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
Arkady, I have long been expecting a similar article from you, and now it happened! THANKS!!!!
It turns out that the smaller the pixel, the diffraction occurs at lower aperture values. I wonder if the sharpness drop due to it is very noticeable.
This reminded me of people who buy iPhones for fabulous money, just to make calls, use the phonebook sometimes with a calendar and every day with an alarm clock in it!
Well, or bought a lambo or a Ferrari to ride for mushrooms, left on the highway and more than 10 km on foot!
Uv. Arkady! In the article, you do not recommend that amateurs chasing megapixels. If we compare D3200 and D5100 cameras, then the obvious difference is 24MP in D3200 versus 16.2MP in D5100 and a rotating screen in D5100. In your camera comparison review, you rate the D3200 higher than the D5100. By what criteria is D3200 better?
Release time (as indicated in the article about choosing a camera) and the price of the issue.
By the way, Arkady, has long wanted to leave a link on your blog to your resource, but I just couldn’t come up with themes to somehow attach to the topic (computer blog). Yes, I found a mention of the ShowExif program in one of the articles and that with its help you can find out the mileage of a used camera. Immediately the topic was found :) I hope that a certain percentage will go to your blog. So to speak, he sent information to the wider masses, far from photography. Who knows, maybe some of my visitors will find the information on your blog useful.
http://prostopc.com/software/graphics_design/kak-uznat-probeg-fotoapparata.html
If anyone notices frank files - please write in the comments.
Thank you, I am pleased :)
Hello. I bought a camera with 24 megapixels. because of its ability to shoot video with stereo sound. Was with 16 mp., But with mono sound. I bought stereo sound, but paid for the MP. I think that a stereo microphone is more expensive than a mono penny and everyone understands that. Well, you won't raise the price much. But if you also put the "new" matrix in there ... it is quite another matter. Many people bought Nikon 5200 not for its megapixels, but for its stereo microphone (paying for megapixels as well. How can you explain to the average person that you can improve the matrix properties without increasing the megapixels? Practically nothing. "And how many megapixels does your camera have?" This is the first question that is asked. The actual state of affairs is not just necessary for the buyer "from the street" but there are most of them and the manufacturer is guided by them. I have seen housewives on Lexus who take pictures on 5D mk2, or mk3, or D800, D600 on top optics just because it's cool, “like people, no worse than others ...” Do you think they know what white balance or iso is? I asked - they don’t know !!! Only common sense does not allow me to buy such “photos” myself ( I wanted to buy both at once so that it was). This is not a joke, but worse - it's true. But an invited photographer comes to shoot a matinee at school, an invited operator. Because no one really knows how to use all of this. But the manufacturer doesn't care who buys his products - just to buy them Especially with him. So they play at the expense of common sense. And who needs him in our crazy world? When everything is arranged in this way, then why should photography be different in the world?
Sorry for the verbosity, please.
I was in the canyons - a place in Arizona where the percentage of photographers for gloss per square meter is one of the highest in the world. :)
not far - Vegas, national parks like Zion and all sorts of monuments.
So, the bulk of the pros with tripods shoot on Mark 2 and Mark 3. None - D600 / D610. A pair of D800 (e) and a pair of D700. photographers from america, canada, italy, france, germany, spain and south - china, korea, japan, etc.
amateurs shoot mostly on smartphones, pads, and a little on Nikon / Kenon / Sony crops.
I think the sample is quite representative and fits well with the sales results in different market segments
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2014/01/panasonic-fujifilm-olympus.html
Sergei, but you were not in Uryupinsk?
There, newspaper and wedding professionals shoot for crop below the average level, and amateurs for soap dishes and telephones with 1,3-5-megapixel cameras.
Representative?
