The megapixel race continues, and now even mobile phones in their number can bypass very expensive SLR cameras.
Gigapixels
61 megapixels for a full-frame DSLR camera Sony 7R IV are no longer surprising, even 64 MP for inexpensive camera phones, such as Redmire Xiaomi Note Pro 8, are already something common and everyday. Imagine if full-frame cameras used matrices with pixels of the same dimensions as mobile devices.
The physical size of the main sensor on the phone Xiaomi Redmi Note 8 Pro 6 / 128GB is 1 / 1.72 in.... The diagonal of the sensor is 9.216 mm, width 7.6 mm, height 5.7 mm, which gives us crop factor Kf = 4.55... The sensor area is approximately 20 times smaller than the classic Full Frame 36 mm X 24 mm sensor. The pixel size is pathetic 0,8 microns
If the full-frame sensor (sensor) of a modern full-frame camera is filled with pixels, the same size as that of Redmire Xiaomi Note Pro 8then we would get a camera with 1276 MP! It is easy to calculate: (36 * 24) / (7,6 * 5,7) * 64 = 1276 (MP). Such a 16-bit TIFF file would take about 6 GB... And if we go further and stamp such pixels on the matrix from some Phase One IQ180 (with sensor dimensions 40.4 X 53.7 mm), then we get 3205 MP - about 3.2 GP (GIGA PIXEL!). Can you imagine the joy of the pixel marketers of the future?
Actually Redmire Xiaomi Note Pro 8 uses not yet the smallest pixels, and I did the calculations only to show the possible "gigapixel" future that photographers can expect :).
If we look at the practical side of increasing the number of MPs, then in addition to the improvements and deteriorations associated with a decrease in the physical size of the photosensitive element, described in section Battle of Megapixels, there are several important aspects that are very rarely touched upon by 'pixel scientists'. The main one is resize ('resize' - resizing the original image).
In order not to be so boring to read, take a photo of a cat (everyone loves cats, especially Instagram users).
Spherical cat in resize
The photo of the cat was taken using a camera Nikon D700which has 12MP (12 052 992 pixels). You see this photo in a reduced version up to 720 X 479 pixels, which equals 0,34488MP. It turns out that now we are not seeing the photo that was taken using the camera’s sensor, but only 1/35 (about 3%) of its original size and quality in the original image.
Of course, no one resizes their photos to 720 X 479, but this indirectly occurs when viewing photos. For example, I view photos on my monitor, which creates images of 1920 X 1200 pixels, which equals 2304000 pixels (2.3MP). On my monitor, I see only 19% of the original image. 81% of the source file is not available to me. If I even enlarge the picture so that one pixel in the photo corresponds to one pixel of my monitor, then in the end I can only view the same 19% of the original image at the same time.
As another example, let's take a monitor with the maximum resolution for personal computers, for example, some 30-inch NEC that can simultaneously display 4MP images (2560 X 1600). Even on such a powerful monitor, only 1/3 of the information from the original image will be placed. Even if we take the old 5-megapixel camera, then its picture will not fit on this monitor.
To fully view the entire 12MP image with Nikon D700 will have to use a 4K TV with the ability to display 4096 X 3112, but I have not seen such TVs on sale yet :). When I wrote this article, on sale it was possible to find only UHD TVs that can create images of 3840 X 2160 and cost about 10-15.000 cu At the same time, such a TV can only display 69% of our 12MP image.
UPDATE: after a couple of years, not only TVs appeared, but also monitors with a slightly higher resolution - 3840 x 2160 (example - BenQ SW320) and 5120 x 2880 (example - Iiyama ProLite).
Everyone loves cats
If an ordinary amateur photographer is not destined to see his whole picture 1: 1 in its original quality using a monitor, projector or TV, then maybe printed pictures will come to the rescue? Let's try to print our picture in a photo lab (usually good photo labs allow you to print images with a density of 300 dpi, i.e. 300 dpi). We print the picture 10 * 15.
10cm * 15cm = 5.91 inches * 3,94 inches which equals 23,29 square inches. Such a print can fit 23,29 * 300 * 300 = 2096100 points. Let's take into account that we came across a good photo lab, which can translate each pixel into a point on paper, so we will “print” 10 megapixels on a 15 * 2.1 image. In order for all 12MP to fit on a print with a print density of 300 dpi, you need to use a 30 X 40 cm format. The cost of one such print in the best case will be about $ 3. But imagine if we need to enjoy not a 12MP picture, but a 38.2MP one taken with the aforementioned Nokia Lumia 1020?
I have not seen a single person who would print photos of this format just for a home album. If we find a laboratory that deals with denser printing, then due to the limitations of our vision on the 10 * 15 print, it is hardly possible to notice every point created by the camera.
