This article is devoted to the ratio of the growth in the number of megapixels in cameras and the growth of real image sizes.
Mathematics and Megapixels. Only for the most inquisitive. Do you want to make money on the output of a new camera? Just add pixels!
It all started with the fact that for review YONGNUO LENS EF 50mm 1: 1.8 project Photo dzen and the official representation of Canon in Ukraine provided me with a Canon 5Dsr camera. At the time, it was the camera with the highest megapixel count of any full-format digital camera (i.e., narrow format).
A plate with Nikon & Canon narrow format cameras, which have the highest megapixel count, can be found here.
With the Canon 5Dsr, I was able to shoot not only YONGNUO LENS EF 50mm 1: 1.8, but also on the Canon EF 24-70 f / 2.8L II (the review of which I did not have time to prepare), as well as on the legendary Industar-50-2 3,5 / 50. I was wondering how all these lenses allow such a super-megapixel camera. In the resolution, as it turned out, I did not find anything interesting, but at the same time I came across one very interesting nuance.
Industar-50-2 3,5 / 50 and Canon EOS 5DSR
Together with the Canon 5Dsr, I also had a camera on the review at the same time Sony a7II. Poking around in Canon 5Dsr RAW files and Sony a7II I did not immediately understand where the Canon 50Dsr's vaunted 5 megapixels are, or how to feel them to the touch.
Let me remind you that the Canon 5Dsr has 50 MP on its sensor, and the linear dimensions of the image in pixels are 8688 X 5792, which equals 50.320.896 pixels (which are rounded up to 50 MP).
Sony a7II has 24 MP on its board, and the linear dimensions of the image in pixels are 6000 X 4000, which equals 24.000.000 pixels (and corresponds to exactly 24 MP without rounding).
Important: the physical size of the sensors of these cameras is the same and is 36 mm by 24 mm. Sensors differ precisely in the number of megapixels.
If we divide 50 MP into 24 MP, then we get:
50 MP / 24 MP = 2.08
those. 50 MP is 208% of 24 MP. If you rephrase, then 50 MP is 108% more than 24 MP.
It seems to many that the difference in half is a lot, but we forget that the area (the number of megapixels on the sensor) is doubled, and not the linear dimensions (image width and height).
The number of megapixels is a function of the area of linear dimensions (width and height of the image in pixels). Users often pay attention only to the growth of megapixels, forgetting about the linear dimensions of the images.
If visually to observe the images in proportions, it may seem that the image is 24 MP smaller than 50 MP not 2 times (visually I would say that it is about one and a half times smaller).
Important: the images shown below illustrate the aspect ratio of images from different sensors if they were viewed or printed with the same pixel density. Original image size can be viewed here.
How much more image with 50 MP compared to 24 MP
The real increase in image length in pixels is only 45%, not 100%, as you can erroneously assume (when 50 MP is divided by 24 MP).
8688/6000 = 1.448. Those. image length with 50 MP is only 45% longer than the image length with 24 MP. The same goes for image height.
The actual increase in image length is only 45%
By the way, the difference between 12 MP and 24 MP, too, is not felt as seriously as we would like. Even when processing and viewing photos in a '1 to 1' ratio, it is difficult to tell what is in front of my eyes - 50 MP or 24 MP. It is only when you start moving around the frame with the Loupe tool that you notice that the 50MP image is slightly larger.
Image Ratio of Cameras Nikon D700, Sony a7 and Canon 5Dsr
The difference between 12 MP (Nikon D700) and 50 MP (Canon 5Dsr)
Due to the fact that the area grows quadratically, to double the image width (from 4256 pixels at Nikon D700, up to 8688 pixels for Canon 5Dsr) the number of Megapixels had to be increased by more than 4 times (from 12 MP for Nikon D700 up to 50 MP for Canon 5Dsr):
- Difference in length: 8688/4256 = 2.04 times
- Difference in quantity: 50 MP / 12 MP = 4.17 times
It turns out pretty funny: an image with a 50 MP camera is only two times longer than with a 12 MP camera.
Paradox
My experience
No 'WOW!' from 50 Mp, Canon 5Dsr did not. Even after the transition from 12MP images to 50MP images, nothing has changed dramatically. The image just got 2x taller and wider. 2 times is very little. What I really felt from 50 MP was the slowdown of my computer while performing the same operations that I do with 12 or 24 MP images.
Roughly speaking, the essence of this article is as follows: when processing, viewing and printing photos, the difference in the number of megapixels is not felt as strongly as one might expect.
On the topic of megapixels, I also advise you to look in the sections'Pixels and Subpixels", "Gigapixels'and'Battle of Megapixels'.
Thank you for attention. Arkady Shapoval.
