Home Photography End the Megapixel War! 100 MP: Is it a mistake? (Picture This!...

End the Megapixel War! 100 MP: Is it a mistake? (Picture This! Podcast)

11
48
Advertisement canpers.com

Get 90% off of this Udemy course by clicking here: http://bit.ly/2VLLUo3 Thanks to Udemy for sponsoring this video – improve your life through learning! Camera …

source

Facebook Comments
Advertisement canpers.com

48 COMMENTS

  1. Kind of similar to the limit of computer chip processing speed needed for most real world applications. Also …. who really needs an iPhone with much better specs than the iPhone 6 Plus?
    Who really needs a domestic 8K TV after seeing what a 55 inch 4K can present at a 10 ft viewing distance?.
    Who really needs more than 24 well stabilised,well focused MP?
    42 MP would seem to be more than most will ever need.
    Who needs more stuff/gifts at Christmas ?.
    Now I’m losing it ….What economy can sustain eternal growth if we are confined to one world.
    Sting 🐝was right …. One world not 3😀 ….. Yeah!!
    Most of the above ….. “1st” world “problems” 🌎 but we may need 2.5 Earths to resource the current whack “solution” mindset/ population graph trajectory .
    Cheer up …… it might never happen. There’s more than enough sand in the Sahara to bury 7.2 thousand million heads …. and there’s more desert every day. 👁🙏🏼👁. Just saying!

  2. it's no longer necessary to have excessive megapixels. because we can stitch and composite and enlarge from multiple images captured. Clean, dynamic range is still the holy grail.

  3. I think, for those that genuinely need to make big prints, that a lot of these problems would be solved just with bigger sensors (of relatively low density), rather than just cramming a gazillion pixels into a small sensor. I shoot medium and large format film and, no, I definitely do not think everyone should… but I can still pull off a large print without worrying tremendously about things like "micro-shake" because you can only get so much information in a given area of film… you just make up for that with more area. Of course "micro-shaking" and diffraction still occurs, but it's just not very relevant. I probably still 250 perceptual megapixels easy out of the worst sheet of large format film, where I had to stop down like crazy, use all kinds of movements, and worry about the wind and the ones where I don't have to stop down excessively or use much movement or worry about wind will easily out-resolve any scanner I could afford. I shoot film because I like it, but doesn't mean I wouldn't be curious to see what something like a digital 6×7 or larger sensor could produce.

  4. For me personally (i know this doesn’t apply to everyone), the 1 percent of the time that megapixels actually matter is the time that the photo ended up in my portfolio. All the travel stuff are leisure photography for me and only a scheduled photo shoot when everything is controlled and planned ends up in my portfolio, and that’s when i take full advantage of my megapixels by planning ahead to use the sharpest lens possible.

  5. Canon actually published a list of recommended lenses for the 5DS when it came out, they went back and tested all their FF glass. They never actually published a similar list for FF used on APS-C cameras, but it's exactly the same issue. If you were a lens designer making a lens for an 18-24 megapixel FF camera without considering APS-C, there's no particular reason to worry about making the lens all that sharper. Some probably do turn out sharper anyway, but with all of the cost tradeoffs, linear and chromatic abberations to control that affect any camera, etc. So maybe Canon's thinking more about 50 megapixel today, but are they really considering 75-100 megapixel at this point? Does that new lens you bought even really deliver a true 24 megapixels on a crop sensor camera? I bet, using a higher pixel count APS-C camera, we could predict whether there's any point in making FF about 50 megapixels given existing glass. Of course, lots of technology happens "because we can" not "because we should".

  6. Built-in panoramas were kind of a fail in serious cameras. The real point of a good camera is capturing the image as cleanly as possible. The stitching software that's built-in on a camera doesn't allow for creative input. You don't get to select the projection used, you don't necessarily get the best support for de-ghosting, etc. I've been shooting Micro Four Thirds for six years, but before that, 20 megapixel full frame. I get my higher resolution with compositing. Even the compositing built-in to Lightroom is better than what you could build into a camera. And for complex work, you really need something like Kolor's Autopano Giga, which allows the user to include or exclude moving elements, chose from a large set of projections, edit the coincidence matrix in detail, etc.

  7. I don't think Canon's skipping IBIS because they don't think it's important. I think they currently have no choice. Their sensor technology is probably two generations behind Sony's, at least based on what's actually shipping in cameras today. And you can look at the heat and power issues that Sony had in the A7II versus the A7III. I think they have no way to cool the sensor if it's "floating" the way IBIS systems work. Probably the same reason they have those crazy 4K crops. Canon did actually patent an IBIS system last year, but it's weird, it doesn't allow the same freedom of movement that pretty much all the others do, but it does seem to offer better heat control. No idea if that was "just in case" or if Canon is committed to this being a long-term problem.