The cat looks at megapixels somehow incredulously
If you average and look at the reality of an ordinary amateur photographer (or just a person with a digital camera), then viewing the shot material usually takes place through the camera’s display, on a monitor or TV, and very rarely in a printed version of a small format. In all these cases, in no way can you see the entire original volume of the captured image, and viewers show only a small fraction of the information, or the image that has passed resize.
Thus, I want to make a very important conclusion:
Modern amateurs pay for megapixels that they don’t use at all!
Many still cherish the hope that once their 20 megapixel photos of a cat will be in demand. But the reality is sometimes different, and such photos just in vain clog the free space on the computer's hard drive. Sometimes marketing is easy kills a sense of proportion, which is very necessary for a healthy person. One small story that happened in the summer of 2013 will be pertinent to this note. My parents left for Crimea on vacation in their minibus, which at the same time served as their home on wheels. The rest lasted about 10 days and during this time they traveled all over the Crimea, the main thing for the parents was to see interesting places and visit different beaches. Unfortunately, they forgot their digital compact at home and each of them had a phone with a 0.3MP camera (640 X 480 is the last century, isn't it?). Nevertheless, they were not taken aback and brought back from vacation about 150 photographs. My dad said that when he took pictures, he removed the back of the phone's worn out to make the pictures clearer. After the rest, my parents asked me to copy photos from their phones and make an album. I submitted about 120 photos to print, which ultimately turned out to be an album of 80 photos in 10 * 15 format. The photographs were not technically perfect, but it was obvious that they were taken with a thoughtful approach. The next time my parents came to see me, we spent a whole hour behind the album and long stories about where and how it was. I cited this story as an example of the fact that megapixels for such amateur photographers as my parents may not 'solve anything' at all, and fond memories can be saved with the simplest technique :)
The cat is looking for pixels
Let's go back to resize. Whenever we look at a thumbnail, we see not the image itself, but the operation of the resize algorithm and fit the image to a specific size. No one ever wonders how the fit happens, because it is always done automatically. A little about resizing algorithms I have in an article about JPEG.
In fact, a computer or photo lab takes the original image and passes it through a special processing algorithm that allows you to stretch or shrink the image to the desired size. At the same time, a huge part of the data is lost and we see only a surrogate from the original image. Of course, the resized image is stored only in the device's RAM and this process does not affect the original image in any way. I clearly see the work of the resizing algorithm when I prepare images for large format printing. When adjusting the image to the size of my monitor, the algorithm eats up some of the data - they just become invisible in the photo. These can be specks of dirt, small details that immediately catch the eye when printed. In this case, I preview the photo in 1: 1 mode before printing.
The more raw data, the easier it is to process the photo. In particular, the original photo with a huge amount of MP can be reduced, while you should be very careful in choosing the algorithm that will carry out this procedure. With the help of resizing photos you can achieve very useful visual sharpening effect. Also, when resizing, you can get a visual effect. noise reduction. Many professional photographers take advantage of this and significantly improve their photos.
Results
Very often, we simply do not use a huge number of pixels embedded in the camera. In full, all data obtained using the camera’s matrix can be useful only during their subsequent processing, when viewing 1: 1 and when printing in large format. That's just ordinary amateur photographers do not do this, and marketers continue to build up megapixels on amateur-level cameras :)
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
beautiful cats)
All-rіvno rules will be hands, that is optics!
Having scored a long time ago in the Pixel race. Navpaki my 24 - now I am raising problems in the editorial board. Tse all zamazuvati, all pores, and incomplete :)
Thanks for the article, Arkady! Very informative. If you find the time and desire, please write about the principles of processing photos and preparing for printing (from personal experience), I think many people are concerned about this question
agree - processing and printing worries many
Well, monitors won't stand still either. I used to have a 15-inch monitor, 1024x768, it was enough and it was fine. Now 20-inch 1920 × 1080 - after that the pixels of the old monitor are just huge squares, you get used to good things quickly. But this is far from the limit. Now I write from a phone with a 1280x720 display, there are no video pixels at all, and after that the same monitor already seems to be mesh. But the displays in the same iPad have long been 2048x1536, i.e. More full-HD, and this is with a modest diagonal and not a record pixel plane. Even on my full-HD monitor, old 2-megapixel shots are already smaller than the screen area, blurring with a slight increase. Now imagine a 25-inch monitor with a ppi greater than 350? It will give a very clear and high-quality image, and there will be a difference already when viewing the photos. Even if it will not be 1: 1 when viewing the entire photo, but enlarging / cropping the image will be less painful.
I absolutely agree with you. If opportunities allow, then dimensions for the future will not be superfluous. Yes, and manufacturers polls shove large megapixels quite often. Soon a fresh camera will not be found with megapixels below 20-30. And if you don’t want to buy “from hands”, then there is nowhere to go, standardization.