Arkady, and no “Wow” could have happened. It is necessary to take into account the resolving power of the eye. Ask yourself how many dots you need to put in a 36mm line so that the eye perceives it as a line and not as a set of dots. Not so much. After the points merge into one line, adding points will add clarity to this line. But not for long. Soon the eye will no longer perceive the addition of dots. And you will notice the difference only by stretching the 36mm line. up to (for example) a meter. Everything rests on our perception (our eyes). In my opinion, the creation of matrices with such a resolution has two goals. The ability to enlarge the image to a large size without impairing perception (you can forget about cropping during shooting - you cut out any piece, enlarged it and did not lose it in perception :)) and the second moment - the ability to crush noise without visible loss of detail. Somehow I think so :)
An example of when this is important is a photograph with a large number of people on it. for example, I saw a wedding photo where all the participants jumped at the same time.
24 megapixels (or even more) of full-frame DSLRs made it possible to see each person’s face
and it is: for a single portrait is enough and 6 MP for a group - 16 is enough. Well, if there are a lot of people, and they also jumped, then maybe 50 is not enough for ff. :) I'm just fooling!
I have long noticed that everyone who sticks out from an overabundance of MP in cameras and sees magical sharpness in mngopixel images (on a 2 MP monitor), all these photographers have much better eyesight than ordinary people.
In order to notice the difference, you need to have a suitable monitor!!!
"And again the cripples came together in a fierce swing with crutches and prostheses!" (from)
Very self-critical!
Good article, especially for those who have consumer itch. Indeed, you see 24 against 50 and it seems that the difference is huge, but in reality everything is not so radical. Marketers in this sense do not eat their bread for nothing. I bought a camera, the old lenses did not fit, the computer slows down, the memory cards are too small ... And all you need to do when actually photographing is to think a little and not have to throw money.
Good day to all photographers!
I’ll ask the question off-topic, do not scold for it strongly. There is a good, old glass 35-70 2.8d. Who shot them knows his color rendition and pattern. But the contrast drops if there is a light source in the frame. Is it possible to fix this with a filter, if so, with what. Or is that a dead poultice.
only a hood.
polarik can help a little, but a little bit.
In Photoshop, I stretched the picture from my d810 to 50 megapixels, I did not feel the difference. Top starter plus karma. Pixels Overrated
Anonymous, it is interesting to hear the opinion of who uses 810 how are you satisfied ???
Arkady do an iPhone camera review))
more and more often, an advertisement for the sale of DSLRs began to appear, which indicated the reason for the sale "transition to the latest iPhone model"
I think the point here is not that an iPhone can shoot better than a DSLR, but that a person bought a DSLR, but did not bother to learn at least a little photography. Accordingly, the result is disappointing, the frames do not look like the cover of a fashion magazine, even if you bought 5dm3 with a set of top optics. Negativeness in a person is also growing due to the weight of the carried equipment. And then he sees on the network a bunch of interesting compositional and meaningful photos taken with smart devices. Friends show him pictures on the phone, on which something interesting and rare has been taken, which happened once and it is no longer possible to bring a DSLR and take pictures. So the person thinks, what for me a camera for 20-200 thousand rubles, which lies at home and leaves 5 times a year for barbecues or booze in taverns (where the horrible pictures come from), when you can take an iPhone and shoot everywhere and everything. And in general, for amateur filming, an iPhone camera is quite enough, fresh models already work well with a lack of light - 6es made me happy with this. It's just that it won't be possible to lift the ISO up to 1600 without noise, it can't zoom, make the depth of field narrow and blur it too (except with applications that still mow a lot). In addition, the autofocus of the iPhone, although not bad (better than a series of soap dishes), does not even reach the old 7d, which stands like a polyphone. Well, the convenience of shooting with an iPhone is noticeably lower, not quite the ergonomics to shoot a lot. But then again, for those who rarely shoot, don't edit photos (except on Instagram :)) and don't shoot often, it's much easier to have an iPhone. How many DSLRs have I already bought, which the owners had for several years, and the mileage when checked turned out to be less than 5 thousand frames. People take DSLRs because they look cool, because somewhere it might be mainstream, they just might think they can get carried away with photography. And then they understand that there is no time / effort / interest for this occupation. And that's okay. Not only DSLRs are bought this way. How many 5-year-old motorcycles with a mileage of up to 1000 km are sold - they bought more cubes, but it's scary to ride, and you can't take your mother-in-law to the dacha on it. Or they will buy some iksbok or playstation, but it turns out that each game costs 2 thousand - nafig it is necessary - and they sell it.
So, in my opinion, there is no particular point in comparing iPhone and DSLRs, both options are good, but for different situations. I shoot on my phone when there is no camera nearby, in everyday life, all sorts of ads, friends whom I have not seen for a long time and suddenly met. And I take a DSLR for specifics, that is, I go somewhere and more or less know for sure what I will shoot. And carrying a brick with you just for the sake of being around is quite difficult. Therefore, nowadays, mirrorless cameras are popular - it seems that the size allows you to throw it into a daily bag, and it seems that the quality is at the level of the initial DSLRs.
here, an iPhone review is definitely required!
