1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you take?

Discussion in 'Weekly Poll' started by Damien_Demolder, Oct 30, 2012.

  1. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    You can put a Phase One on a Bronnie but the last time I asked, the adapter cost approx £1500+VAT and that was when VAT was at 15%! Peartree were the source back then although I believe Teamwork (and possibly Calumet) could obtain them.

    It would be any interesting exercise with one or two possible problems, not least that Bronnie lenses - good as they may be - are, very much, film era lenses. I believe some of the key Hasselblad 'V' system focal lengths were/have been upgraded for digital. {That said, some Phase One owners/users were happy to chase older glass merely for the 'qualities' it might bring to their photographs.}
     
  2. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    :confused: I thought the S90 was up 25% on its predecessor in mp terms?

    Exactly. In a nutshell. :)
     
  3. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    If you consider it's predecessor the S80, then yes; however, the line was inactive for several years, and the S90 certainly didn't replace the S80 in any way apart from numerically (the S80 was never a true S either, not having RAW), it came in as a compact version of the G series, and the G series downsized from 14.7MP to 10MP, with a corresponding increase in image quality. That said, at low ISOs and handled carefully, that 14.7MP camera could produce wonderful images.

    To go back to my point about low-end customers not understanding, as a general point I would say that a lot that's been written in this thread shows that they're certainly not alone - I don't think there's ever been quite such a level of misunderstanding of any subject displayed on here than by a small number of posters in this thread. A little knowledge is clearly a very dangerous thing indeed in some hands. :rolleyes:
     
  4. hhmr

    hhmr Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Sorry, that's precisely the sort of thread I'm happy to leave to the obsessives, who always seem happy enough in their own world which isn't mine!

    I do not want to make 40ins by 40ins prints, ever, and if I wanted to explore the subject matter Ansell Adams handled so brilliantly I think I would probably follow his example and use a view camera and sheet film. I find his books a constant source of enjoyment and the methodical approach he taught in them can help users of all sorts of quite different cameras, digital as well as film. But he was much too down to earth to be an obsessive.

    When I could first afford to become a 35mm user, back in the 1950s, people were still talking about miniature cameras by which they didn't mean Minoxes.

    Meanwhile a much more practical question is: How many of those 35mm slides and negatives in our collections can really be used to produce better prints than we can routinely get from a 16MP digital camera with a comparable lens. I think the answer for most of us would be some but certainly not all. While I certainly don't intende to explore that in detail, I do have lots of 50 year old slides and negatives and the lens I used to take them fits the 18MP full frame camera I bought the other day..................

    But lets hear it for Lensbabies and Holgas and grainy film too!
     
  5. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak


    Haven't got much time for this but did have a quick scan and this stood out as an example of what I think helps to build misconceptions through poor use of language*:
    'Pixels are not the only thing that give resolution.'

    I would have said they are - hence the race for more and better pixels. It explains part of the desire behind the sensor & camera makers in the pixel race. Just the same as in the race for better grain clumps, flatter grain clumps, finer grain clumps, more responsive grain clumps in the days of silver film improvement.

    *It would have been better, IMV, to have put 'apparent' in front of resolution in the above sentence. Then, the other - non-pixel related - factors that lead to 'apparent' resolution can be discussed.

    But then we have all made gaffs in print somewhere ...

    ... well, I have anyway ... :eek:
     
  6. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Thought the G series might have downsized at one point but couldn't remember. At least it shows there is some thinking going on in some camera cos. :) (pre PS: If you've any knowledge of G-series related lens problems, Benchista, Gray has started a Thread seeking some help.)


    'A little knowledge is clearly a very dangerous thing indeed in some hands. :rolleyes:'

    Yeah ... but nobody died, did they?:confused:

    If some get fun out of pixel-peepin' and rezzin' up'n'down'n'all over the place, they are mebbe gettin' something more for their money?

    Meanwhile, the rest of us can go out making photographs. :)
     
  7. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    How far you want to stop down would appear to dictate the maximum pixel density worth having. I mentioned earlier than to about f/13 or so my 7D tends to resolve more detail than my 40D - hopefully this shows that at f/16 (at 1x magnification) the higher pixel density isn't really worth bothering with.

    We're already at the point where more pixels are of limited use for the normal aperture range for small formats. Sure I'd like more pixels but if my main use for a FF sensor is shooting landscapes at small apertures there's nothing useful to gain by having ~50MP over ~20MP (roughly what the pixel densities of the APS-C sensors I compared would be on FF).
     
  8. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    Well if that (10x14.5") is with borders not surprising really.

    300ppi without borders is 13MP. So put 1" borders on 10.9MP :)

    A3 of course is larger at 16.5"x11.7". But 10MP can easily stretch to fit that. :)
     
  9. P_Stoddart

    P_Stoddart Well-Known Member

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak


    I think you can still see more detail between the 40D and 7D at f/16.

    Prof BoB Newman explained I believe in AP 10/03/2012 that you still gain even at diffraction limit.

    Of course alot less than at f/2.
     
  10. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    IIRC the diffraction limit is about f/7 on the 7D and about f/10 for the 40D, for distance work anyway.....f/16 at 1x is well past it either way.

    And yes, I get the infinite number of airy disks in an infinite number of places thing but would you shell out for a new FF DSLR with about 50MP to use at the likes of f/16? I don't think I would.

    20MP on FF is probably a bit lowest common denominator though.....for much of the aperture range 36MP should still be better. My desire for a higher pixel density on an APS-C sensor is pretty much limited to using my MP-E 65mm at 5x and f/4 or less.
     
  11. 0lybacker

    0lybacker In the Stop Bath

    Re: How many pixels do you want for the type of pictures you tak

    I think it depends on a lot more factors. You seem to be assuming everything stays the same, only pixel count and density increase with the passing of time. Are not sensor makers making improvements in other ways? Are not lenses slightly more involved in the link to the sensor than they were in the days of film and upgraded more?

    My mate 'Nikon Norman' {name changed to protect the guilty!} is as neurotic about pixel density, diffraction & Airy discs as P. 'The Pixel' Stoddart is about pixel count and interpolation! ;):D He is rather disappointed when I tell him that an E-1 and an E-520 can be used quite happily at f22! All pixels are created equal but some are more equal than others. ;)

    Mind you, I did enquire how the D800 performed at f16 & f22 - he knows someone who got their hands on one at the start - so perhaps I'm getting that way, too!:rolleyes::eek:
     

Share This Page