I have a 5 ″ Full HD screen on my phone;) There PPI is higher than on the presented 25 ″ monitor))
Thanks for the article Arkady !!!))) I can’t say that I am a pixel hunter, although of course I wanted to buy a nokia 808 pure view (ancestor of Lumia 1020), but still I don’t understand how you can take memorable photos on cell phones with a small amount mega pixels (((. I really realized that on different cameras with the same number of IHLs, the quality of the photos can be different. So a photo with 5 IHL or 3 IHL cameras can look much better than a photo with 8 IHL
Very useful information! I also wanted to add, reducing the size of the pixel affects the blurriness of the frame during shooting (only short shutter speeds are needed). On YouTube there is a video presentation d800e, so they directly said that this camera gives everything that it can only with a tripod-pixel is very small. For handheld shooting, the d600 / d610 will be better.
You don’t need any tripod, of course, if we are not talking about the 200-300mm FR. And you need a modern fast lens with a stabilizer + short shutter speeds, which, however, is a zier buzz for any camera.
read the manual from Nikon - everything is detailed there - why you need a tripod for the D800, etc. watch Nikon's presentation :)
detail here
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/12/nikon-d800-e.html
PS
The stub does not in any way save the mirror from smearing due to cotton - you need to go to live view, etc.
:)
Following the link, the impression is that Sony's PR is hidden behind the "honest" analysis))) My friend, a professional, has been using Sony's photo and video equipment for many years, buying all the most advanced from the company at a particular point in time. He had such a quirk ..))) Once Nikon tried it, grabbed all his thousands of junk and sold it. Till now he wonders how he killed so much time of his life on Sonya….
Where does the list of facts about Nikon fit into Sony's advertisement? :)
no offense, but you're talking nonsense. where does your friend ??? And Sony has problems - I'll post the data a little later, and Nikon.
it is necessary to compare specific models for specific tasks. for some it is better nikon, for some - kenon or dormouse.
if you notice, I have a bunch of Nikon lenses (tested on the blog) and 3 Nikon cameras :)
and the blog itself is mostly on nikon.
it's no secret that for the last 4 years Nikon hasn't developed matrices but bought ... from Sony :)
although it is possible that the next FF camera will be Sony's BZ - there are clearly more buns than minuses. and Nikon lags far behind today both in quality and in the introduction of new products.
Well, there is still no replacement for the D700.
One of the main results of 2013 is the decline in the value of Nikon shares by 23.6% in November 2013 (according to other sources, by 33% - depending on the starting point).
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2014/01/2013-2014.html
I read this article. One Guru throws mud at the D800e, which is praised by other Gurus. There they also agreed that the D7000 is a bad crop! Nonsense! Now on the presentation. Hand tremor is not good for any camera. And finally this very tremor during the shutter release. the same negative factor as the clap of the mirror - the result is the same, guess what yourself and remember why you need a stabilizer in a camera or lens. The show "Top Model American" is shot in studio medium format without a tripod from the hands just not under water already the guy is noisy Something tells me that you are a sent Cossack, since you predict the fate of Minolta to Nikon. Holy, Holy !!}}}.
nobody predicts anything. can you even imagine what a -24% of the company's price is? and this is just a fact.
there are complaints about Nikon's presentation - write complaints to Nikon :)
and yes, the stub does not in any way remove vibrations from the cotton of the mirror - learn the mat part.
and less labels on interlocutors - this is the first sign of a troll.
if you are not in the know, then STAB reduces the detail of the image:
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/08/vr.html
and also compensates for fluctuations of only one type.
Kenon tried to make a hybrid stub (compensation of two modes of vibration) - in the lens 100 macro. Nikon herself is aware of the problems of cameras with small pixels and strongly recommends using a mirror pre-lift / tripod / live view to avoid blur / shake. for more details see the instructions for the camera, Nikon's manual for the D800, Nikon's presentation
there is a bit here:
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/12/sony-a7r-vs-nikon-d3-vs-sony-nex-7.html
Recently, FIAT shares soared 12% in a day on the news of the buyback of KRISLER shares, but analysts do not predict a cloudless future for the company at all. I mean, NIKON will not be buried so quickly. others. I never listen to the Guru, only ordinary users, and they en masse write that the D800e needs a top high-aperture lens and everything will be OK. How much this bundle costs is another question. like you and Yulia and Mozglyak. Send to the site In the world of photos, where Nikonists are called “cooks of the Nikon forum”, and you yourself are offended)). All the best and good pictures.
what are you talking about?
I did not disagree with the moglyak - simply because it is stupid to deny the facts he cites. Also, opinions did not differ with Yuliasha - it is more expensive to argue with a woman, even if she speaks outright nonsense. :)
Forum moderators nikon call themselves cooks - what complaints to me ???
