Mike Reichman pontificates.
Quote:
"Things are still silly in the digicam field with shirt pocket cameras now up to about 12MP. This means 2.8 micron pixels (or maybe even less) which if this trend continues will begin to impinge on the size of the upper wave lengths of light. Stuffing photons into these little holes is going to start challenging the laws of physics pretty soon.
In the DSLR world sanity seems to be settling in, with pixel counts in the 12 – 14 MP range becoming the norm. The high end of the pro DSLR market seems to be at the 21 – 24 MP range, and while that leaves room for the lower end of the market to still move upward, the ceiling isn't going to get much higher once pixel count gets above 25MP and photosite sizes below 5 microns, because noise will become too big an issue at anything other than moderate level ISOs. Photographers now want image quality above pixel count, or at least I do.
It also needs to be asked – which photographers need these large files? Typical commercial uses (magazines, newspapers, etc) are easily satisfied with files in the low to mid teens, and while a larger file, such as from a Canon 1Ds MKIII, is great for making a 24X36" print, how many people actually need this? Of course a larger files means a greater ability to crop and still get a usable image size, but this then starts to stress lens performance; a bit of a vicious cycle.
So, as far as I'm concerned, anything north of a high quality 12 Megapixels is fine for most applications, and 20+ MP files (whether from a DSLR or a medium format back) are only needed in the work that I do for my most critical landscape work and some commercial projects. (For example, I have a commission to document a major urban renewal project, and in addition to an eventual coffee table book have been told that wall-sized blow-ups for a presentation center will be needed. So, I'll be shooting much of that with a 39MP medium format back.)"
I agree. I would even say that for most users, anything at or over 6 megapixels is quite sufficient. Really. I have big (30cm x 40cm) framed prints on my wall taken with 6-MP cameras, and they look great.
For critical work and most professional work, 10-14 MP is quite sufficient. Anything bigger is only needed for very specialized work, even for pros.
The move to 12-MP pocket cameras is dumb. Fuji totally trashed their previously wonderful low-light capability when they moved up to 12 MP with the F50. (Though I have to say that Canon managed it better with the Ixus 960/SD950.)
Update: here's a site advocating 6MP compact cameras.
... Of course the noise argument hinges on the shaky assumption that light-gathering and processing is standing still. That's not so. Until a couple of years ago, no pocket camera had decent quality above 200 ISO. Then the Fuji F10 came along and showed low noise even at 800 ISO. So I don't think we can assume anything definite about anything.
Also the same amount of noise per 100 pixels will matter less on a camera with more pixels, because the picture has to be enlarged less when printed.
9 comments:
See also:
http://6mpixel.org/en/
I'm definitely not getting into this discussion, but I'd still like to point out the interesting contrast between the comments made here and the featured comment on this post.
Perhaps also point out that technology seldom develops along a straight line. Add marketeers to the game, and you are certainly bound for unnecessary (and unjustifiable) detours. [deep sigh]
Indeed I think that post by Ctein is doubtful at best. I think he just went into contrarian mode. Also, Ctein is a super quality-freak, for example he is a specialist in outmoded color printing methods which are very difficult and expensive.
David Pogue did some testing which showed that almost nobody could tell the difference between 5MP, 10MP, and 16MP prints, even when specifically *asked* to look for the differences.
[biting tongue & grumbling "don't get involved in religious wars"] Eolake has never been so right in stating that noise levels are not static. As semiconductor processes go, performance will keep improving, and quantum leaps will keep happening for a long time. Only idiots think that we've seen it all. Many, many fresh ideas to come.
Anybody crying about large files is due for a confuser upgrade. Dang, you can set up terabytes of redundant storage for 2K$ nowadays. WTF?
I love walking around w/ only a 50mm prime, so I want the higher resolutions for the ability to crop impossible to compose shots. Not to mention that dang life that keeps happening too quickly, just won't wait for you to be ready. How rude.
Why aim for the lowest? Latest toy is crap? Then don't buy it, t'will be replaced soon. Better yet, kill the marketeers, for you get what they think you want, definitely not what can be done.
Can't believe this. Haven't seen anything yet, and already crying for the good old days. Pffuh. [mumbles away]
Way to stay neutral. :)
Just couldn't help it. I hope that by now, you know I don't take any of this very seriously. The world will stay on its course, like it or not. And technology will keep changing, with all the bumps and detours along the way. Why would I get angry if the next guy disagrees with me?
But if you read that 6 Mpel stuff carefully, you will see that by their own estimation, full-frame sensors will be mature when they reach 96 Mpel. Yessir!
One's cell phone camera won't be able to keep up? See how much I care. The damn things should be banned (the phones as well as their "stealth cameras").
And advocating that we have reached the limit in compact cameras, with the whole argumentation silently assuming that we are permanently stuck with today's sensor sizes is [censored]. ;-)
And come to think of it, why can't I eventually want to have one of my "crappy amateur" shots blown up to wall size?
We all have, somewhere down the line, had a photo blown up to at least half poster. We all have also had that selective enlargement; heck APS and "wide" format 35mm were both in camera selected selective enlargement/cropping.
So to make silicon, you no longer project light through a mask and use the shadows, you use the interference patterns of the shadows! Photo receptors in cameras will adopt new techniques are the geometry shrinks.
The other end of the equation, as process yield increases the chance of a larger sensor for reasonable cost improves. Pixels stay the same size, but we are back to a 35mm film equivalent sensor, not the current, what is it, 26mm?
Have you stacked up a pile of floppy disks to see how many it would take to replace the thumb drive on your keyring? Tera bytes will be a household term very soon.
Remember in the 80's how the cD was an important factor in a cars advertising? Then it became Airbags, then ABS, MPG, PPM, and now Fiat, Ford and Microsoft are pushing connectedness. Same with cameras, they will push pixel count, then noise, speed, pixel depth, eye tracking spot focus and metering and then wearable psionically controlled auto-capture.
"then wearable psionically controlled auto-capture"
Just think "Ahhh!" and you get a terabit image of the panorama you are facing (200$ more to get the 360 degree option). And with wireless networking, you use neighboring cameras to get multiple points of view, of course. Way to go Alex! :-))
Post a Comment