Denis, why do you need an iPhone review? The pastor put everything on the shelves for you!
So what's the matter? Reviews made by forum participants are welcome and accepted, do it. Arkady may not have an iPhone.
Well written, sensible and to the point, really enjoyed it.
Thank:)
Denis is raving, it’s evident that he has a fever, and the Pastor was loving.)
Why he was surely led, many will find the answer to their questions from the commentary of the Pastor.
They will undoubtedly find it. It just seemed to me that the Pastor wants to prove something to this crazy Dani.
This is Pastor, if that.
If the words of the Pastor are supplemented with examples of photographs taken on a smartphone and a DSLR in these specific situations, then it will be quite a ride to an article in Radozhiva.
PS I absolutely agree with everything written by the Pastor, except for the compactness of the bzk.
+1
Bravo, Pastor!
Very sensibly painted. Almost 100% coincides with my observations. Therefore, “for every day so that it was…” - a smartphone, for a picnic with barbecue I take my old Kodak P712, but for a deliberate and planned shooting I take my D5100 with all the optics. That is, each device has its own niche and all of them can please the owner, but D5 does not help crooked hands and unwillingness. And the compactness of the UPC is a very controversial issue.
I will answer from my own experience: I filmed with a bzk. With a pancake or not, I calmly fit into the inner pocket of a jacket / coat or into the side pocket of my pants and did not interfere when walking. Specifically, I'm talking about nex + sigma 30 2.8 and about samsung nx10 + 30 2. That is. bzk - compact and always at hand, wherever you go.
I wanted an optical viewfinder, speed and autofocus - now I go with a DSLR. And she always lies in a separate bag, fastened with carabiners to the backpack. Doesn't fit into any pocket, even with a pancake lens. That is, not compact and not always at hand.
For me personally, this dispute about the compactness of the bzk in comparison with DSLRs makes no sense: I know from myself that the bzk are really compact, light and always at hand, and the DSLRs are huge bricks compared to the bzk (even 100d), which are often not located handy for the picture.
This used to be the term mirrorless, it was kind of dismissive, but now there are mirrorless cameras from Sony, which are in no way inferior to Canon or Nikon. I had an opportunity to try Sonu 7S - 12MP full-format camera, only positive memories.
Here the other day I managed to drive the Panasonic GH4 3/4, I will not do the review myself, but I’ll insert a few words in favor of this mirrorless. I didn’t like it.
The Panasonic GH4 has its own niche, and it’s impossible to compare it with the crop Canon or Nikon, and even more so with the full-format Sony. Judge for yourself that it can GH4 with a 16-megapixel matrix with an area of 225 mm, versus 330 mm Canon or 370 mm Nikon, and even more so against Sony with 864 mm and 12 MP.
Yes, it seems, and did not compare with anything. I'm just saying - I didn't like it. It will not work to list everything that I didn’t like now, when the camera is not in hand, but so, a few examples that make up the general impression, it is possible.
Firstly, the form factor is a SLR but not a SLR, and secondly, the size is not at all small, no less than the initial DSLRs, for example, from Nikon. The viewfinder seems to be not bad, but when you take a picture, the picture freezes and is not in the exact position in which the frame will be. The lens was from a cheap 14-hundred with something there, I don’t remember for sure, it doesn’t shine at all with detail and sharpness, the focus is not intelligible either on auto focus or in a pseudo-arm position.
The menu is average lousy, it’s good that even the touch screen is real, it really adds speed when picking in points and sub-points.
In short, like a camera, well, it's on ...
This is how the camcorder can still be used. Even 4k is, probably the best thing for video blogging, but again, it’s better to shoot a creative video with a DSLR, especially with a good fast shutter speed.
In short, the camera is about nothing.
I used to be, when I saw something interesting and there was no SLR at hand, I shot it on a smartphone. Then I read with Bruce Barnbaum that if you see something beautiful, but you can’t take a normal picture, don’t disgrace yourself and don’t click anything and anyhow. Better captured the picture in memory for the future.
Indeed, all those pictures could be shown only on smartphones or on the displays of small iPads, in passing, with one eye, to say "class" and then immediately forget forever.
But these are not the thoughts of a boy, but of a husband (I’m talking about Peter III’s commentary)! The Pastor simply described the obvious things. I don’t agree with many statements ... ” whom I had not seen for a long time and suddenly met. " - this is generally beyond the concept of PHOTOGRAPHY. So there is nothing to talk about. A real photographer always has a compact photo bag with him, and in it a DSLR with a good staff. And he does not whine about any "bricks" there.
Come on, stop ....! We proceed from the opposite: if someone has a DSLR but he cannot take pictures beautifully - what is he, a good photographer ????
And no one said that .... You see a dream.
"... A real photographer always has a compact photo bag with him, and in it a DSLR with a good staff. And he does not whine about any" bricks "there."
