# Why a high MP camera?



## mkabi (Jul 6, 2013)

Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?
What kind of pictures are you going to be printing or publishing that requires like 30MP and above?


----------



## mwh1964 (Jul 6, 2013)

Why climb a mountain or run a marathon. It's there. I think that's the basic explanation


----------



## Zv (Jul 6, 2013)

I would imagine for advertising/commercial use, where the final image is going to be printed quite large or even moderately sized. When you print at 300dpi you need a decent amount of pixels to begin with. Also means you can crop a fair bit and still end up with decent looking shots. 

Personally 21MP is more than enough for me as I rarely print.


----------



## tron (Jul 6, 2013)

As long as there is a 5DMark whatever camera with no more that the current number of Megapixels I am fine!

I do not need more Mpixels, I prefer lower noise and higher DR. I respect however other people's wishes/needs.

I hope when they make a high Mpixel camera that it will be a totally new model and not a 5D one...


----------



## Danielle (Jul 6, 2013)

I would hope for starters that those who think they want a high mp dslr are planning on printing big.

Lets define big for a second. 16x20 no ... 60x40 upwards yes. The level of clarity at large format print size will do it justice. Just for clarification I mean inches. Upwards of 60x40 usually mean the use of larger format cameras. Bigger megapixel dslr cameras in 135 format (that's 35mm in lay terms) might mean some users may not need to spend quite large to huge sums of money on medium format digital.

However, the larger sensor in those cameras give you more than just ability to print large. Hence why they won't wipe out the likes of phase one or hasselblad. They also give more colour clarity, contrast and things hard to describe unless I write an essay here.

I'm sure some will get my point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2013)

Because sometimes even 1200mm (600 II + 2xIII) isn't long enough, and I have to crop. For many output types, that's ok, but if I need a heavy crop and _still_ want a 24x36" print, more MP would help...


----------



## IceAgeDX (Jul 6, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?
> What kind of pictures are you going to be printing or publishing that requires like 30MP and above?



Just curious, do you assume everyone prints?
I never print. All digital for me.

I want as many megapixels as possible. More crop/zoom, more detail etc


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 6, 2013)

Cropping! My first dslr was 7Mpixels...having gone to 18 megapixels is like having an extra 1 1/2 times zoom and gives me far more detail on those instant objects.

There is no going back so enjoy the ride.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 6, 2013)

Because the d800 was released.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 6, 2013)

Danielle said:


> I would hope for starters that those who think they want a high mp dslr are planning on printing big.
> 
> Lets define big for a second. 16x20 no ... 60x40 upwards yes. The level of clarity at large format print size will do it justice. Just for clarification I mean inches. Upwards of 60x40 usually mean the use of larger format cameras. Bigger megapixel dslr cameras in 135 format (that's 35mm in lay terms) might mean some users may not need to spend quite large to huge sums of money on medium format digital.
> 
> ...



You'll start to see the benefit of higher resolution well before 60x40 inches, I can start to see a noticble resolution difference between my old 550D and a D800 as small as 18 x 12 inches, by A2 its become clearer and by 30 x 20 its pretty obvious.


----------



## horshack (Jul 6, 2013)

Here are the reasons I can think of:


Larger prints
For smaller prints, more detail when downsizing higher MP image vs native lower MP image
More resolving ability for non-green monochromatic subjects (red/blue) like red flowers, due to the resolution limitations of a bayer layout
Cropping
Flexibility to use different aspect ratios while still retaining good resolution
More resistance to moiré and aliasing, with the ability use a weaker/non-existent AA filter as a result


----------



## Apop (Jul 6, 2013)

Computer screen resolutions will also keep getting higher,

With 16mp on my retina macbook when I have a 16mp original image, applying 1.8 crop factor on that image already gives me a 100% crop on my screen (leaves around a 5mp image).

So when the image is not 100% focused, even a 16mp image can look so so on my screen, when I used the d800, even some poor focused images still looked sharp (ok).

Applying the 1.8 crop on a 36 mp image still leaves you with a 11.1 mp image.

For printing and photo books it doesn't really matter. , but I did quite like that the more MP masks my poor skills at times , also for action shots it can have some benefits. I rather shoot with 300mm f2.8 and 44mp than 500mm f4 and 16mp, It's a lot easier to track with a small portion of the viewfinder filled than almost the entire viewfinder!, also nice to have both the close up and overview shot in 1 go. However at this point the fps are still a bit of a problem, 4fps is not quite enough, if they can manage to get that to 6-7 fps it would be great.

