# Why upgrade for more MP



## chauncey (Nov 5, 2015)

It was eight years ago that I upgraded to a Canon 1Ds Mark III...I wanted a camera that convinced me that any errors were my fault.
At the same time I got addicted to Photoshop. That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.

Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 5, 2015)

Because a lot of subjects can't be stacked and merged!


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 5, 2015)

chauncey said:


> ... to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.
> 
> Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?


It all depends on the way and the subjects you're shooting. 
I could name a lot of things where "stacking and merging" does not work.

To me for example photography is about doing photography and capturing the moment and not doing Photoshop or else.
But for me also high MP is not that important.


----------



## meywd (Nov 5, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Because a lot of subjects can't be stacked and merged!



+1 and not all have the 300mm f2.8 or any of the big whites, plus its about detail, stacking landscape will not increase detail as a high MP camera well, unless you do huge Panos, which is alright but you get more trouble in post, and its not easy to execute.


----------



## chauncey (Nov 5, 2015)

> I could name a lot of things where "stacking and merging" does not work


For the non professional, the only scenario that it would not work are action images, but...
when have you last seen a 20x30 image of a BIF hanging in a LR?


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 5, 2015)

For myself it would be because the pixel density on that format (and so magnification) is going some way towards overcoming the Bayer Array effect, resulting in better colour definition principally. However, how large do you have to print to see the benefit of this ? Maybe not as much as you might think, but I've still got great concerns over the file sizes more many practical purposes. 

Also for still subject that require great definition -,ie landscape, you can stitch with a lower MP camera and the greater magnification required to suit the format you are making also goes towards better colour definition, because in a similar way you are putting more pixels on target. 

So which would produce the best image of a predominantly still subject; a £1,000 6D with a three frame portrait orientation stitch or a single frame from a £3,000 5Ds ?


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 5, 2015)

chauncey said:


> > I could name a lot of things where "stacking and merging" does not work
> 
> 
> For the non professional, the only scenario that it would not work are action images, but...
> when have you last seen a 20x30 image of a BIF hanging in a LR?



I wouldn't regard, say, landscape with a light breeze blowing all the leaves around "action", but it makes for an awful lot of post processing work.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > > I could name a lot of things where "stacking and merging" does not work
> ...



not to mention that nice seaside image with the waves breaking over the rocks........


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2015)

chauncey said:


> > I could name a lot of things where "stacking and merging" does not work
> 
> 
> For the non professional, the only scenario that it would not work are action images, but...
> when have you last seen a 20x30 image of a BIF hanging in a LR?



Trees move in the breeze, water moves in rivers and the ocean, people move in portraits. There are far more situations where stacking/stitching _doesn't_ work than where it does work. 

The last time I saw a 24x36 image of a BIF hanging in a living room was.....just before I left my house this morning.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Trees move in the breeze, water moves in rivers and the ocean, people move in portraits. There are far more situations where stacking/stitching _doesn't_ work than where it does work.


One of my first attempts at stitching images together ended up with the cat appearing in several places..... Things move!


neuroanatomist said:


> The last time I saw a 24x36 image of a BIF hanging in a living room was.....just before I left my house this morning.


Looking at one now.... on the back wall of the lab..... of an Osprey carrying a fish and flying in front on one of the 15 meter dishes.....


----------



## zim (Nov 5, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> So which would produce the best image of a predominantly still subject; a £1,000 6D with a three frame portrait orientation stitch or a single frame from a £3,000 5Ds ?



Or a three frame portrait orientation stitch from a £3,000 5Ds ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 5, 2015)

zim said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > So which would produce the best image of a predominantly still subject; a £1,000 6D with a three frame portrait orientation stitch or a single frame from a £3,000 5Ds ?
> ...



Obviously the correct answer is a single SuperRAW frame from a £500 DxO ONE.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 5, 2015)

I'm fine with "only" 20 megapixel. But I know a few uses, where it would be advantageous to have 50.

It's good to have several options, and I wish that in the future, Canon will continue manufacturing cameras with 20 megapixel as well.


----------



## Halfrack (Nov 5, 2015)

There are a lot of reasons, especially when things are moving or you are moving. Group shots, action shots, intimate shots, any shot where you want more detail, the higher resolution bodies will give you more dots. I've done gigapans and the post on them sucks - partially because I use a 51MP camera to start with. 

Photography is all about trade offs - it always has been, it always will be, otherwise we'd shoot everthing at ISO25,000, f/11 and 1/2000th.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 5, 2015)

chauncey said:


> > I could name a lot of things where "stacking and merging" does not work
> 
> 
> For the non professional, the only scenario that it would not work are action images, but...


If you call 
- children
- animals
- events
- concerts
- floating water
- drifting clouds
- trees in the wind
- macro 
- ...
- shall I continue...???

When you call all these "action images" then your world seems to be quite frozen. Poor world you live in...