If you make your living by photography, then very much can be. But in this case, in addition to the staff, the bag should contain a shirik, a telezoom or just a telephoto lens, a portrait lens (of course, a telephoto lens, but we're talking about "real photographers") and without a good flash ... I would like to look at the "compact" a photo bag with such a set ... Ah! I also forgot all sorts of filters, piers for cleaning optics, a notebook, at least one spare battery for the camera, and a spare tire for the flash is not superfluous.
The pastor explained everything very sensibly and there is nothing to cover!
And at the expense of the previous comment from Peter Sh about “beautiful in the head”, well what can I say, or you have never been in a situation where you need to shoot right “here and now” because it will not happen again, or shoot staged scenes being sure that the subject of shooting will not go anywhere and the light will fall exactly as it lies right now, otherwise you will have to tell how “beautiful in my head” it is, but about what it is better to see once (albeit in not ideal quality) than hear 100 times - not in vain came up with.
By the way, I was helped more than once by an old Nokia slider with a 3,2Mr matrix. Now it has been replaced by a smartphone with 8MP on board, which is always with me. Well, for serious shooting I take D5100 with a "compact" photo bag.
Throw your Nokia, and away. Always carry in your bag D5100 + zoom 17-50 (without filters and, as you put it, personal belongings). You, apparently, have enough of this with your head and you will always be ready for the “situation when you need to shoot right here and now, because it won't happen again. "
I think, after all, you should not advise anyone to throw something that he himself did not use, or did not use skillfully. Yes, and about who is missing something, too, is not worth it. My park of optics from macro to 300mm was formed not just "anyhow". And I wrote about the photo bag from personal experience. My previous comment was not intended to offend you in any way. And you seem to be offended.
Not at all, dear.
If I don’t have the opportunity to take a picture now, I try to remember well all the essential details of the picture I liked. The place, time of day, the angles of the rays of light, what is the sky, is there a wind, what exactly did I like so much here, and most importantly why.
Then I wait for the same weather, and at the right time of the day I come exactly there, already with a camera.
So you have confirmed my thoughts about the staged photo. You can even say a conscious photo. If so, then yes, going for such a thing with a smartphone is simply stupid. Well, or if at all - there is absolutely no choice. But, as a rule, those who are able to comprehend, build a picture in their heads, buy a camera.
But what to do with the momentary plot? Constantly carrying a DSLR with you, as Anonymous strongly advises, is simply not possible (I wonder if he himself tried to follow his own advice?). Don't shoot at all? I am a supporter of a seemingly simple and understandable position - take pictures with what is at hand, and if there is an opportunity to improve the result and this is definitely necessary - come back and take a camera.
... and a bird, a stranger, an elderly couple on a bench, a lady with a dog (figuratively), looking at the clock, will patiently wait for your return ...
A photo is an instant in time. And it will not happen again. It will be like that. but not that. Until now, I regret it. that there was nothing at hand when I saw a hedgehog carrying a baby !!
Oh, what a wonderful moment - a black and white wedding against the backdrop of a burning wooden church at the time of a solar eclipse! but, nooo, I don't have a full-frame DSLR and a red / gold lens with me, but just a smartphone ... okay, I'll wait for the next case.
No need to wait, urgently run to the psychiatrist.
Well here on Wikipedia:
“Photography is the acquisition and storage of an image using a light-sensitive material or a light-sensitive matrix in a camera.
In a broader sense, photography is the art of taking photographs, where the main creative process is finding and choosing the composition, lighting and moment (or moments) of the photograph. This choice is determined by the skill and skill of the photographer, as well as his personal preferences and taste, which is also typical for any kind of art. ”
And not a word about the big black DSLR. Maybe they will help you understand that photography is not a cool carcass with video glasses on the network - on digital roar TV - there is a whole section about photographing with all sorts of undercameras that even do not reach the level of a smartphone - all kinds of barbicams, Chinese mini cameras and other cheap things. So there, world-renowned professional photographers take very good pictures, if not from a technical point of view, but from the point of view of composition, lighting and moment. And as we can see from the definition of photography, there is no requirement for the quality of the picture, so that sharpness from corner to corner is mandatory, unimaginable colors and bokeh. So a photo is both a snapshot of a beautiful sunset on a smartphone and a snapshot of a friend whom I haven't seen for a long time. And often these photos will be no worse, and sometimes much more interesting than the photos taken with a DSLR, but at the wrong moment. Well, again, “photography is primarily light” (c). For example, you can look at a photo of Lee Morris on an iPhone 3G in a good studio. Without light, even on 1dx2, this cannot be removed, but with good light it turned out great on the iPhone. You can also look for examples when photographers shoot on smartphones and it comes out very cool.
Again, many pros now have mirrorless snapshots at any time. Moreover, some have already switched to cropped mirrorless glasses and do not worry that they do not look so solid. It is clear that in some cases you can’t do without a medium format camera or a top ff, but 90% of amateur snapshots can be played on a DSLR on a modern phone.