I also wonder how it will affect auto focus, since it's harder to keep auto focus point on the target.


It is a bit like having 16mp file and a 7mp image on a full hd screen (around 2mp screen), or a 36mp and 16mp image on a 5mp screen.

If you have a 7mp image to start with on a 2mp screen there is also not a lot of room for focus error or cropping afterwards.

So as (computer) screens keep getting more pixels, I would personally not mind having 40+mp cameras


----------



## Policar (Jul 6, 2013)

I want a replacement for my view camera...

4x5 can print to 40x50 inches, 8x10 to 80x100 inches. 

I'd settle for less, but I'd rather have more. The Mark III is such a joke compared with a view camera... if you're trying to replace a view camera.


----------



## Freddie (Jul 6, 2013)

One of my best selling images was shot with a 1D MK II of 8 megapixel resolution in 2005. Those prints are 32" x 48" on stretched canvas. It was also shot with the first model 16-35L f/2.8 lens which is not all that sharp. Admittedly, canvas hides lower resolution images to a degree.
One of my other all-time sellers was shot with a Canon D60 and that image isn't particularly sharp either.
The most significant gain with the later cameras is less noise and greater ISO range.
That said, if you're comparing only current model dslr cameras, there is really no pressing need of resolution-for-resolution's sake. They will almost all do a very good job if used properly.
Some of the current bodies with the latest high-MP Sony sensors are quite a bit better at shadow detail retention. That capability, rather than the high resolution, is a why I might consider them more desirable.
So, high MP is good but not really necessary while greater dynamic range is paramount. The fact that those features might come in one package is just fine though.
Fred


----------



## muotasemayad (Jul 6, 2013)

High MP is for large prints ... and it allows you to do more cropping easily ... However ... it needs better optics than the kit lens to achieve and resolve more of the big mp sensor ...


----------



## Policar (Jul 6, 2013)

Freddie said:


> So, high MP is good but not really necessary while greater dynamic range is paramount. The fact that those features might come in one package is just fine though.
> Fred



That's a big generalization. I'm waiting for a high MP/Mark II 45mm and 90mm TSE combination to replace a view camera and Velvia. 4x5 is about as sharp as 60-80MP bayer (or sharper) but has fine detail and tonality way, way beyond that. But it has 4-5 stops of dynamic range. We already have a sports and wildlife camera (1DX) and a general purpose hobby camera (5D III)... There's no mid-range studio/landscape camera and it sounds like you don't need one, but others do (or at least want one!).

I prefer shooting evenly lit shots... paper and ink can have 4-5 stops of contrast at most (backlit art plenty more) and so I don't want that much more dynamic range in my scene unless I'm doing a lot of dodging and burning with black and white or something.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2013)

Policar said:


> Freddie said:
> 
> 
> > So, high MP is good but not really necessary while greater dynamic range is paramount. The fact that those features might come in one package is just fine though.
> ...



Indeed. Not everyone DRools over DR.


----------



## nicku (Jul 6, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?
> What kind of pictures are you going to be printing or publishing that requires like 30MP and above?



In what I do... I let the client to decide what to do. My concern is to provide a high quality, HIGH MEGAPIXELS pictures.


----------



## kbmelb (Jul 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Freddie said:
> ...



I actually prefer the images of my old 1DsII and now 1DsIII to my 5DIII. Straight out of the camera. Why? They have less DR or more contrast. I can make the 5DIII look like them in post by increasing the contrast, blacks and definition (clarity for LR users). 

As far as high MP camera, I shoot for agencies and I actually catch flack from them for only shooting 22MP and I have probably lost jobs because I don't shoot medium format. I much prefer to shoot 35mm body. So if I can have a 30+MP camera I'll be quite happy. The agencies will probably still have something to complain about because they are MF snobs.


----------



## Freddie (Jul 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > Freddie said:
> ...



Yes, drooling should always be avoided or is that too big a generalization?


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 6, 2013)

Product photography. I shoot a lot of small items and it's hard to get really large product photos- you move in too close and the DOF is too shallow, too far away and you have to crop down and end up with a much smaller image.