Uryupinsk does not provide the main earnings of photographers in world publications - gloss, and therefore does not provide the main sales of FF cameras.
unlike the pros and their technique in Arizona. I hope you understand the difference :)
There are significantly more people living in Uryupinsk around the world than photographers who shoot for glossy magazines, and it is these people who bring the main profit to manufacturers of photographic equipment. You gave a link to an article about the extinction of cameras under the onslaught of smartphones, but everything is so simple. There are a huge number of people in the world who cannot afford or do not need smartphones, but who want to take pictures. In addition to the manufacturers indicated in that article, there are manufacturers of the third division such as Agfaphoto, Praktica, Medion, Maginon, Chineseized Kodak, Polaroid, Yashica, Vivitar, as well as Chinese counterfeits and noname - their products are cheaper than branded ones and are more attractive for many markets.
you confuse kg and km.
the main profit of corporations goes on lenses, other accessories, soap dishes and top technology.
the middle segment - camera crop (carcasses) - does not give much profit to either Kenon or Nikon.
the Russian market taken together - yes, not only Uryupinsk but even Moscow - does not occupy a significant place in the sales of the same Nikon at all.
as for America, the situation here is radically different. Buying equipment in New York while living in Denver is much easier and cheaper than living in New York itself :)
Further. pros - write off part of the cost of buying equipment from taxes (amateurs cannot do this). well, etc.
approximately the same in Europe and Southeast Asia and Japan. this is not to mention bonuses like return without reason for 14-30 days, an additional guarantee (free) for 1 year, etc. etc.
Agfaphoto, Praktica, Medion, Maginon, Chineseized Kodak, Polaroid, Yashica, Vivitar - according to (any) statistics do not occupy any significant part of the American or European market. they are active only in the lower segment in Southeast Asia, India and China - i.e. local brands without competition with Nikon / Kenon / Sony / Fuji ...
Nikon D600, announced September 2012.
Nikon D700, announced June 2008.
Canon Mark 2 Announced March 2012 Release Date
Canon Mark 3, announced September 2008.
And this is not to mention the fact that people “who can afford to fly to the canyon”, as it were, can quite afford a smartphone for 20 thousand + mark 3
Canon Mark 2, announced release date - March 2012
Canon Mark 3, announced release date is September 2008.
—————————————————————-
probably the opposite? :)
and this is not to mention the fact that people "who can afford to fly to the canyon", as if they could well afford a smartphone for 20 thousand + mark 3
—————————————————————
America's market is one of the largest in the world. to fly to the canyons costs a couple of hundred dollars for an American. the question is not in this, but in terms of preferences - most of them are already shooting on smartphones (hello instagram!), there are not so many followers of FF, and Kenon rules there by a large margin. Nikon calculates losses and lost in capitalization in 2013 almost a quarter-cm
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2014/01/2013-2014.html
at such a pace and not far from bankruptcy - the minolta was already there :)
And why did you decide that with a cool camera, tripod and premium optics - this is a pro? The pros are the one who makes a living from this, and are you sure that they earn their living with this, and not just have fun?
maybe they pay extra for the use of a tripod with an extra 100 dollars and spend two to three times as much time shooting.
then they can be considered super fans. The bulk of tourists takes pictures on smartphones and even on pads and is quite happy :)
Fans of carp fishing buy equipment for 5000 - 7000 dollars and stupidly sit all day and wait for a carp weighing 8 kg to bite, so that it can then be released. They are also in no hurry to go anywhere. Just when you are resting or having fun there is nowhere to rush. And an amateur can take pictures for a long time. He's an amateur - he loves this business. And that passer-by with a smartphone loves something else.
alas, there is much to hurry. the same Antelope canyon is the property of the Navajo Indians. the tour is limited in time. for using a tripod - you have to pay. for a time extension - pay. to get into prime time when the sun is at its zenith - pay. total - you can pay for one PHOTO session in the canyon more than the cost of a flight to Vegas :)
many lovers will pay hundreds of dollars for it? amateurs, unlike pros, do not have the right to deduct these costs from taxes.
Grand Canyon - the queue and viewpoint at sunset / sunrise must be booked in advance. which means - an extra day of stay there (+ $ 200).