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 5, 2015)

Maybe some people should open their minds and see that there are much more perspectives and ways to see and to do things than their own way ...

And respect that there is not the one and only true way.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 5, 2015)

On the other hand, if you are shooting high speed action, you can get more frames per second with 21 MP files than with 51 MP files. Hence, 7D2 vs 5Ds/r. Different tools for different uses.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 5, 2015)

chauncey said:


> Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.
> 
> Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing *in a more inexpensive way*?



Assuming stitching multiple frames accomplishes the same thing as having a single higher-res file (which, notwithstanding pixel level translations like the method Hassleblad employs, it doesn't), what camera upgrade are you referring to which is relatively less expensive than a 300mm f/2.8?


----------



## chauncey (Nov 6, 2015)

All I'm suggesting is that, in most circumstances, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 6, 2015)

chauncey said:


> All I'm suggesting is that, *in most circumstances*, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.



Rather, in certain specific circumstances. It's quite clear from the examples above that 'most' circumstances would benefit more from a higher MP single frame than merging images in post.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 6, 2015)

chauncey said:


> All I'm suggesting is that, in most circumstances, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.


You have found your way, and I respect that this is working well for you.



Maximilian said:


> ... see that there are much more perspectives and ways to see and to do things than their own way ...
> 
> And respect that there is not the one and only true way.


And stacking does NOT work for me. Because of two reasons:
- the subject
- time. To me time not spend in PP is much more worth than the time spend learning how to improve PP and the money for equipment doing the job instead during the shot. 

And reading through this thread is seems that there are others that think that it's not working for them either.


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 6, 2015)

I guess it depends on how you value your time.
Do you spend $3000 on a camera or $3000 of your time?
I'd prefer to spend it on a camera and use my time for shooting rather that photostacking.

So it brings me to another question.
How does it work that 10mp camera can create an image with the same detail as a 50mp camera by shooting multiple shots.
I can see with macro and focus stacking you are combining sharp areas in a series of photos to get a very sharp picture with a big depth of field. You are not (of course I'm possibly wrong) getting more detail you are just getting the best bits of more photographs.

I do enjoy those gigapixel pictures where you can keep zooming. There is incredible resolution. Is it again just resolving focus in all areas back to front to give an impression of more detail or do you get a more detailed picture.

After writing that I'm confused as to what I mean or trying to understand.

Is it like having a sword that can cut through a watermelon in one stroke and a sword that takes there stokes to cut through the watermelon. The end result is the same but one sword takes more effort while the other is made of Toledo steel and is more expensive.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 6, 2015)

chauncey said:


> Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?



Individual preference. Some people like to have the newest technology, some don't.


----------



## bjd (Nov 6, 2015)

After attending a 5Ds Product presentation, I thought that the 5Ds could be used as a rather expensive alternative to a 1,4x Extender :-[

My limited maths says the Pixels are increased by around 1,4x height and width to give the 50MP compared to a 5D MK3. So if I take the same shot with a 5Ds and crop in PP to use around 25MP of the frame, then I should have about the same shot as with the 1,4x extender, but a lot sharper. Plus, I dont lose one F stop of light like I would with an extender. 

Or is my logic flawed?

Problem is, a 1,4X extender costs around 400€, the 5Ds is a magnitude more expensive.

Cheers Brian


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 6, 2015)

bjd said:


> After attending a 5Ds Product presentation, I thought that the 5Ds could be used as a rather expensive alternative to a 1,4x Extender :-[
> 
> My limited maths says the Pixels are increased by around 1,4x height and width to give the 50MP compared to a 5D MK3. So if I take the same shot with a 5Ds and crop in PP to use around 25MP of the frame, then I should have about the same shot as with the 1,4x extender, but a lot sharper. Plus, I dont lose one F stop of light like I would with an extender.
> 
> ...



I have cropped the hell out of 5DS photos with good results- kind of like a 1.4X & 2X extender stacked. Even using the old 100-400L, the results are really surprising. 



Thom Richard Hot Stuff screen shot 5172 web © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

When doing a panorama, my 5D III on vertical with 4 overlap frames is about equal to a single 5DS frame on the horizontal. I find that quite handy for some situations.
This is a handheld shot(Bodie) with my old but trusty 24-105L. I'm sure that using a better lens, tripod , Live View, and a remote would have produced even better results.
Even though this is a screen shot, you get the idea.



Canon 5DS / Bodie 1 shot pano screen shot © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 6, 2015)

bjd said:


> After attending a 5Ds Product presentation, I thought that the 5Ds could be used as a rather expensive alternative to a 1,4x Extender :-[
> 
> My limited maths says the Pixels are increased by around 1,4x height and width to give the 50MP compared to a 5D MK3. So if I take the same shot with a 5Ds and crop in PP to use around 25MP of the frame, then I should have about the same shot as with the 1,4x extender, but a lot sharper. Plus, I dont lose one F stop of light like I would with an extender.
> 
> ...