I'll take more mega pixos


----------



## Policar (Jul 6, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> Product photography. I shoot a lot of small items and it's hard to get really large product photos- you move in too close and the DOF is too shallow, too far away and you have to crop down and end up with a much smaller image.
> 
> I'll take more mega pixos



Have you tried focus stitching or are you still using T/S lenses? T/S will only get you so far.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 6, 2013)

Freddie said:


> Yes, drooling should always be avoided or is that too big a generalization?



Depends - my camera is weather sealed, so if I'm using it with a weather sealed lens, a little DRool isn't a problem.


----------



## Skulker (Jul 6, 2013)

I can't see I will need loads of mega whatsits. 

I think some people will want it because it's a bigger number, they think more is better. I was talking to a professional the other day who was ranting on about her d800 because of the mega things. She could not come up with a reason why. I have nothing against the d800 it produces fabulous images. I found out later that the other person in the conversation thought the same as me, but like me didn't bother to try to explain as she was so set on more must be better. 

I've yet to see a comparison that convinced me that any crop is a better substitute for getting closer or a longer lens.


----------



## Apop (Jul 6, 2013)

'Only' 9-10 years ago the 1d had 4.2 mp and the 1dmkII 8mp.
For that time it was great, but now we have 5+megapixel screens, you are looking at almost 100% crops or 100%+ crops.

The reason i liked the 36mp of the d800, is that you got some future in your files, It's really hard to predict where the pixel race for screens will end, at the moment i can lean as close as my eye can focus to the screen and things still appear sharp, so i guess 8-10mp for a 15 inch laptop screen is about as far as is useful.
Is it useful to press your nose to the laptop monitor when the normal viewing distance is 50'ish cm?, I personally like it because I can see detail (hairs and such) which i cannot see from 50 cm, sure I can just zoom in on the image, But i don't know, I like it

It as about 220dpi now, if you translate that to a 42 inch tv screen , that would be 37'ish MP (estimate).
440 dpi would be 75+.

Is it necessary to be able to press your nose to the tv screen and still see a sharp picture when the normal viewing distance is 2-5 meters? ,probably not, but I would personally like it , seeing all that detail up close!

A bit of overkill of pixels on the camera (about 8-10 times screen resolution) never hurts imo, slightly out of focus images will still appear tack sharp!


----------



## deleteme (Jul 7, 2013)

kbmelb said:


> As far as high MP camera, I shoot for agencies and I actually catch flack from them for only shooting 22MP and I have probably lost jobs because I don't shoot medium format. I much prefer to shoot 35mm body. So if I can have a 30+MP camera I'll be quite happy. The agencies will probably still have something to complain about because they are MF snobs.


I have had those same idiotic request from some clients even though I know that the difference will be invisible. I scale up the images (5dmk3) strip the metadata and deliver thumping huge 16 bit tiffs and they are delighted. I also notice that a client recently supplied me with iStock images that were shot with a 7D and the kit lens! They got the job done (24x36 poster) but they were not as crisp as I expected of a stock agency and really got me thinking about the MP debate.
If your client wants to see you using high MP gear and is willing to pay a premium, just rent it, bill them and call it a day.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 7, 2013)

My first digital camera was 320x 200 pixels in 16 colors..... It was AMAZING! 

I remember people stating that there was no need for cameras of more than 8 megapixels.....

Let me recount some other visionary statements....

From several of us at work, 1980, concerning Telidon ( a project at work )... "This will eventually be in every library in Canada". Teledon became the Internet and HTML grew out of it's control language...

From Bill Gates, "no computer will ever need more than 64K of memory"

From Texas Instruments, when they unveiled a 16K x 1 bit memory chip, and said "throw away your design tools, this is as dense as a memory chip can be made"

And my favorite of all, Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone, who had a dream that one day there would be a phone in every city in North America


And 20 or 30 megapixels is enough? Right.... Or you can't make a good digital viewfinder.... Right.....


----------



## Freddie (Jul 7, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> My first digital camera was 320x 200 pixels in 16 colors..... It was AMAZING!
> 
> I remember people stating that there was no need for cameras of more than 8 megapixels.....