    Incidently, the first Olympus IBIS camera was the Olympus E-510 DSLR in 2007.

  8. you could have stopped after weak lenses. Buy glass before Megapixels. If I have something that I need a lot of mega pixels and know it I will rent a better body to go with my good glass.

  9. Why do Canon cameras sell well even though they are slow to adopt technology? Perhaps Canon cameras and lens are like Toyota cars which tend to be highly reliable compared to competitors. I do agree that Canon and Nikon need to adapt more. My guess is Canon does not include sensor stabilization because it makes their bodies unfriendly to other manufacturer's lens. They most likely have the capacity to make what they want. Another example is their decision to limit high resolution video in order to protect their cinema line. This has surely lost them some market share but they likely did the math and the Cinema line revenue has likely been worth it.

  10. High megapixel sensor itself is not inherently "bad" thing. For example, what if when you ramp up the iso the mexapixel number drops instead of getting more and more noise up to some point. What would be needed for the high megapixel sensor to make more sense is to make "smart" use of all these megapixels.

    There are ofcource physical limits. It would make probably no sense to go below the wavelength of visible light with the sensor pixel size.

    So where I think the megapixels will end up? Eventually. For a full frame camera I'd think the absolute upper limit us somewhere around 865 megapixels. Although there would be diminishing returns far before hitting that approx 1000 nm x 1000 nm pixel size. But its highly unlikely that cameras would be writing full 865 megapixel raw files. A typical end-user resolution would be probably somewhere between ~32 and ~128 megapixels. 32 MP because thats roughly the resolution of a 8k display, which happens to be reasonably close to the theoretical limit of human eye (If I remeber correct then ~7600 x ~5000 lines is the rough ballpark for human eye for a still high contrast black and white image where you have black and white lines next to each other). There might be some very minor benefits going past that up to 4 times, in theory. In practice I'd be surprised if human can tell at a glance the difference between a 16 megapixel and 32 megapixel image without pixel peeping under zoom.

    TLDR – big megapixel not all bad, all you need is to make smarter use of all these megapixels. Which is basically in line of what you were suggesting. Making smarter use of the box with a sensor though clever in-body pre-processing and later post-process smarter using of all the available data.

  11. So you mean is that new Phone cameras take better photos than my Canon T6 that came with a lens (combo) specially in the depht of field and other factors like diffraction etc etc?

  12. I agree far too much attention is placed on mega megapixels. I think the 42MP in the a7riii is perhaps the limit of this fad. In the 60’s it was fast apertures and camera maker’s had fun selling these limited use lenses. Today they are doing the same. I notice the increased noise in lower light that would not be there if it were perhaps 36MP or less. Those professionals who truly need the increased resolution already use Medium Format. What we think we need isn’t always what we actually need. If one composes correctly with the subject covering the full sensor, it’s obvious the image can be used on a large print. Cropping wastes many megapixels, so I guess that’s their real argument. I would rather have less noise and a less expensive body.

  13. Are most of your viewers millennials & gen Z or older people?
    I love your videos and your content is super but the way you two present your content feels dated. Sometimes I skip over your videos because they are not as aesthetically pleasing as other other content here on YouTube. I’m guessing that is not too important for older folks who might strictly care for the content

  14. Aah it's Minolta who did sensor stabilization. A dangling sensor sometimes introduces blur when the camera is in tripod, even when stabilization is turned off. Stabilization only benefits handheld shots.

  15. Full frame photographers are so hypocritical. Say a fuji user has a xt2 or a xt3 and you hear from obnoxious stuck up, elitist full frame canon dslr (or sony) fan boys all day how they aren't professional enough. Crop is crap etc. You often hear this logic "don't you want the best gear or the best possible shot for your clients?" (false logic, it implies anything crop isn't good enough b/c there's something more professional)

    But god forbid you upgrade and get a medium format camera like the fuji gfx or 50R, or the upcoming 100mp one with ibis and phase detect AF. Suddenly its oh FF is good enough, you don't need MF. Hypocritical much? You spend $1,500 on a camera and it sucks, you spend $3k and its just right, you spend $5-10k on a camera and its woah that's to much… whats wrong FF users, don't you want the best gear and the best possible shot for your client? haha. touche.

    Fuji fans we need to have these conversations and point out the FF users hypocrisy. It's the only way they will learn and maybe change their ways and attitudes. The truth is the xt3 kicks many full frame cameras butts even if it is a cropped sensor.