Hoover Dam is the best viewpoints - permits must be purchased in advance. the best shots - in the evening (+ $$$ for accommodation).
total PHOTO tour to canyons will cost a total of 2-3 times more expensive than a tourist tour and will take 2-3 times more time.
my report can be read here
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/10/1.html
there are a lot of pages :)
And how much is invested in off-road rallies, fishing ... or do you think they are selling fish caught? Every fan spends unimaginable sums on entertainment. Don't try to figure it out, just take it as reality. Are you writing about 200-1000 dollars? And what about a fishing rod with a pager for 6000 euros or an off-road package worth 20 dollars? and subsequent repair after each "ride"? They have nothing from this. And spend $ 000 in a restaurant? No? Can not be? Quite often. And you tell me about the pitiful $ 5, $ 000. I can't buy D200 for pampering Nikon does ONLY common sense. I'm not kidding. And not everyone has this brake ... and then the fun begins, and which one is a photo ... or another is not important.
Therefore, I focus on the fact that the sense of proportion goes away.
Which I tried to confirm from my observations.
Happy New Year to all)
Arkady is right, a large number of people got it into their heads that multi-megapixel is zer gut, I have a couple of friends who are just dragged by pixel-by-pixel sharpness and multi-pixel, looking at photographs at a scale of 100% they evaluate facial hairs, cilia, pores, and their volume and colors are not at all worry none of them thought about calibrating the monitor, which is also remarkable - none of them printed a single photo on paper for more than a few years of amateur photography, I call them victims of marketing :-)
At the expense of resizing and cropping the captured images, I want to say - you shouldn't rely on the fact that there are a lot of pixels in the camera and you can shoot without cropping, it dampens, relaxes the brain :-)
I wish you all the best in the new year, and Arkady new articles, which, in fact, is useful to us!
many people buy expensive cameras and do not even know what to look for when buying, unfortunately they multiply the zoom by megapixels and get a number, moreover, the larger it is, the better the camera, and the better is the photo with more saturation and sharpness, here gentlemen live in such a world ...
But why be surprised, many forums are focused on brainwashing consumers. You go to the club-nikon.ru forum there almost on a scientific basis have already proved to each other that a lot of MP and their subsequent resize is super quality and good. Sometimes one wonders what the human brain can think of to justify its purchases.
100%
there Julia steers :) in the photo ru already wrote that her statements without a smile are difficult to read :)
to prove something to her is simply useless - she is an administrator from the editorial board. since she said that the D800e drives the Foreva and without 36MP there is no life - that means it is :)
from her statements - that Canon 6D has worse DD than D700, that the gradient filter does not give loss of light, that the smaller pixel size REDUCE the shake :) :) :)
brainworm (such a nickname) tried to enlighten the local party there, but it seems to be unsuccessful :)
The main benefit of such a forum is to look at the photos in the D800 and D7100 branches (excellent anti-advertising to megapuxels!) to understand that thoughtless building up of puxels is evil.
EXACTLY EXACTLY! And then I think why is she trying so hard then. It is a very interesting portal for amateur photographers, but I won’t take it in any way, there are more than 75% of all the advice, there is only one answer - “take a new D800 or D800e”, and the questions sound very interesting, like “I want to buy a D700, but I don’t know whether to take it or not, maybe it’s better to save up and take the D800e? ... ”In my opinion, specially generated questions are there.
Unfortunately, the policy of the administration of that forum is not to allow ANY criticism towards Nikon. any sensible remarks and criticism are either removed or the moderators themselves organize the persecution of members of the forum, rude to them and bunny those who risked doing it.
As for the obsessive advice on that forum to buy the most expensive Nikon equipment, even for novice amateurs, I think everything is simple here - there is such a concept - jeans.
those. hidden advertising without indicating that it is advertising. as they say, everyone needs to eat :) so they work it out by generating "random" themes and imposing Nikon's megapuxel products.
the worst part is that all this as a whole for any normal person causes more rejection of Nikon than the desire to buy it.