Don: The first digital I worked with was this one <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minolta_RD-175>
It made a decent 3x5" low-resolution digital image for catalog usage in 1996-98 and cost around US$6000 at the time. After that, I gave up on digital cameras until the Canon D60 came along in the spring of 2002 and showed me the future of photography for about a third of the price of that Minolta.
Since 2002, I've owned that D60, three versions of the 1D series Canon bodies, and two of the three 5D series. Despite the never-ending avaricious need for yet more pixels sometimes displayed on this forum, quite a few of the best images ever taken were shot with sub-8 MP digital camera bodies. The photographer's best tools are not and will never be camera equipment and that will remain true despite a desperate and irrational hunger for high MP dslr cameras.
And, yes, I do feel that dynamic range is far more important than resolution at this point in time.
I would love it if a decent 35-40 MP camera body were to be produced to fit my Canon lenses but, until that time, I'll happily work with the equipment available. Also, if Canon were able to simply duplicate the wonderful shadow detail shown by the Sony sensors without increasing resolution, I'd be happy to have that as well.
Fred


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 7, 2013)

tron said:


> As long as there is a 5DMark whatever camera with no more that the current number of Megapixels I am fine!
> 
> I do not need more Mpixels, I prefer lower noise and higher DR. I respect however other people's wishes/needs.
> 
> I hope when they make a high Mpixel camera that it will be a totally new model and not a 5D one...



+1


----------



## Apop (Jul 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > As long as there is a 5DMark whatever camera with no more that the current number of Megapixels I am fine!
> ...



Me neither, Until there is a 27 inch screen(Or imac) with 16mp, I see this happening within 3 years ( which isn't unrealistic), with my poor focus skills this would mean the need for a 64mp+ camera


----------



## mb66energy (Jul 7, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?
> What kind of pictures are you going to be printing or publishing that requires like 30MP and above?



(1) Extreme aspect ratios (cinemascope, ca. 2.35:1 or square)
1-Shot-panoramas with moving objects/subjects
(2) Large prints for the wall
(3) Strange light sources (fireworks, Neon/LED light, sunsets) which will profit from a 2x2 binning
to sum up R-G-G-B in one image pixel


I am shure that 12 MPix are sufficient for 90 % of the  MY images, I really have to learn to master the 10MPix of my 40D.

But I dream about a 48 MPix FF camera with a RAW mode (or DPP "special buttons)) to calculate clean 24MPix and ultraclean 12MPix images.

But if it is possible to acquire more data I would prefer to use it. Consolidation of the 48MPix information into a 12MPix .cr2 data file with DPP or another post processing tool would be great: If 12MPix are sufficient, why store/operate with 48MPix files? On the other hand, if I have a good image where 48MPix are helpful ... it would be great to store the full information.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 7, 2013)

mkabi said:


> Out of curiosity, those looking for high MP cameras... why do you need anything above 18MP?



18mp is (more than) enough for me as a final export size, *but* as a source this is what I'd like more mp for:


*tele:* if a ff would have the same pixel density as current crop plus a "crop thecenter" raw mode, you wouldn't need a crop camera plus the ff would have 100% af sensor coverage
*macro* (the lenses are sharp enough): more magnification w/o aperture drop, or crop for more working distance, less lens shade
*aspect ratio* change (like 16:9 or custom ar for dtp) from the same source
*focus stacking* or *pano stitching*: always results in a drop in resolution/sharpness, so higer mp source is better
*general postprocessing*: for me some actions like tilting, sharpening or nr work better if some downsizing is applied, i.e. the software has some more data to work with even if it's noisy or less sharp


----------



## chauncey (Jul 7, 2013)

> •tele: if a ff would have the same pixel density as current crop plus a "crop the center" raw mode, you wouldn't need a crop camera plus the ff would have 100% af sensor coverage
> •macro (the lenses are sharp enough): more magnification w/o aperture drop, or crop for more working distance, less lens shade
> •aspect ratio change (like 16:9 or custom ar for dtp) from the same source
> •focus stacking or pano stitching: always results in a drop in resolution/sharpness, so higher mp source is better
> •general post processing: for me some actions like tilting, sharpening or nr work better if some downsizing is applied, i.e. the software has some more data to work with even if it's noisy or less sharp


The very fact that this question is being asked is showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the entire photographic process, ranging from the increased DOF (back-up and crop) to the superior IQ of a downsized high MP image.


----------



## kbmelb (Jul 7, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> kbmelb said:
> 
> 
> > As far as high MP camera, I shoot for agencies and I actually catch flack from them for only shooting 22MP and I have probably lost jobs because I don't shoot medium format. I much prefer to shoot 35mm body. So if I can have a 30+MP camera I'll be quite happy. The agencies will probably still have something to complain about because they are MF snobs.
> ...