Nobody buries Nikon - but the dynamics over the past years is clearly downward, and the loss in profit amounts to tens of% as well as capitalization. Data is not a Guru, but a listing of facts - I think the difference is clear to you? What fluctuations are you talking about with a 20-month down trend?
D800 problems with AF - see links and reports. where does the fast lens have to do with it? how will it solve color problems due to compression or remove grease from mirror cotton vibration ???
there are no “ordinary” users. there are people who understand the physics of the process and the subject, and there are who are not very good. For some reason, the physics of the process is consistent with the presentation of Nikon and the manufacturer's recommendations, while most of the nonsense on the forums absolutely does not correlate with the myths of Yulia and the universality of the D800 against the background of a mass of mediocre (to put it mildly) pictures from the D800.
the funny thing is that the D800 camera really gives excellent pictures when it is used in those conditions and for those purposes for which Nikon made it :)
Speaking of fluctuations, I meant the fluctuations with which the stub fights. The vast majority of the photos I saw with the D800 were not taken in “the conditions and for the purposes for which Nikon made it :)” And the photos are excellent! at least strange. Sergei, answer yourself this question. Will Nikon like them return to matrices of 12-16 megapixels with "Gigapixel" heights, considering that everything is so bad in your opinion? Remember me in a couple of years. Will not come back. I hope that the company's stock performance by this time will also improve)).
Exhausted
you make some strange assumptions, which frankly already tired of refuting.
"Will Nikon like them return to 12-16 Mp matrices?"
===========================================
Nikon released Nikon DF 16MP a couple of months ago :))))
Assumption is not a statement! It does not need to be refuted. You need to answer it with your own assumption. You haven’t answered the question.))) What will happen in a couple of years? That is, "Gigapixel" matrices are over and we will return to 6 Mp ? Or will we fly above 50 megapixels? By the way, this time you have no links to a suspicious, biased resource that does not stand up to criticism from which you draw your inspiration))).
Arkady, great respect for the article. For quite a long time I myself printed (in a minilab, of course) an A4 photo with a Nikon D40 with its 6 megapixel. In my opinion, 10-14 megapixels of modern DSLRs would be quite enough, but manufacturers are "sculpting" more and more, coming up with new processors so that they can more quickly digest increasing file sizes and deal with the accompanying noise. The race is everywhere, not only in the military field.
The correct article. You can add that resize increases more when viewing photos on monitors and TVs with an inappropriate format, for example, 4: 3 photo on 16: 9 TV or vice versa, and even more when viewing vertical photos on wide screens.
"Today's amateur photographers pay for megapixels that they don't use at all!" Arkady, well, be cunning. 36MP on the D800E gives a pronounced picture with very fine details even on a typical office monitor
I do not dissemble, I write in the case. Please note that I am writing about amateur photographers and ordinary people with a SLR camera in their hands. Of course, a professional or an advanced amateur will also draw something from the d800e, but this is far from an amateur camera :)
Arkady, why “pull out” there? Detailing, it does not depend on the level of amateurism and ordinary people
Depends, and since you have taken the D800E as an example, you should be aware that working with such a camera to achieve per-pixel detail is much more difficult than with large-pixel cameras. I know about it not by hearsay. And in order to feed the d800e (each of its pixels), you need to use high-quality optics, or optics with closed apertures, which entails manipulating shutter speed and ISO, and that ultimately comes down to the ability to work with such a camera :) I will probably have to repeat myself , because I don't see that they grasp the essence of the message - amateurs do not use and do not realize the potential of these pixels :)
Arkady, there are no amateur enthusiasts who don’t know that the diaphragm needs to be closed and high-quality optics used. NO
Yes, they may know, but how much does d800e cost? And high-quality optics for it? Once again and again I repeat, you want with the help of prof. cameras to prove something to the amateur photographer. The D800e is a highly specialized camera, and let's be honest, who and how will be able to distinguish a picture taken with a D800e, for example, from a picture taken with another cheap camera?
But the detail depends on the resolution of the lens and the accuracy of the AF camera, which is definitely higher in newer and more expensive models.
Roman, to detail AF, you can generally turn it off and shoot on hyperfocal. So he has nothing to do with it.
This is stupid, because a huge number of plots do not tolerate the use of GR, as well as for modern "cut" lenses (take the Nikon series without a distance scale, depth of field, etc.) it is simply impossible to work comfortably in this way.
wrong. D800 (e) uses a module from the D700 with minor modifications.
which is why complaints about the AF accuracy of the D800 - after all, the module was originally for a 12-16MP camera.
firstly, Nikon D800 (e) still suffers from AF problems
(see selection here
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/12/nikon-d800-e.html
)
secondly, 36MP required signal compression - which is why the well-known color problems with this camera
thirdly, the price of the issue - the camera is at least $ 2300, only the top-end zoom is needed - and this is another $ 1500-1900 per lens.
weight, dimensions, work mainly with a tripod ...
with the main question - why do most of the amateur photographers need the D800 (e)? What will it give to those who do not print 3 by 5m posters and what much cheaper cameras will not give?