“Do not read photo forums before lunch” (c)
Good day to all.
In this article, Arkady is right, most buyers of 4-digit nikons do not use their multi-pixel capabilities, but this does not make anyone worse, there is only one drawback - photos take more space on the computer.
The only thing I expected from Arkady was an article with a bias towards professional photography - it’s much more interesting to listen to the benefits of multi-pixel, it’s easier for amateurs. The only pity is that every third amateur considers himself a professional and is eager for a commercial photo.
Happy New Year to all!
I read the article with reviews and am surprised that even Arkady forgets - there is no pixel-by-pixel sharpness AT ALL! One pixel in a photo is the result of processor post-processing of 4 or 16 matrix subpixels.
Yes, sometimes I can really simplify, but I already wrote about this here - https://radojuva.com.ua/2013/08/ice-cube-m/ and there is also a holy holivar on a subpixel level :)
What is happening is a completely natural process for a market economy. After all, if manufacturers improve and increase something other than megapixels as marketing, then there will be little sense from more expensive models, so in many younger models of technology there are many noticeable limited cut-down capabilities that can often be skillfully “pulled out”.
All that remains, and that still affects the average consumer, is to increase the numbers, and always those that do not make much sense when considered. It doesn't matter if it's megapixels, megabytes or megahertz.
Not certainly in that way. the lack of progress in the quality of the picture led to the death of the digital dust box segment.
thoughtless build-up of puxels does not save the same Nikon from sliding into bankruptcy - minus 23.6% to the company's share price in November 2013 - the market's verdict on the lack of innovation and progress. http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2014/01/2013-2014.html
on the other hand, compare the quality of smartphone cameras 3 years ago and now. the difference in the picture is huge!
Well, it’s not really a matter of “market economy”, “lack of progress in picture quality”: there are gigapixel matrices and optics with a huge resolution, but these technologies will never leave the “defense” segment to the civilian level, they are simply not allowed ... It is not for nothing that almost all manufacturers of photographic equipment are concentrated practically in one place. And it would be naive to think that they are white and fluffy, care only about the photographic society, coexist in conditions of "tough competition", allegedly suffer losses - take the noodles off your ears.
Regarding affordable photographic equipment, here, like nowhere else, the method of “planned obsolescence” is used (who cares, you can find a video of the same name through a search engine), when a manufacturer deliberately releases a product that will become morally or physically obsolete after a short period of time, usually equal to the term of an average consumer loan by paying which, the consumer buys a new product. Here Nikon obviously overdid it with D600, where the defect manifested itself much ahead of schedule!
And we, fooled, firmly believe in dividing the types of cameras into amateur, semi-and professional, all the time we feel like we are “missing something”, we ransack in search of characteristics and comparisons of lenses and cameras, save money, buy, soon disappointed and again looking for something. We are not engaged in photography, but in photography.
not worth producing entities without need.
public companies (such as Nikon) officially and regularly publish their accounts.
shares are publicly traded on the stock exchange. and if Nikon has already lost about 2013% of its value in 33, this is just a fact. before that, remember Minolta, Blackbury, and many others.
companies work for profit. there is no profit in the segment - the company either goes bankrupt or goes where there is profit. as does Olympus, fuji, etc. now.
consumer loans for the purchase of photographic equipment are in Russia, the entire market of which occupies a small part of the markets of japan, america and europe. in these markets the teznik is bought without loans :)
Further. warranty in the same America, for example, for Nikon carcasses - up to 3 years, lenses - up to 6 years. Sigma - up to 10 years. this is what is included in the price. makes sense to make low-quality equipment if the manufacturer pays anyway ???
The Nikon D600 is the tip of the iceberg for Nikon's quality and QA issues. complaints about the quality of Nikon - lenses, carcasses - SEA. For example, Nikon D800 is the most unreliable camera in America according to Lensrental in 2013.