I actually work for a large health care provider. I am "their" photographer. Even have a contract. They want to use me for everything but they work with outside ad agencies and one of them resist using me with all their might. And one of the excuses they give my company is the resolution of my gear. This is obviously just an excuse to use THEIR guy.

I'd even go out on limb and say that agency has tried to sabotage shoots before just to get out of using me.

It really irks me because 95-100% of Victoria Secret catalogs, posters, billboards are shot with Canon gear and I doubt anyone is complaining about Russell James' resolution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> A few years ago a number of people said that 6MP is enough, now 18Mp
> Can it be because Canon don't have any high megapixel camera??
> 24 Mp is the double resolution of 6Mp



A couple years ago, 12 MP was enough. Can it have been because Nikon didn't have an 'affordable' FX body with 21 MP?

:


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 7, 2013)

chauncey said:


> The very fact that this question is being asked is showing a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the entire photographic process, ranging from the increased DOF (back-up and crop) to the superior IQ of a downsized high MP image.



Ugh? That's a pretty self-confident statement, you're talking to me (since you quoted me, but I didn't ask a question) or the op?



neuroanatomist said:


> A couple years ago, 12 MP was enough. Can it have been because Nikon didn't have an 'affordable' FX body with 21 MP? :



I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")... 

... of course the higher data rate (fps, storage) is a downside of more resolution, but my 2ct is that in secret most users would take more mp over less even if the downsized shots are no better than originals from the lower-mp body.


----------



## infared (Jul 7, 2013)

I find that the 5D3 is plenty of camera for me. Former pro...shoot for my own needs...art prints and gallery work...I waited to get into DSLR's until the 5D II came along, (And I owned all Nikon film cameras and lenses...so it took something fantastic to sway me). I felt that digital was finally "there there" with that offering..and "almost" affordable. LOL!
I got a 5D III because of the increased functionality of the camera...I have not regreted that expediture and it is all I really need for the work that I do. I am heavily into my photography..just picked up a 17mm TSE for my well-rounded quiver...amazing combo with the 5D III! Amazing. ...but I cannot see what a big MP camera can do for me at my level of shooting (which is advanced). I feel I have spent obscene amounts of $ to have the tools that I currently have...and the prints I am making do actually WOW people sometimes. So for this photographer...the expense of a newly relaseased Canon high-MP camera ($10,000+?) is just something I would not touch...plus having to completely overhaul my current (very adequate) computer setup to process and store these new mega files puts the cost factor out the window for me..for a small increase in quality for the type of work that "I" am doing.
I can see where certain pros and certain fine-arts shooters would be all over a camera like that...but I can also see that many of them have no "real" need for a camera of that nature for the work that they are doing. It's a big commitment for most...but I think that Canon has to produce this camera. No doubt.


----------



## Pi (Jul 7, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...



Similar but not the same or even close. 12 -> 21 is a much bigger jump in system resolution than 22 -> 36, taking into account all other factors for resolution.


----------



## tron (Jul 7, 2013)

Pi said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure the threads in the Nikon forums back then ("12 mp is enough, no one needs 21mp") are the same as from Canon loyalists now ("22mp is enough, no one needs 36mp")...
> ...


+1 Plus, it's the combinations of Cameras and Lenses that count so the difference of 22Mpixel Canon with top Canon lenses and 36Mpixel Nikon with top Nikon lenses is not so much according to DxO if I recall correctly. Sure D800 wins but not by much.


----------



## wellfedCanuck (Jul 7, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Freddie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, drooling should always be avoided or is that too big a generalization?
> ...


I suspect that the pictures you've published of your photogear have generated all sorts of DRool...


----------



## tron (Jul 7, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...


http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/886/%28lens2%29/175/%28brand1%29/Canon/%28camera1%29/795/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792

I was thinking of the above DxO comparison:
Canon 5D3 with Canon 24-70 2.8 II and Nikon D800 with Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 7, 2013)

5DIII owners are arguing this point as if they are Macgyvers of photography who get the job done with the bare minimum... lol

There are plenty of uses for infinitely high megapixel counts. Maybe not for weddings or casual shooting... but in general, you might accomplish the same shot with a cheaper/sharper lens and still have the freedom to frame what you want after the shot. Working in advertising, I often reuse the same image for different purposes—some cropped in extremely close. With retina displays coming on to the scene, high resolution isn't just for big prints. 