Well, personally, I doubt very much that there are at least 5% of professional photographers who always carry a DSLR with them, right everywhere. Well-known wedding people generally say that they are so bored of lugging around with a DSLR at work that they are too lazy to even carry a mirrorless mirror with them on ordinary days. Also lacking a smartphone.
Of course, I'm not saying that a smartphone will replace a DSLR, but nevertheless it is categorical to state that all photos on a smartphone are not photos, and you can only take pictures on a DSLR - to put it mildly, it is not entirely true.
There are a lot of words, dear telephonist. Brevity is a sister, well, you know whose ... Even the material from Wikipedia has been raised ... And do not fuss like that - you wrote a couple of phrases and will be ...
Sorry, I thought you were not a troll :)
I hate trolls. I appreciate clever and extremely short thoughts. Properly clever thought should be short.
I advise you to write without vowels. It will be shorter and will not lose in content.
Advise Arkady to write shorter about lenses, especially for people like you who cannot read text longer than a tweet :) Like a review 24-120 4: “The lens seems to be okay, take it!” :)
I'm going to go full frame Nikon. Heavy unit D800E, pentaxes have fallen in price ... Those who have been working for many years Pentax persuade me to buy a FujiFilm FinePix X-E2S digital camera, as they themselves often work on it. http://www.intel-foto.ru/catalog/prv00008258/prv00008265/24203/ Changing crop to crop ... I found a light NIKON DF ... the matrix itching with pixels ... I photograph for the sake of my soul. D800E, D810 ... most often capture landscapes at 36MP pixels. Old optics will lose their charm ... I have D7000 for several years and I can't change D500 to another crop. FujiFilm is original ...
D500 - professional reportage crop, why do you need it? besides, it is not on sale yet.
Df - dear, doesn’t write a video, this is 146% camera :) for fans to do everything by hand.
800+ - uncompromising professional models for those who make money on it.
FujiFilm is another platform and ideology for thoughtful leisurely “creativity”.
Do you know exactly why you need a new camera?
And Nikon D750 was not considered as an option? Normal autofocus, 24MP - neither more nor less, full-fledged work with flashes (unlike Fuj), 2 memory cards, some kind of weather protection, familiar ergonomics (after d7000).
Indeed, we all sorts of pants there with suspicious names.
We ourselves know everything better than anyone, and we ourselves will teach the masterpieces to click on any masterpiece in an instant.
Well. and for those who are still serious about photography, I highly recommend Bruce Bairnbaum's book “Photography. The art of self-expression ”.
It seems to me that every self-respecting photographer (and others) must read this book.
approx.
An interesting article of this kind turned into a battle of the MPH.
The main thing is that those faithful users of such megapixels always print their pictures at least from a meter diagonally)
Can anyone give an example of that very shake because of the high resolution? And how to live with it.
The front camera does not take very good pictures, despite the fact that it has a resolution of 5 megapixels.
And what is her entrance pupil? 2mm? So she does not take good pictures
Different cameras for different tasks, for weddings and reporting, 12-16 pixels with the staff of the optics that can open them will suffice, for landscape photography, the aperture is closed for the effect, for example, with water, but I take off knowing my glass at 8-11 sometimes at 5.6 because a small wind gives blades of grass blur at a slow shutter speed, as for the D7200 sensor of 24 pixels, this is half of the full frame of 48 pixels and not every top glass will allow this density, while the glass will allow a little more budgetary resolution of 24 megapixels on the d600. If I need high resolution for printing, then I shoot 4-6 frames by gluing them together and then the glass will resolve each pixel and the picture will be as detailed as possible, if you need 100mp then I shoot super23 mummy on 120 film where the frame size is 6x9cm and then interpolate after printing when scanning. Each tool is for its tasks, if the client is looking at the wedding photo on a monitor, phone, TV where the resolution is 3mp or in the photo book, then why do you need a resolution of 16 with optics that will give out 9 and it’s enough to deliver it, if it’s printing a photo wallpaper, then the quality will be better when to glue several frames in which the pixel is allowed by optics is like Olympus 5m 2 but there are some nuances such as wind and shutter speed when moving the camera, etc. this is not convenient for all situations, only panoramas and landscapes where a huge number of qualities are most often applicable printed dots on a photo carrier.