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/11/2013-lensrentals.html
The blog also contains information on expensive Nikon cases that do not fit on cameras, problems with the design of the very expensive 24-70 / 2.8, and much more.
“We strongly believe in the division of camera types into amateur, semi- and professional”
================================================== =================================
pros - those who make money by photography. the rest are amateurs.
cameras are divided according to their capabilities and purpose. You can earn money with a soap box and a smartphone. Forums of the Club Nikon type, which impose on all D800e as a universal camera, are extremely dangerous for neophytes, although it is not a place for it, for example.
“We search for characteristics and comparisons of lenses and cameras, save money, buy, soon get disappointed and look for something again. We are not engaged in photography, but photographing. "
================================================= ================================
your idea is not very clear.
try cutting out the appendicitis with an ax and a special tool :) regardless of the skill of the surgeon, the result will be different, right? :)
search, doubt, try - this is what distinguishes a normal person from a zombie who believes everything and doubts nothing.
photo technique is always a compromise between price / size / quality / reliability / weight, depending on the PURPOSES and TASKS of a SPECIFIC person. therefore, there are simply no solutions that are the same for everyone. IMHO.
The last line is golden words!
Was on the resource you indicated, read how you praise this 6D vegetable from canon. It got sick. Nikon is more expensive than canon? Have you looked at the prices on the store? Canon 6D and Nikon D600 are the same! Are you powdering your brain? I wanted to leave a post there, but what about, only registration! here you are advertising this broken resource.
How many people here are convinced that more is better….
Here I have just EOS 40D (10MP) and my friend’s 650D with its 18MP.
Comparing the pictures taken by one or the other are absolutely indistinguishable by eye.
Most of the factors affect detail, illumination, optics, AF accuracy, etc., and MP is already in the very last place ... For example, if AF does not work accurately, then it does not matter at all how many blurry or not detailed pixels I get 200 or 1000 ...
with Kenon, not everything is so simple. Kenon didn't change his CMOS matrix for a long time. therefore, the picture from the overwhelming majority of ZK Kenon is almost identical - despite the difference in MP.
That everyone clung to detail, except there are no more parameters for evaluating the quality of the photograph Dindrange also indirectly affects detail. I always take 2 Nikon SLRs with me, one digital, the other film. For fun, I take paired shots with the same parameters on the same lens, print on a3 a4 and observe the loss of detail on a digital figure in the highlights or in the shadows. And why do I need these megapixels if I see black-and-green porridge in the shadows or a dirty-gray background instead of the sky and this is all taking into account the fact that the figures are long and difficult to process in Photoshop and the second are printed as is
here is a comparison of the film with the number
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/07/fuji-fujifilm-s2-pro.html
Comparison of film and numbers on the example of the positive and negative films of Fuji and Fuji Fujifilm S2 Pro.
there are a bunch of pages and photos.
it is clearly seen that the film does not give any global advantages in quality.
“And why do I need these megapixels if I see a black and green porridge in the shadows or a dirty gray background instead of the sky”
================================================== =======
what you see is a standard nikon problem. NIKONA and not numbers.
in detail and with links what and how
http://vmirefoto.blogspot.ca/2013/12/nikon-d800-e.html
to avoid this gray-green dirt, use Fujik or Kenon (though Kenon has its own troubles :)
once again, this is not a problem of numbers but a problem of a brand.
film is also not ideal. there is a problem of color stability from batch to batch, color stability over time, etc. etc.
Do not advertise this broken resource! Do not parasitize here!
Kenon has even less dyndown, he didn’t take off for Fuji. May with. f. try but expensive
at Kenon, DD can be expanded due to double ISO.
possible with exposure bracketing. however, this picture does not save completely. there is also such an indicator as the number of shades in each color (maybe I do not express myself correctly, but it seems to be clear) but this is already off topic at all
Yes, Sergei got a little flushed with DD from Nikon :) He just uses Kenon and that's it. And you, Sergei, do not try to assure us that the DD of Kenon is equal to the film, they made me funny.