I had such a camera. Now I sold it, saving up for d850. Filmed on nikkor 85 1.8g.
Amazing handheld photos are incredible in detail and clarity. In the eyes of the model, you can easily see your reflection or the reflection of the place where he stands. I am as an amateur for multi-megapixel cameras. But professionals need a rapid-fire cannon, with an additional block and a zoom lens. To each his own. I want to try pentax 645d, Avito now costs about 130 thousand.
I have my own 12 megapixel vikoristovuv tillyki kolei waving great baneri. But the article is good, it’s possible to read and read marketing and think about the MP in most popular photographs.
Kostya, yes, marketers and the entire staff of camera manufacturers know perfectly well that more than 8-10mp is simply not needed both in everyday life and for most of the pros. And most amateur photographers and professionals know this. But there is still a category of photographers on which you can make money with these redundant MPs, and what is most interesting, these photographers firmly believe in the miraculous property of MP and even somehow see color improvements, noise reduction and super high detail, stubbornly not seeing reality - that's why how much useless foam is in this article.
Marketing is a science to fool a customer.
__________________________
Thanks to Arkady for a clear presentation of thoughts and less attention to illiterate attacks by megaproppers, well, the excess MPs are warming their souls.
Glory to the marketers !!!
Marketers will write 1 articles for 1000 of this article where they will “prove” the huge benefits of 100 megapixels in a mobile phone) and 200 megapixels in a cropped DSLR. Rather, they have already written and 1000 more articles are undergoing layout)
I am glad that my thoughts were useful to someone :)
Progress in the means of display also does not stand still. Previously, I had a 15-inch monitor 1024x768, and arranged, many had such. Then a 20-inch Full HD appeared, and looking at the old monitor after it, I saw every pixel, the difference was specifically visible. And already on this monitor, my old 2-megapixel photos do not even occupy the entire screen, not to enlarge them. But before, this permission was enough for my eyes.
But this is far from the limit. I now have a phone with a screen of 1280x720, pixels are not visible, a wonderful screen. After it, my monitor already seems to be large-pixel. The screens of the same iPad have long had a resolution of 2048x1536, i.e. more Full HD, while having a very modest diagonal. Manufacturers of other gadgets have surpassed the iPad pixel density. Yes, and Apple itself is rumored to be preparing a screen of even higher resolution.
Next, let's remember the MacBook Pro Retina with its 2880x1800 resolution at 15 inches ... Anyone doubt that in the near future large monitors will not have multi-megapixel matrices? It is on them that the megapixels of the cameras will appear in all their glory, when the scale is changed so precisely. The main thing is that the resolution of the cameras is real and not bloated.
firstly, the complexity of the retina-type display devices increases dramatically with the size of the diagonal.
Therefore, do not confuse the small screen of 5 (15) inches with 24inch at the same pixel density.
note that screens of 24-32 inches and more extremely slowly build up the pixility.
A normal IPS screen in 24 inches costs an 8bit matrix, how much? $ 600-1000?
and what is his permission? therefore, monitors with ultra-high resolution at a price of less than $ 500 and with a bit rate of 8 bits (not to mention 10 bits) will still be very soon.
Previously, they could not really make a Full-frame photographic matrix, but now such matrices are already being introduced into amateur cameras, and these cameras are slowly but getting cheaper.
Now it is difficult and expensive, technologies will work out - it will become cheaper and popularized.
Yes, and 15 inches is not such a small matrix, and already it has a very high resolution, significantly superior to Full-HD. I think in a few years large home 4K monitors will be commonplace, and even later they will be accessible to mere mortals.
FF matrices were made a long time ago. after that there is no innovation - simply because there is no need. Pro-in FF matrix has little to do with Pro-in screens.
look at the price curves for monitors of 24 inches and more over the past 3 years - with an IPS matrix and 8 (10) bits - has the price dropped significantly?
Of course, 4K monitors will definitely not be cheaper than 1000 dollars in a couple of years.
You forget that for a photo, not only resolution is critical, but also the bitness of the monitor and color gamut.
FF matrices have not been done so long ago, taking into account the time of appearance of the first APS-C matrix. Until now, they haven’t really done medium format without a crop as far as I know.
I have never said that 4K monitors in a couple of years will be cheap. But over time, this will happen.
And what does bitness and color gamut have to do with gigapixels? We are talking about permission.
if we are not talking about a couple of years, but about 5-10 years, then it is obvious that everything will change. and even more in 20 years.