  16. I’m sorry how the hell is the l series 24-105mm F4 canon a crappy kit lenses ?? It’s one of the best things I’ve owned.. I love the pictures it’s captures…

    Oh I’m also not a pro nor do I have a bank up my bum and can not spend 20k on glass..

    I was enjoying you shows until you dished out the comment..

  17. I don’t know and I’m not really qualified to speak in an expert level like you two. I can only speak for the consumer level. I want things to work as advertised. I want them to be perfected and useful, not a stat line to compare. I think of dual pixel auto focus as an example where my camera is extremely easy to shoot video with the display but doesn’t shoot 4K. (80D). It’s refined, it works, its solid, now do that with 4K and beyond at an affordable level. Instead of having 10 camera models with assorted features, do two or three that step up in price and quality. Seems to me, as camera sales decline, shooting for excellence while downsizing makes sense. Most of this is just brainstorming ways to say make quality, not quantity.

  18. I just want a camera with only manual mode and non these fancy scenes modes or auto modes. Non of us who are a bit experienced with cameras use these modes. I think manufacturers are trying to make cameras more like phones by these modes in them. Just give us simple cameras with no frills. Just still mode and video mode and I am happy. I would take better sensor with things like IBIS over shiny modes anyday. I don't want AI! The experience you get by dialing your settings before taking a picture is far more better and enjoyable than just clicking the button and let camera AI do everything for you. I can take pictures on my phone as well but the experience of using camera what that gives me the feeling of satisfaction.

  19. I’m looking to get the Z6. Downloaded sample raw files from the Z6 and Z7 to see the difference. Different lens and subject means the test is maybe not fair. Prefer the Z6. Quality is on par, both were fantastic, but the time it took to process and load the Z7 image was too annoying for me. Not a pro, so no point in the extra MP for me.

  20. Tony and Chelsea, for the past ten years I have been shooting professionally with two Nikon D700 12 megapixel cameras. Yup, 12 megakpixels. And they have served me well. More megapixels is not necessarily better. The more pixels you pack into a given area, the less light that they can capture because they much smaller. Noise then becomes more and more of a factor so camera companies have to keep writing new de-noising algorithms. Like you said in the video, people do not buy prints,, everything is on-line, so what’s the need for these large MP cameras. And if you want to enlarge a photograph, there are photo editors, like Topaz, that use AI to enlarge a photograph. Always enjoy your videos.

  21. OMG!!! You guys! I'm laughing out loud!! Clapping at all the sarcasm from Chelsea, Tony throwing all his nerdy knowledge on the fly, Chelsea is such a clown! Love you guys!

  22. I think high MP is very important in cropping
    It is way cheaper and more versatile to get a 60MP sony with Sony 70 to 200 and crop when you have to Than getting the 600 prime lens sony
    Investing in sensors and one premium quality glass is way cheaper than investing in tons to deferent focal length glass

  23. Big old companies founded 100 years ago don't like to take big risks. Do you remember the latest Nokia phone? Yeah, me neither. I do remember what Apple did to Nokia when they simply released a product that made their whole product line rather obsolete. They still exist in some form, but not enough for people to care about. Then the smartphone killed the compact camera.

    Now computational photography is giving even DSLR's/mirrorless a hard time. Sure, they don't have the lenses and I can tell in most cases the difference between bokeh and that fake blur slapped by the iPhone software, but outside of this bubble and photography echo chamber, people just don't care nor can tell the difference. Except for half-arsed attempts like Arsenal, I haven't seen a lot of movement in the field of computational photography for actual cameras. The technical superiority of the lenses will only take you so far. There's a reason why Betamax became a classic marketing case study.

    I do hope one thing though: that they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot so much that the smartphone takes over for most use cases and pushes the camera completely into the pro territory which makes them completely inaccessible for the mere mortals. Although, by the look of things, this is where it is going. I shoot on a proper camera because I'm passionate about it, not because I need it. The distinction is important i.e if it becomes too expensive, I may as well find something else to do, like collecting thimbles.

    The bar is already high, but it can get higher if they only cater to the few as the economy at scale is lower and they only address a market that needs their products because their livelihood depends on it. They can charge higher simply because they can, like they do now vs grey imports (20%-35% markup). Few people have shot on a Hasselblad or Phase One, but there will be even fewer hairdressers shooting on a proper camera (to reference another video from this channel) if the smartphone becomes good enough in few years time that just a very tiny minority of the people can tell the difference. Sure, now you need a ridiculously expensive phone to do it, but it won't be the case in few years time even for mid-range.

Leave a Reply