Where is the limit?

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message

> Now that Sony has launched 24MP APS-C cameras, I wonder where the limit
> regarding pixel count in APS-C DSLRs is. Will we see a 36MP APS-C DSLR
> in 1-2 years?

I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
resolution from the newer cameras. If you can get the same res from a 16mp
as from a 24mp, then the lens is the limiting factor, and there is no reason
to increase file sizes any further.

Gary Eickmeier
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

On Sep 1, 1:54 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article , Gary
> Eickmeier says...
>
> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
> > resolution from the newer cameras.
>
> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
> sensor?

Probably even higher than that.

But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

In article , Gary
Eickmeier says...
> I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
> resolution from the newer cameras.

Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
sensor?
--

Alfred Molon
http://www.molon.de - Photos of Asia, Africa and Europe
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
@m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.

But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
capabilities of the human eye. To appreciate the detail you must get
close to a large print.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

On 2011-09-02 00:46:48 -0700, Alfred Molon said:

> In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
> @m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
>> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
>> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.
>
> But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
> capabilities of the human eye. To appreciate the detail you must get
> close to a large print.

Alfred, you might want to check the time on your computer. Your last
few posts have been 6 hours out of synch.


--
Regards,

Savageduck
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message

> In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
> @m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
>> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
>> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.
>
> But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
> capabilities of the human eye. To appreciate the detail you must get
> close to a large print.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

I read once upon a time that we cannot see resolution any greater than 200
ppi in a print. So, if the 24mp imager is 4000 x 6000 pixels, then we have a
20 x 30 inch print. Any more megapixels would only go to make an even larger
print than that, which I wouldn't think is needed. I can make gorgeous 13 x
19 prints with my 10mp camera.

Gary Eickmeier
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On Sep 1, 1:54 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article , Gary
>> Eickmeier says...
>>
>> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
>> > resolution from the newer cameras.
>>
>> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
>> sensor?

> Probably even higher than that.

> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.

Everybody will be able to see the difference if you crop out a face
from the crowd and print it.

--
Chris Malcolm
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

On Sep 1, 11:38 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

> I read once upon a time that we cannot see resolution any greater than 200
> ppi in a print. So, if the 24mp imager is 4000 x 6000 pixels, then we have a
> 20 x 30 inch print. Any more megapixels would only go to make an even larger
> print than that, which I wouldn't think is needed. I can make gorgeous 13 x
> 19 prints with my 10mp camera.

All these estimates people publish are very rough.
Yes, something like 200 camera-original pixels
per inch is vaguely right -- but I'm nearly certain
that 200 isn't a magic number that's EXACTLY
right (for one thing, it's just too darned convenient
that it's such a special number).

Also, resolution isn't usually the key quality
in a print. Sometimes a print at half that looks
wonderful. Possibly if you HAD twice that
available, it might look even better? But
what's important is that you've made a
picture, and print, that look wonderful.

You've got the key point there -- judging what
actually works for you. Probably my best
24x36 print is from a 6MP shot. Looking
closely you can see that the finest details
aren't perfectly rendered -- if you get up close
enough to see that. But I've yet to find anybody
bothered by it. The reason I haven't made a lot
more prints that good isn't the megapixels; it's
that I haven't shot a lot more pictures that good!
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

On Sep 2, 12:54 am, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > On Sep 1, 1:54 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
> >> In article , Gary
> >> Eickmeier says...
>
> >> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
> >> > resolution from the newer cameras.
>
> >> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
> >> sensor?
> > Probably even higher than that.
> > But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
> > people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
> > see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.
>
> Everybody will be able to see the difference if you crop out a face
> from the crowd and print it.

Sure, but why would I do that? That's not art
photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
just want to be able to recognize the face.

There are lots of specialized applications;
there's a reason they sometimes used 7 inch
sheet film for aerial photography, for example.
But that sort of highly specialized photography
is rarely done with ordinary equipment, and it's
not what people here generally do -- and it's not
what we talk about in general. On the rare occasions
we do, we say so.
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

In article , Gary
Eickmeier says...

> I read once upon a time that we cannot see resolution any greater than 200
> ppi in a print. So, if the 24mp imager is 4000 x 6000 pixels, then we have a
> 20 x 30 inch print. Any more megapixels would only go to make an even larger
> print than that, which I wouldn't think is needed. I can make gorgeous 13 x
> 19 prints with my 10mp camera.

Make it 300ppi because Bayer pixels are not full pixels.

BTW, every now and then I get requests for wall size prints.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

In article <6cc4bc3d-7cef-402f-995c-1cdcae2f3558
@t29g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
> Sure, but why would I do that? That's not art
> photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
> people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
> just want to be able to recognize the face.

If low resolutions are enough, why do people even bother to shoot in
large format or with 80MP digital camera backs? Obviously in some cases
there is a need for higher resolutions.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

On 2011-09-02 14:05:07 -0700, Alfred Molon said:

> In article <6cc4bc3d-7cef-402f-995c-1cdcae2f3558
> @t29g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> Sure, but why would I do that? That's not art
>> photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
>> people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
>> just want to be able to recognize the face.
>
> If low resolutions are enough, why do people even bother to shoot in
> large format or with 80MP digital camera backs? Obviously in some cases
> there is a need for higher resolutions.

Alfred, your computer clock is still out of whack by 6 hours.

--
Regards,

Savageduck
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit? 

On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <6cc4bc3d-7cef-402f-995c-1cdcae2f3558
> @t29g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>
> > Sure, but why would I do that?  That's not art
> > photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
> > people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
> > just want to be able to recognize the face.
>
> If low resolutions are enough, why do people even bother to shoot in
> large format or with 80MP digital camera backs? Obviously in some cases
> there is a need for higher resolutions.

Something that can make a brilliant 24x36 print
is not "low resolution" by any sensible definition.

The history of photography includes moves
from full- and half-plate cameras, to 4x5,
to roll film, to 35mm. Yes, there's
SOME need for higher resolution;
medium-format cameras continued to
exist after 35mm became the mainstream,
and so did 4x5 (and other sheet film sizes).
But they became very rare, because most people
didn't need them.

Well, DSLR-level digital today covers
what 35mm could do, and up into at least the
middle of medium-format territory (by film era
standards). So, yes, there are people who
DO need the 36MP of the D3x, or the 80MP
of some medium-format backs, or who need
even more and are making do with what they
can get.

But there are damned few of them.

The vast majority of photographers have in
their DSLRs more resolution than they need
for anything they do.

I have absolutely no quarrel with people
regularly doing, or even planning to start
doing, various extreme things deciding
(based on real facts and a rational analysis)
that they need lots of megapixels.

However, what I run into most often is
people who haven't made a print bigger than
8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
"everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
I have a quarrel with.

The vast majority of photographers, here and
in general, would be better served by spending
time improving their own abilities rather than
money upgrading their equipment. And,
if they're spending money upgrading equipment,
they'd be vastly better served by upgrading
their lenses rather than their camera
bodies.

The people who AREN'T in that category
know who they are. Anybody in doubt is
NOT in that category.

(I personally would certainly benefit more from
improving my abilities than my equipment.)
 >> Stay informed about: Where is the limit?