Sergei, I read your comments and articles on the links deeper, the conclusion suggests itself - you just don't like Nikon and that's it.
ZY: shoot in the studio or in the open air on the Sony A7R (by the last link you identified her as a Nikon D800 killer) for about five hours through LV or an electronic viewfinder, at the same time you will find out that you still have to drip in the eye instead of a visin, I’m already I am silent about ergonomics (grip, access speed) and focus. And the Nikon D800 is a great tool, it is the tool that Sony has not yet opposed for a long time.
ZZY: Arkady, cool article, sorry for the offtopic.
To get good landscapes, it makes sense to use neutral filters. Square. Cokin. With a multiplicity of 3, 6 and 9. Insert into the holder to the horizon level - and voila! Then the sky will not be knocked out and the shadow without porridge. Round gradient filters are not so functional: get a reference to the horizon level. And square ones are the very thing: if the horizon level is underestimated / overestimated, you can always lower / raise the filter in the holder and achieve an excellent image.
When printing at a time, take 300 dots per inch for a point of view. І squeeze 12 'megapixel sign into a 15x10 cm photo-fidbit card, by way of resize, the cob information is drawn from the camera matrix.
If to draw an analogy with the method of printing from a photographic cast through an optical print, then it is correct to work resize not to show the pixels, but to increase the number of dots per inch.
Zvisno zhoden photolab on the other hand. Perevitrata farby at XNUMX o’clock.
The same ones with monitors, most of the time the pixel race in cameras is the one but the pixel race in monitors :-)
“The photo lab is definitely on the go. Perevitrata farbi i hour "
—
For your penny photolab pide wants to the edge of the street :). Tezh i і z monitors
Arkady, thank you very much for the article, and especially for the example with the leave of your parents! In fact, if this is a picture for yourself, if it contains people you love, if it is a memory of something that is dear to your heart, then the technical side is not the most important. The main thing is that there is something to remember. Therefore, it is especially unfortunate that many, very many, have already forgotten what a picture is that you hold in your hands, and do not leaf through on your smartphone. For myself there is no BIG sense to chase a gigapixel. But for our customers, you still have to think about how many of these pixels are really needed. But here moderation is needed!
And I'm a fan of keen on macro photography and detail and crop are very important to me.
Arkady, the article is undoubtedly very controversial, as evidenced by the number of comments and likes under it. I will only say my opinion based on experience (I have a Canon 350D, I worked with the 5d MarkII for a long time at work - I worked as a videographer at weddings for a year + sometimes took photos, the day before yesterday I had a good time with the 60D): pixels are not superfluous for everyone for a banal reason : not everyone wants to open a picture in a computer, move a meter away on a chair with wheels from the monitor and enjoy the beauty of the image. Everyone (both me and those for whom I took photos on Mark2 for money) likes to enlarge the picture and look at the details =) Therefore, the number of pixels will increase until it becomes impossible to discern a hair on everyone's head in the general photo of a hundred people)) As for the shooting technique - on my 350 with 8MP I can shoot handheld at an exposure of 40 (I really like taking pictures at night, sometimes even with a fifty-kopeck piece I don't have enough aperture, I don't wear a tripod), and most of the photos are quite high quality, while on the same 60D with its 16 megapixels is less than a hundred, the shutter speed cannot be set, everything is smeared, the stabilizer does not help. Of course, at the 350th ISO it is dangerous to lift more than 400, while in modern cameras the grain does not stand out even at 2500, but still. Therefore, I will never trade my 350th for anything)
Right 350th is a topic. How many good shots he made is beyond counting. IMHO is one of the best devices from Canon in the amateur segment. Though old. It's like Nikon's D70.
add to what has been said. megapixels are evil. but this evil also has dignity - the grain of noise is less. and with proper resizing, the noise will be less than on a large matrix.
http://www.club-nikon.ru/forum/index.php?