If you want to get the picture as sharp as possible, then use macro lenses with a resolution higher than that of a conventional fox with the same focal lengths, for example Nikkor 60 f2.8, or stitch several frames into one picture, for example, in a vertical position 3-4 frames with Nikon d7000 will give you a resolution of 45-60 open pixels of the potential of your glass, if you want you can shoot on a camera sf or on a gimbal on a sheet film, the optics resolution for a large projected surface and with a large working segment will better reproduce the picture, for example, a wave-3 lens on sf or fireworks in since the focal distance is larger and the projection area is larger, the picture will be clearer on the finished slide than the same lens if you attach it through an adapter to a nikon camera .... That is, comparing the resolving power of lenses, one cannot but take into account their working segments and the projection for which they were designed and therefore it is not correct to compare glass sph with glass of ff cameras and glass for corp cameras. Also, an important role in the resolution of optics is played by the structure of the diaphragm and the shape of the edges, many chase bokeh circles, but the more blades in the diaphragm, the greater their slope of the edge refracting the light flux, camera manufacturers are far from a stupid bunch of optical engineers, and for example, 6 petals in the clinic play in its sharpness plays an important role ... Also, the fewer lenses in the lens design and the lower the refractive index of the glass, the more likely it is to squeeze out a greater number of lines from it, for example, a Pezvela lens or the same Tessar lens or a lens from a movie projector or a slide projector where there is only one lens consisting of glued three pairs lenses with high optical properties of glass…. I also want to note that there are gaps between the pixels between the pixels that the crop matrix and the ff matrix are the same whereas the pixel of the d600 is larger than the crown pixel of the d 7100, although there are 24 of them there !!!! d7100 for a picture equal to d600 should have optics with a higher resolution. On this occasion, when people are chasing megapixels and universal cameras and optics, their pocket becomes very thin))) for example, d800, d800e, d810 have a sensor equal to two crop sensors d7000, but the budget for optics and the camera itself is many times higher and the computer needs even more powerful than for d 7000, and the funniest thing is that they beat them up in series by shooting weddings and then print a photobook with 1.5 pixel frames .... Or they look at photos on a computer and a phone in 3 pixels ... I print landscapes and panoramas for hotels and construction organizations, for these purposes, Fuji x20 soap dish is enough for this purpose, which glues a panorama on the fly and pictures of 90x60 cm in size by pixel, no one examines the tembol in printed form from a distance of 30 cm ) and the canvases were painted by the artists with strokes and not with a blade, and they look at them from a distance and not point-blank studying the smallest structure of foliage.
It couldn't be better ...
The physical pixel sizes of different cameras are not the same. For example, the physical size of a 1 D Mark III pixel is 7.2 microns (for some reason, some tables give a different size of 6,4 megapixels) (10,1 megapixels), and for 7D / 60D / 600D (17,9 megapixels) 4.3 micron. The Nikon D700 / D3 / D3s (12,1 megapixels) has a 8,4 micron pixel size.
What do we do with this information, Captain?
Attach to file size information, Sergeant. Well, if it's not clear, then to another place, maybe it will help….
Brilliant!
Well, and how did they themselves apply? What happened?
photo docs don't like this article
Wings ... legs ... the main thing is the tail! There is, as always, a tough argument. No need to argue. Megapixels, like a camera, are taken to fit their needs. Reports do not chase pixels because they need speed. Portraits and landscape painters will gladly take something more cumbersome. I shoot studio portraits and I dream of having a Hasselblad type monster. I perfectly understand that I need a low ISO. I don't need a high shutter speed and at post processing I'm ready to sit for two hours behind a huge 50 megapixel canvas. if you shoot flowers, then maybe you will have 12 megapixels for the eyes, but still no need to generalize that this is the limit for everyone and everything else is marketing nonsense. Thank you for your attention
Contrary to the name “crop” (crop) and pop opinion, these matrices are not cropping from an unsuccessful full frame (like i3 and i7 processors for example) but are another technological product with a smaller pixel size and often higher resolution in lines per millimeter. along with this, the crop has less distortion and vignetting, as well as a smoother resolution throughout the frame.
Behind the full frame remains: an order of magnitude higher ISO operating values and a good viewfinder view.
Modern photographic equipment is fantastic! just for that I love the Japanese their cameras watches and motorcycles!
today on a crop with iso 800 at 1/4 shutter speed with a stab at hand at dusk took a bunch of very good shots.
An order of magnitude is ten times. On the matrices of one technological cycle, the difference between crop and FF in working ISO will be the same two times (with slight deviations).
Crops have less distortion, vignetting, and more uniformity of sharpness across the frame when using full-frame lenses.
That's it, I can't read anymore ...
It’s interesting for the people that taking Nikon d3200 or Canon 5D to get a picture with high resolution and color depth (we will throw away convenience and buns), you can also add DD (dynamic range).
The article seemed very controversial, being a techie, the conclusions are not clear - for what reasons, the quality should not grow from megapixels. If they were pseudo letters, say, which simply multiply one point by 4, and so, in theory, the density of the picture increases, and this can only be achieved by decreasing the pixel once the matrix remains the same. I began to doubt even more that pixels or a matrix are better with the same sensitivity ...
Your last sentence is not understood at all.
And this conclusion was made because the density of the picture (in your terminology) does not affect anything in “average amateur”, “semi-professional”, and often even “professional” photography. Because high resolution is very often simply not needed, and 8-12 megapixels are enough for most tasks. You don't see or use this excessive pixel density.