“What does bit rate and color gamut have to do with gigapixels? We're talking about permission. "
=============================
We are talking about the price of a monitor for a photo. the bitness and number of pixels directly affect its price and availability. meaning in a 4k monitor with 4bit colors and 60% coverage of the RSL ??? :)
Retina MacBook Pro "resting": Toshiba showed 15,6-inch laptops with 4K display
Toshiba at CES 2014 in Las Vegas showed off the "world's first" laptops equipped with a 15,6-inch screen with 4K resolution (3840 x 2160 pixels). The number of dots per inch in them reaches 282 ppi. By comparison, the display resolution of the Retina MacBook Pro is “only” 2880 x 1800 pixels (220 ppi). The new Toshiba line of ultra-sharp laptops has two models - the Tecra W50 and Satellite P50t.
exactly like the Nikon D800, D800E, Sony a7, and a7r,
================================================== ==========
Arkady, I think you are mistaken - the pixel size of the Sony A7 and Sony A7R (Nikon D800 (e)) is not the same:
5.96µ vs 4.87µ
Fixed
but what about cropping ?? bigger shot ... more opportunity to choose what you need)
And so - amateurs do not crop, even when I work as a photographer, I crop a photo very rarely, and even then only by a few percent, for which you do not need to have a huge stock. Also, for high-quality cropping, it is necessary that each pixel carries useful information, which, for example, is simply impossible when using budget dark-zooms on modern cropped 20 MP or more cameras. In fact, there is a very large layer here, which is not so easy to describe - cameras with a large number of MPs require appropriate high-performance optics, which ordinary amateur photographers can hardly afford. Of course, I in no way conclude that a large amount of MP is bad, I concluded in the article in large letters that all these MPs are not used by amateur photographers.
Arkady, do not shake this nonsense - amateur photographers a) are engaged in framing; b) can afford high-performance optics - there are a lot of high-quality and inexpensive lenses of the past years on Ebay, available through the simplest adapters. And you can put anything on a mirrorless camera.
Oleg, perhaps they still did not understand the essence of this article, it will not be difficult for me to repeat it in an expanded form. A housewife (a person with a camera) is unlikely to have the ability to post-process photographs, is unlikely to be able to “close” the aperture, is unlikely to be able to find the GR on a standard (whale) lens, and is unlikely to be able to distinguish one high-quality image from another. And she is also a photographer, she probably has more than one thousand vacation pictures that warm her soul :) If you advocate for pixels, then of course, they have their advantages, no one denies, some of which are described and chewed in a separate article Battle of Megapixels, the link to which https://radojuva.com.ua/2011/12/battle-of-megapixels/ indicated in this article. It’s just really, somehow strange in this article to hear references to a completely different topic :)
Arkady, a housewife is not a amateur photographer.
Okay, don't like the “housewife” take something else, it doesn't change the essence of the matter, just as the d800e is not an amateur camera. Also, Oleg, they did not answer my question, which was posed to you in the comments.
I think that the amateur photographer is the one who is thoughtfully engaged in photography, but the housewife is like a beginner, he sees only one button, nothing else ... ..
Here you just need to figure out who considers whom as a photographer. If we divide everyone into amateur-enthusiast-professionals, this is the first stage of photoevolution, if for beginners / amateur-professional dummies it is already the second.
I think that for those who constantly practice, test, experiment, come up with the use of a large number of megapixels, the name "photo enthusiasts" is more appropriate than "amateur photographers".
a lot of lenses of the past years are inexpensive - I do not allow a 36MP sensor. in fact, because of this, Nikon released a manual for D800 (e) with a list of recommended lenses.
complaints about soap on the D800e - read the manufacturer's manual and use the recommended high-resolution optics.
it is enough to look at the pictures in the branch on the photo ru, for example - colors - no, without resizing - you can see shake, grease, and just soap without a strong sharp.
Ah ah ah! What a shame, the amateur photographer was humiliated, equated to housewives! But he just "in the foamy streams of studying photographic equipment rose above the gray cattle." )))
If you shoot a shoulder portrait of a girl, fitting into the frame both the horse on which the girl is sitting, and the meadow along which she rides on this horse, believing that “then I will choose the right one” then you do not need to “choose a place for cropping”, but learns to frame and compose the frame already when shooting.
The approach “I'll take it all off at once, and then cut out the suitable frames” is an amateur's approach, and it doesn't justify itself at all.
If there are separate situations when this approach is justified, why not use it?
and in what situations does the approach “justify”?
well, except for spy filming, and the one I described above?
Let it be a spy shooting, let it be cropping out interesting expressions of faces / actions from group shots, let it adjust the horizon or crop when photographing "on top of it", let it crop in a situation when you had one relatively wide lens with you, but you couldn't get closer, let Crop when photographing moving objects, when there is no time / opportunity to immediately compose the frame, let the exclusion from the frame of someone who rushed there at the last moment.
I'm not saying that this approach is good as a system. Definitely not. But I repeat once again, if there are SEPARATE situations when the crop justifies itself, why not use it?