When you come here, then filter the marketing durilovka from Julia
one hundred%. Julia steers and hangs a lot of marketing noodles on the fragile neophyte brains))))
what are its pearls that a gradient filter increases the DD of the camera or its understanding of the polarizer. her hatred of kenon reaches the point of absurdity. although the money must somehow work out?
but if you CAREFULLY read her posts chronologically, then
- her D800e had a factory defect, a crooked mount. while it was discovered, Julia broadcasted for a long time about the “curvature” of the depth of field and so on)))))))
- almost every second lens was under repair
- her 24-70 2.8 was completely replaced, the famous marriage of the zoom ring
- She ran ALL of her lenses to adjust in SC
I like everything more when Julia manages to catch on when she after a while asserts exactly the opposite of what she said earlier)))
Yes, Nikon Club ru did not recognize the problems of D600 oil, they banned everyone who insisted that this was Nikon’s next marriage. even when Nikon himself admitted)))
but they know how to convert to their religion by brainwashing, we must admit this fact.
What is this “correct resize”?
google what a raster image is.
correct resize - the use of such an algorithm for resizing that interpolates pixels as close to the original as possible.
Arkady thanks for the site.
In photography, it is important to find your place, your style, and while you cannot decide on this and do not know which studio or reportage is more to your liking, you ASK on the forums by measuring pixels, the photographer is behind the camera and the result depends only on him, if a person has a talent for this, he will simply take pictures with what is at hand)) or what there is enough money for ...
In this article, the author makes it clear that people buying this or that camera do not even think about why they need it, but only think about the fact that it came out this year, it costs mulion dollars) and now I will show what I am capable of .... you will no doubt be upset - but most likely you were just thrown (marketers, sellers), and this happens only because of your own stupidity.
p / s my friend took Zenith E into ruik, just to indulge)) walked with him for a couple of weeks, which I read, studied, did 4 to 36 .. and I fooled from her vision, compositions, now they are already doing commercial film photo sessions for old ones Krasnogorsk Zenitiki ...
The conclusion is this - take pictures, take pictures ... without thinking about pixels, monitors, calibrators and other things ..)) when you already understand that 50MP is simply vital for you, run for a new camera))
A separate respect to the author of the site
For everyone, especially for some
Personally, I have the means and I want to buy a camera that suits me, and I shoot both in the studio (portrait, subject, still life) and reportage and landscape and photography, etc. I have experience in film only for 25 years. There are a lot of photographers, as well as I am generalists. On the contrary, I do not consider specific wedding photographers who no longer shoot ANYTHING as photographers - these are shop workers - shabashniks.
Multipixel is rudeness on the part of manufacturers. M-pixelity is needed by less than 1% of photographers (really needed). In all other cases, 12 megapixels is no longer an allowable luxury. Do you need to frame? ...))))) Learn to build the composition correctly and buy optics with different focus. distances. And do not shoot a reportage with fixes, but portraits / landscapes with zooms, etc.
Of course, there will be monitors / displays that will drag the 12 megapixel camera matrix. But today, a photographer who lacks 6 megapixels, he has a definition - a very beginner photographer with the right to read, shoot and study, study and read and ask uncles what is good and what is bad, BUT not expressing your opinion, which is nothing stands, only leads other amateurs into fornication.
Very sensibly written!
I thought that when there are a lot of pixels, the picture has more and more details printed on it pixel by pixel, that is, they will have greater sharpness when viewing photos. For example 2 pixels or 8 pixels. At 8 pixels, we see the image sharper, and at 2 pixels in the style of 8-bit game consoles.
10X15 is still not an example for a normal photographer, even an amateur.
Minimum 15X20.
And what is your opinion when shooting panoramas, namely spherical, virtual? For example, when shooting, we fish, correcting distortion and cropping the photo in order to get rid of the blur zones at the edges, does the megapixels matter or not? I don’t really understand, tell me :)