there is very little chance that manufacturers are going to get a full frame under $1K ever.

We'll disagree for fun. Can't wait to see the outcome. I just want a full-frame and I do believe sub-$1k will happen. Why? Market driven. You said yourself that the C stuff is about maxed out and you're right (of course). Eventually, the market will demand more for less in order to keep sales up. The price of manufacturing FF will drop, despite what we are reading.

It may be slightly more than 18 months but not by much. Of course, there could very well come something new "D class" in between but I think we would both agree that FF is the next logical step. Another % class just wouldn't make sense, IMHO.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

50 MP under $1K in 18 months? Not gonna happen. Do some trend lines of $1,000 cameras. Canon's Rebel line has increased resolution about 20% a year. Assuming that rate of increase continues, it will be late in 2015 when we see a 50mp camera under $1,000 from Canon.

My current camera is 21 megapixels. Memory cards are cheap, so I use 32 gig cards. I shoot at full resolution RAW almost all the time. The only time I don't is when I really don't need the extra resolution. In those cases, I sometimes switch to JPG and lower resolution. Sometimes I switch to mRAW or sRAW.

I shoot JPG when I have a need for lots and lots of shots in a short period of time and the lighting is really safe. I shoot in one of the small RAW formats when it is something I don't care about that much but want post processing flexibility - like a neighbor kids birthday party.

Why the heck do I need 21 megapixels? I don't need them, but I like having them. They help tremendously when I need to crop. I can take a 21 megapixel image, crop it down to APS-C format, and still have an 8 megapixel shot. It also helps when I need to make large prints. I just did a 55" high print and I would have preferred about twice as many pixels.

The challenge with more megapixels is getting them sharp. The higher your resolution, the more it demands from your glass and your shooting skills. I often see issues with my shots when I look at 100% magnification. I generally have to use a tripod or shoot in the studio to get things that sharp. I'm still learning though.

 

[boBQuincy]

In about 10 years we have gone from APS-C 3 MP for $3000 (Canon D30) to APS-C 18 MP for about $800 (Canon T2i). Six times the pixels for less than a third the price! As long as the manufacturers can convince people that more pixels are what they need (and I believe their marketing departments can do that) then full frame will become necessary at some point.

Full frame has dropped from $7500 to $2500 (Canon 5D) and it is inevitable that it will go below $1000 as the market for FF increases. I don't see it happening in 18 months but I don't see it taking 5 years either.

Better lenses (or better lens correction software) will be required and as Mark notes, we will need camera support (or improved IS) to get any benefit from the huge number of pixels but it will happen.

Do we need these pixels? If we have four times as many pixels as we need then we only need a lens half as long...

 

[seashoreCM]

I would not say I'm lazy if I did not get the composition right. Most of the time at WDW things are too fast paced to find the right place to stand and adjust the camera and get it right the first time.

Where the camera makers need to back off on the megapixel wars is in the point and shoots. Put in a not so high megapixel sensor that has less blurring due to such tiny pixels on such tiny sensors.

Shooting at a lower than maximum megapixel rating can even introduce a round of generation loss since the picture has to be scaled to the chosen pixel count.