Example: we filmed sports dances with a friend in the same room, with similar optics D90 and D7100, then everything merged into a common folder. Sort - by date / time of the picture. Now leafing through the pictures on a PC (monitor 1920 * 1200, IPS), and even slightly enlarging the pictures, I cannot say which device a particular photo was taken on, if I do not peep at the resolution or file name (the prefixes are different).
A really large resolution is needed not often, but in amateur photography except for the possibility of strong framing, but this issue is most often solved by purchasing longer telephoto optics.
then, according to your logic, buying a full-frame camera is pointless because you can't see the difference right? Buy what is cheaper and enjoy chtoli?)
You are confusing the physical size of the matrix and the pixel density. These are two big differences because the size of the matrix is pure physics. Here (Dx / Ff) the depth of field changes, the optics work a little differently.
Do not mix warm and soft together.
And what does resolution have to do with a great artist? Those. in your opinion those who paint small pictures are less talented than those who paint large canvases? Or, if you take "hardware", then if a person buys paints for $ 1, then he, ugh, is not an artist at all, because Should a “real talent” paint only with paints for $ 100 per tube, and certainly with a brush made from the wool of an extinct albino mammoth?
... and it has already been written many times that optics have much, no MUCH more influence on the picture and the “artistry” of the picture than the camera together with the matrix. And then there is a “gasket” between the ground and the apparatus. And all your megapixels have absolutely nothing to do with the “artistry” of the picture.
And - Yes, buy what is cheaper Now, and start Shooting, and not thinking “I'll dig in for another half a year or a year, and I'll buy FF right away, but for now I'll take pictures on my phone”.
This will be a loss. Losing a year of shooting practice with a good device.
I have more than one device available, and there is a full frame of films and incomplete, I take off and understand the difference. The question arose not from scratch, physics is changing, well, let the pixel size you say? What is a pixel? Is this a piece of the picture in your understanding? In mine, this is a sensor with a certain area that has one value, a color code. It seems to me that the pixel here is a little mystified and they want to turn it into something like a clutch of a picture, sort of like on a film. For me, the whole error of reasoning. I am not convinced yet that megapixels should not be considered almost the most important parameter today.
A large number of MPs are relevant in the commercial sector for a very narrow range of tasks - well, for example, to shoot a new car model for an automobile brand in ideal studio conditions for the subsequent printing of a huge advertising banner. For most purposes, there is no need for 50MP, and there will be more disadvantages (which have already been listed here more than once) than advantages, and on a monitor screen with a 3MP resolution, you will never see the difference between a 12MP and a 50MP image, because they will both be cropped to 3MP. And also you will not see the difference in the print of the picture up to A3 size, and maybe more. A huge number of MPs squeezed into a small matrix - and FF is still a small format, not to mention crop - this is pure marketing, especially if such a huge number of MPs is crammed into an amateur or “semi-professional” camera.
Simply put, if you really need a large number of MPs, buy equipment with physically larger matrices and at the same time a large number of MPs. Otherwise, with a high number of MPs squeezed into a small matrix, you get a small pixel size (or better to say a subpixel), which is the very light-sensitive element. And the larger this element is, the more light it will capture, more accurately encode color, give out less noise, less overheating and the likelihood of burnout, less diffraction threshold and better sharpness. Therefore, I personally adhere to the logic that 24MP for FF, or 12MP for crop is the most optimal limit, above which there will only be a deterioration in the quality of the picture under equal shooting conditions and with the same optics.
But this is all just the technical side, and shooting is, first of all, creativity, and you just need to love to shoot and be able to see the frame, and what you will capture it with is the second question.
Yes, something like that. Although in macro, for example, a high pixel density is good. And in a landscape, a larger matrix is better) A lot depends on the tasks ...
I’ll gain courage... and I’ll tell you clearly that they don’t take it with their heads, but with their heads.
And do not forget that from lovers, photographers turn into great artists, so the device should correspond to this moment
I would like to see in this article, after all, the development of the topic of the resolution of lenses. I was already intrigued, will Industar be able to "pump" 5Dsr ?, and the arithmetic of megapixels is already clear, as well as 2MP versus 4MP, etc. If instead of 5DSr we take the current Nikon D850 as an Example, then everything will be about the same ...
Welcome.
So that is not defined not how.
Here are the Nikon D 90 body on the wind for 13.000 rubles and the Nikon D 5500 body for 36.000 rubles. And is the 90th better?
2 Stepan:
The D90 has at least one advantage - the presence of a screwdriver, which makes it possible to use D series motorless glasses.
Another point - 24MP on the crop of the D5500 is such a controversial topic. The noise will definitely be no less than that of the D90, and the sensitivity to shake will be added.
Not everything is so simple.
Thank you.