This is not something for the sake of why I would buy a multi-megapixel camera (the D300 is enough for my head), but if it helps someone and saves an important shot, let it help (especially if the person is calmly willing to pay $$$ for it).
You can also throw my 5 cents into your machine.
Personally, what can touch an amateur is a frame. Before buying a camera, and the general beginning of photography (when all my photography was reduced to a photo of a flower on my phone), megapixels only indicated that I could take it and cut out a piece, but there would be no pixelation.
These days, these are extremes. In everything that has a shutter button, 10 megapixels are poked, and this is enough for an amateur for the same problem.
Py.Sy. About Oleg's dialogue with Arkady - what slyness? what are the small details on the office monitor ?? You want to zoom in on the photo until you lose your pulse and sigh, oo ... clearly, well!
Yes, 8 megapixels. enough to head for admiring. Need more? Yes, no problem, there is high-quality software. which can double your detail.
wrong. software will not raise any detail. software can visually improve sharpness.
but if the details are already lost (due to the low resolution of the optics, cameras, etc.) then the software will not create them, alas.
if an amateur has to constantly frame shots strongly, then this amateur is still learning and learning to shoot, not “frame”. Well, or deal with the fleet of optics, but not with megapixels.
What about the comments? Where are they
All comments are in place.
I am not an adherent of any manufacturer, but Nikon D4 is still setting indicators that are very close to something perfect, in particular 16 Mp ...
D4 - reportage.
for a universal camera on FF, 20-24MP is optimal - as a balance between detail, diffraction limit, blur, etc.
for a crop, anything more than 16MP is redundant.
the difference in detail, for example, between Fujik 5 Pro (6-9MP) and Nikon D5100 (16MP) can be seen here:
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/06/fujifilm-finepix-s5-pro-nikon-d5100.html
Denis, +100500. Nikon's D4 is the flagship, and only 16mp. I wonder why? Yes, because to people using such a technique, no marketer will consume unnecessary pixels !!!
how can I explain to you ...
Unlike Kenon, Nikon's cameras are clearly divided into market segments.
for the studio, if you need extra detail, Nikon D4 is simply useless - despite its flagship :)
on the other hand, to thresh a bunch of frames per second in a reportage more than 16MP is no longer necessary - because the goal is completely different. the more megapixels, the worse the high ISO, the greater the load on the processor and bandwidth, up to writing to the card.
so no need to invent something that does not exist - D4 is an excellent weatherproof reportage.
do not look there for something that is not there - there is no normal detail (and it cannot be at 16MP on FF), there are no super colors there.
but there is reliability (duplication of signal circuits, high-quality materials), speed, AF, high ISO.
Medium format is already needed for over-detailing. Mamiya, Hasselblad and others like them. So it is useless to look for it in small-format cameras of any brands. At least Nikon, at least Canon, at least Sonya.
“This is stupid, because a huge number of plots do not tolerate the use of GR, as well as for modern“ cut-down ”lenses (take the Nikon series without a distance scale, depth of field, etc.) it is simply impossible to work comfortably in this way”
For amateurs, detail is important exclusively for landscape photography. An advanced amateur will not use a modern miserable cut-down Nikon, but will buy an old high-quality Minolta of the Rokkor series for a lot less money, where there is a SD, and will shoot on hyperfocal. And for a mirrorless camera, there is generally the legendary Koniсa Hexanon AR 40mm F1.8 or 50mm F1.7, which provide excellent detailing at the level of some 85mm f1.2L Elki, and are 20 times cheaper.
Do not scoff :)
Arkady do not pay attention! I have been reading your articles for a long time, I consider them one of the most interesting in the CIS! I wish you good luck in the hard business! Your regular reader Sergey! ;)
I fully support!
Megapuksellers, why they started to get nervous, so from this neither mind nor money will be added to your pocket.
It is difficult to realize that for their hard-earned money, having bought irresponsible MPs, they thereby provide a comfortable life for a huge staff of marketers.
Thanks for the usefulness in the above.
Oleg, each of us has his own opinion, let's respect the works of man! Arkady always makes very interesting articles! Thanks Arkady! Happy New Year 2014!!! ;)
http://abcibc.com/photo.php?art=9
People are idiots, this is in the hands of marketers, and thanks to the article a couple of companies will suffer a small loss, but if a loss occurs, they can come up with a new camera) Arkady, where do you find ideas for such posts ???)) You're done !! !