Yes you are correct.

I've done the exact same calculations the other way for a "focal reducer" on telescopes to make my pixels look bigger.

The optimium solution is always to use the ideal pixel size and minimum quantity of glass.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 6, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> So it brings me to another question.
> How does it work that 10mp camera can create an image with the same detail as a 50mp camera by shooting multiple shots.



If you are referring to stitching, then by stitching but maintaining the same fov as the same single frame shot you are effectively building a larger format and so require more magnification to achieve the same overall fov. That greater magnification puts more pixels on target = more detail


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 7, 2015)

chauncey said:


> It was eight years ago that I upgraded to a Canon 1Ds Mark III...I wanted a camera that convinced me that any errors were my fault.
> At the same time I got addicted to Photoshop. That addiction has lead me to realize that a high MP camera isn't necessary.
> Using but two lenses, 180 macro or a 300 mm f/2.8 enables me to create images as large as I want via stacking and merging.
> 
> Why would anyone upgrade when you could accomplish the same thing in a more inexpensive way?



By this logic would anyone need a camera that shoots more than a few FPS?

Your scenario is very narrow and limited. Perhaps for your work you need no more, but is a poor assumption that there are no others that can take a high mp camera and utilize its full potential.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 7, 2015)

Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 7, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.



Or you could just get a 7d2. Pixel size is the same, noise levels at higher is are about the same and the 1.6 crop is close to the 7d2 size. I don't find cropping to be a reason to get the 5ds. In fact the 7d2 is a lot cheaper.

The 5ds strength is in using as many of those pixels as you can.


----------



## takesome1 (Nov 7, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.
> ...



How about cropping with the added benefit of having FF when you can fill the frame. IMO that's a huge benefit. You could go with the 7D II if you concede that 100% of your shots are cropped. Wildlife and birds are my main interest. The only portion that I would say are cropped 100% of the time would be small birds. Everything else I work hard to get close enough to try and fill a FF and have that benefit when close.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Nov 7, 2015)

The ability to capture those really fine lines and textures that make a photo appear true to life is why I bought the 5DS. The quality is insanely good. It really depends on the photographers business model. After several customers wanting 5-8 foot prints and spending hours messing with images to extract the best quality for the size, I decided to go for the megapixels.



Bodie Day / the cowboy boot © Keith Breazeal by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## scyrene (Nov 7, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Cropping! That would be the main reason I'd get one. Small birds at great distance, even at very long focal lengths, often need some cropping, sometimes a lot. More MP means more virtual reach! And there's no way to simulate it with software.
> ...



Oh I did consider that. But the 5Ds is obviously more flexible. I don't *just* want to crop for birds. For wide shots, full frame is better. And tbh I'm so used to full frame now, I don't think I could go back to crop as my main camera.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 7, 2015)

scyrene said:


> East Wind Photography said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



The big benefit for the 7d2 is its fps and feature set....and dual pixel AF if you shoot occasional video. I own both (actually the 5dsR) and other than the number of pixels, the sensor is about the same. There is no reason to discount the 7d2 when considering the 5ds. The 5ds does not give me what I need for action sports and wildlife. It's fine for stills and occasional action use but no where near the capability of the 7d2. 

Now the 5d3 is another story. It's has better noise levels at higher ISO due to its increased light sensitivity using larger pixels. 

Whether or not you need more MP is purely a decision to be made based on what you shoot the most. I unfortunately need both a high MP camera and a high speed crop for what I shoot.


----------



## dak723 (Nov 7, 2015)

chauncey said:


> All I'm suggesting is that, in most circumstances, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.



Some folks like photography and have no interest spending hours (or even more than a minute or two) post processing. If time is money, than maybe it is more expensive to spend hours on Photoshop post processing.


----------



## East Wind Photography (Nov 7, 2015)

dak723 said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > All I'm suggesting is that, in most circumstances, becoming proficient at Photoshop, although quite time consuming, is far less expensive that is upgrading to a higher MP body.
> ...



And the digic 6 does an incredible job in camera. I'm really excited to see what the new digic 7 can do.

I always shoot raw but often apply in camera processing and cropping to create a jpg.


----------



## bwud (Nov 7, 2015)

dak723 said:


> If time is money, than maybe it is more expensive to spend hours on Photoshop post processing.



I resemble that.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 8, 2015)

East Wind Photography said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > East Wind Photography said:
> ...



I've rarely gone for birds in flight, so fps isn't a problem. High ISO - comparisons I've seen shows the 5Ds about equal to the 5DIII imho. Essentially, the 5Ds has all the same features as the 5DIII, and the same image quality, the only drawbacks being 1fps less, and no ISO 25600+. Neither of those bothers me.


----------