Also, for stock photography photos are priced by size (at least on istockphoto). Not to say that most people NEED those big sizes... but as long as they will pay, I am a fan


----------



## AlanF (Jul 7, 2013)

Just visiting St Petersburg (full of Canon 70-200mm f/2.8) and thought that this from the The Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood (Russian: Церковь Спаса на Крови) illustrated nicely the effects of not having enough MP (taken with SX50 at 600mm equiv, iso 1250, 1/20s f/5.6).


----------



## tron (Jul 7, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> 5DIII owners are arguing this point as if they are Macgyvers of photography who get the job done with the bare minimum... lol
> 
> There are plenty of uses for infinitely high megapixel counts. Maybe not for weddings or casual shooting... but in general, you might accomplish the same shot with a cheaper/sharper lens and still have the freedom to frame what you want after the shot. Working in advertising, I often reuse the same image for different purposes—some cropped in extremely close. With retina displays coming on to the scene, high resolution isn't just for big prints.
> 
> Also, for stock photography photos are priced by size (at least on istockphoto). Not to say that most people NEED those big sizes... but as long as they will pay, I am a fan


1st. You are being both rude and ignorant of the fact that not everyone needs a high megapixel camera. Your needs are NOT everyone's needs. The mere fact that you laugh at people who are satisfied with their 5DIII camera is ... funny to say the least... Especially since NO ONE said there shouldn't be a high megapixel camera.
2nd. You ignore the fact that lenses cannot resolve "infinite megapixels" Take a look at DxO for a change...
3rd. A cheaper/sharper lens. Mmmm interesting. With a few exceptions cheaper and sharper are mutually exclusive properties.


----------



## Faxon (Jul 7, 2013)

I am not a pro still photographer. I am a pro video shooter (tv news), so I like fine equipment. The best part of the high resolution wars is the fact that guys like me can buy a beautiful 10 MP 1D Mk III for a fraction of it's original price, and get the world's best resolution five years ago. The rapidly evolving MP wars has it's benefits for bargain hunters.

My 8 MP 20D still makes beautiful macro photographs, and my "new" 1D will do the same, with all the enjoyment of using a top grade piece of equipment and getting comfortable with the best, without having to spend $6000.00. I will NEVER print anything larger than 8x10 and simply don't need more camera. Low light? That is why I might buy a 5D MkIII when the price drops in December.

Some classic film cameras are real cheap now as well, wonderful for the "perfect shot" type of measured, crafted photography, which I can certainly appreciate. Film Leicas, the unobtainable, will they EVER drop in price? I would not buy a digital Leica. Why would anyone? The MP count keeps passing them by.


----------



## strykapose (Jul 7, 2013)

Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 7, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> it shows that the Canon lens is better, nothing else
> put a sigma 35/1,4 or a nikon 85/1,4 etc on a d800



Yeah, but that's a pretty significant something. A 24-70/2.8 is a very popular lens for a lot of good reasons, and a prime just doesn't cut it in a lot of situations. The fact that the D800 + Nikon 24-70/2.8 doesn't offer a whole lot more _real_ resolution than a 5DIII + Canon 24-70 II is just one example of diminishing returns with increasing resolution. Plus, of course, there's more to taking a picture than system resolution. 

It will be interesting to see if Nikon comes out with a new 24-70, and how the Canon 24-70 II will perform on a future (hypothetical) high MP body from Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 8, 2013)

ankorwatt said:


> I do not use the 24-70 from Nikon, I use lenses who can reproduce the higher mp



So, say you were shooting an event and needed a zoom lens covering the general purpose range of moderate wide angle to short tele, and an f/2.8 aperture for subject isloation and low-light use. What lens _would_ you use on your D800 to give you the full benefit of the higher MP?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2013)

strykapose said:


> Canon, What's Taking So Long? Please Hurry Up! by Strykapose, on Flickr



How about that d700 replacement?


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 9, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Because the d800 was released.



Because more is better. The new truck model will always have more HP, not less.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Because the d800 was released.
> ...



Exactly, why do they make diesels? After all,they make such terrible HP compared to gas trucks. Perhaps a different use in mind?


----------