Well, everything is not so categorical, there are advantages in multipixel systems, especially in medium format cameras, where the sensor area allows it, and especially for the pros who know what to do with all this (this is described in another section). I found this article close at hand - my friend went on a summer vacation at sea with a "cool DSLR", and as a result, from his trip, several photos on social networks were reduced to 1024 pixels on the long side, which practically negate the entire volume of his 24MP cropped cameras. At the same time, my parents, who are discussed in the article, managed to leave a rather capacious album with printed photos on a 0.3 megapixel phone camera as a keepsake. But the main thing is photographs, not detailing and so on :)
Arkady, I also have d700, so far it is enough, before when printing large photos I was worried, but when I started typing, all fear disappeared ... 12 megapixels is enough with my head ...
for those who don't have enough MP and are looking for detail, then these are landscape gurus or studio artists, or microstockers, or photo shoppers ... Common people will not check out that detail, for him and Nikon D3100 is cool shoots, if before that he only shot on soap boxes and a mobile phone ...
PI.SI. the only thing that 700 is missing is the workforce iso higher than 1600 ...
Exactly, Arkady! I support. On vacation nick5100 / 50 1.4G + kenon PaverShot at 6MP. Grabs the eyes. I wish all “debaters” to read Lee Frost “50 photo projects” and SHA)) On my D800 I attached Manfrotto's 58th legs, heavy! One inconvenience! With heavy equipment, you can't quickly run away from fans (
I shoot on Nikon D700 + top optics. To be honest, it is now 12Mp. absolutely not satisfied !!! Yes, there are enough of them for reporting, ease of processing - post-production takes less time. But if you compare the quality of the picture taken with the D700 and D800, then the 700 is resting ... If you resize 36 Mp. 800s up to 12Mp. 700s - the difference in quality will be huge. It would be great if Nikon didn't release the d800 / e with its 36Mp! And I updated D3x to D4x all the same 24Mp! But the working ISO is like the 1Dx! I choose the golden mean 24Mp! And all that is more - let it be on the conscience of medium and large format cameras!
Then you need mark 3)
100%
LTD!!! Where can we go without Mark3? Now Nikonists and Kenonists will start a battle again and the whole topic will be screwed up ...
I fucking like Canon technology though Nikon-ist itself. But what if I find it much more convenient to shoot on Nikon.
In terms of parameters, of course, 5dMK3 is ideally suited, but after using full-frame middle-class cameras, all the same 5dMK3 and D800, I came to the conclusion that if I did buy it would be only top-end ones like 1Dx or D4. Which actually did. For reporting and shooting in difficult conditions - D4, for studio and openspace photo sessions - D800 (D3x is outdated).
PS Change religion and switch to Canon - existing optics park and habit does not allow =)
in fact, not only are you waiting for a replacement D700 from Nikon.
and not the first year. and instead of the D700 upgrade, Nikon throws out the studio D800 (e) and completely amateur castrated D600 / D610 / DF.
at least sell all the optics and really go to Mark 3. :(
We are waiting for the D700x or D700e, or D700s)))
I decided this dilemma bunch D4 + D800 =)
not cheap and bulky-heavy solution ...
I choose the middle ground of 24Mp!
__________________________________________
This is not a middle ground, it was invented by you after you convinced yourself that red is black.
20-24MP at FF - a balance between the limitations of optics, diffraction limit, blur, shake, detail and high ISO.
Hmmmmmmmm, I'm answering this comment after 9 years - Sergey was right after all))
great article, Arkady)
Why are you arguing, starting from a certain limit, optics can no longer cope with distortions, aberrations, diffraction, etc. Accordingly, there will be no pixel-by-pixel sharpness. Well, respectively, if there is no pixel-by-pixel sharpness, then what for are those extra megapixels? Moreover, the plastic whale (and not so) guano, which cannot provide pixel-by-pixel sharpness even at 6 megapixels. For amateur photographers (namely amateurs, not professionals) who do not make money with this, whales and their close fellow men are quite accessible, but they do not need megapixels, because optics shit and printing (if at all) will be no more than A4. Well, pros who can spend 2.5k ye on fotik and another 5k on white elka and print 5x10m banners, so yes, you need megapixels, but again no more optical resolution. And now figure out the ratio of these two categories of photographers by quantity. And the manufacturers of both cellular and fotiks already realized that the less megapixels, the better. But at the same time, the matrix needs to be made larger in area, and this does not work due to limitations of, for example, the case. I remember Sony Erickson had a K750 breakthrough, so there was a sufficiently large matrix for its 2 megapixels. And the next K800 and the next C905. That was the approach. And now in smartphones a 2x2 mm matrix. Well, what can be removed there? Noises? My old Samsung X600 with 0.3 megapixels and even less noise. But 10 years have passed!
I am glad that at least someone remembered the limitations of optics :)
Right I remember Sonevsky monoblocks. Great shot. No worse than digital dust boxes. Even on all sorts of forums, it was proposed to download custom image processing drivers. So, after installing these same drivers, the pictures became really wonderful and for the inexperienced consumer completely requiring no processing.
Arkady, where are the buttons - to add to one-eyed and mail?