The camera is a complex device. There are many possibilities in it. D90 is in some ways better, in some ways worse. Users usually look at only one parameter - megapixels, but in reality they do not decide anything, especially in the amateur segment, which include the d90 and d5500.
Yes, I agree that it is difficult.
You need to know a lot so that the photo goes well the way apparatus-computer-paper or file.
Such prices ... but the disadvantages from the past.
Thank you.
There was one soap box, bad at shooting at sunset. Maybe it was not working. Not May. And then he noticed, when you turn on and immediately press the shutter, the photo turns out better. Lighter, visible high banks of the river that are in the shade of sunset. More precisely, it’s clear that on them here is a tree that shows what, small living creatures.
And if you wait after turning on after a couple of seconds, you just see the beach and the settings are no longer pulled.
So you look through the optics d90 and see the picture as it is, and what it will turn out to be ... at only with experience.
Uh ... uh ... just wondering if someone can pick up or have already picked up a camera and two lenses for him.
Which cause little criticism, debate and questions on the topic, but why this one? And that would not be upset in the future.
But still, on one site the device for 13.000 on another for 27.000 rubles.
Both are the same, both are body and new.
With a standard kit.
Only one store is located according to the principle “walk 200 meters along the fence, turn right 6 (!) Times, enter the checkpoint, ask Uncle Petya, call on the phone and ask my aunt, she will take out ...
And the other in a large shopping center.
Both are real.
What is the strength? Is it that the rent influences so much or is Aunt Motya getting dark?
There are many options - starting from the type of guarantee and ending with a kit, which, in fact, may differ from the one indicated on their website.
Arkady, I disagree. Maybe in artistic terms, megapixels do not play a role, but in everyday life they still do. At least to me. Macro shooting of boards, reshooting of diagrams, documents. The move from 14MP to 24MP was a very significant improvement. Will I change the 24 MP amateur to the advanced 12 MP - no way. Although sometimes there are moments when it would be easier with the advanced one - due to the fact that on the amateur, most of the settings are through the menu, and not by buttons.
Macro shooting and reshooting are no longer household shooting.
Arkady, depending on what kind of reshoot. For me at work, for example, just so that the drawing is clearly visible. Don't give a damn about the wrong white balance, or the exposure error within 2-3 stops. There are those jobs where the smartphone camera cannot cope, and there is no need for a DSLR, and sometimes there is no way to unnoticeably carry it through the checkpoint without accompanying documents.
The price is determined from the entire filling of the camera. The 5500 has a swivel display, plus it's better, plus it's touch-sensitive, the 5500 has better video, the 5500 has WiFi ... it all costs money, and if you don't
then you need, you will pay for it, and if you do not need it, you can get a camera with an additional screen, two scroll wheels, a focusing motor for a much lower cost ...
what can then as a person who does not understand 99.9% in professional photography, buy something from ... for example, no worse than Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 and will go?
I just thought about a question on the topic - what to shoot ...
in general, industrial facilities, poachers, overview photos of all kinds of products and everything interesting in walking, skiing for 15-30 km. With their subsequent printing up to A4 format inclusive in a photo studio on good paper that they have.
Or all the same, pick up a mirror.
Weight does not matter. Up to 30 km there are many things you do not need to take with you, so there is a place.
I want everything that depends on the camera to be well done by him
for the budget available to me. Here.
Panasonic has a small matrix, printing with such A4 is not ice. Don't be confused by the size and weight of d90 - take it, albeit for 13 thousand, after examining and sniffing it properly.
If you are going to shoot in the field and without regard to precipitation, you may need to think about a dust and moisture protection camera with the same lenses, and from this you should already choose an affordable option for finances.
exactly. And what are these? And that this protection really works like on action cameras? well, it's clear that without diving ...
If you are an amateur without any pretensions - feel free to take Panas. 11 years ago I also started with Panasonic FZ7.
I observe an interesting phenomenon: on the Pentax K10D with a 10 Megapixel CCD matrix, the weight of one photo in JPEG format at max quality is about 20% less (about 2 MB) than on the Canon PowerShot S3 IS 1 / 2,5 ″ CCD matrix 6 Megapixels (photo about 2,5 Mv), although it would seem it should be the other way around. But in terms of resolution, the photo is 10 megapixels better - there is no contradiction here. Can someone explain this paradox?
This is a normal occurrence. There are many factors: the actual level of JPEG compression, the number of details in the picture, including noise. Any options.
Thank you!
and where is the length? The area of the photo is 50mp times more than 24mp.
I personally would have taken 300mp. But I like less mp because: the size of the pictures is smaller, the price of the computer is lower, the flash drives are smaller, the shutter speed is longer, the skin retouching is less.
The difference becomes apparent when you print the A1 format. Even for A2 12 megapixels it is necessary to "pull" very thoughtfully, to prepare for printing.
Arkady. tell me please. which cameras are narrow format?
it is synonymous with "small", anything less than or equal to the 135th film