[biz-engineer]

Pretty pedantic to think it is the only correct way, as silly as the idea of doing minimal to no post-processing.

Of course. I try to crop as little as possible, if not I consider I'd rather use a smaller camera, as opposed to use an big and expensive camera and waste most of the sensor area for cropping. If I have a lot of money, I'd buy the largest camera and one lens only and zoom in digitally by cropping. I'm not doing that, I try to make the most of a cheaper (Pentax) camera by avoiding cropping as much as I can.

---------- Post added 04-03-21 at 19:05 ----------

I do all the time and blend in post. However, DR in a single shot is sometimes helpful.

I agree. It's not always possible to merge bracketed shots (e.g moving subject)

[swanlefitte]

There will always be a use for more MP. When will that niche become soo small or more expensive that it ceases to be added to the mass produced cameras. I think speculation is about other things than print size. How more tech will change our currrent use may be at the top. It might be that compositions become far less important as we move into immersive photos not meant to be viewed as a whole but as an environment. More likely the diversity of purposes will stratify the market into more specific sets. I think the interesting discussion is about how the curve will change. Pros with 5 different cameras will move to 6-7. Generalists might move to one more. Many generalists already have a video, pocket, and stills camera. What points will the market consolidate around as tech moves. The point and shoot crowd mostly stopped as the phone camera caught up while some went for the higher quality, still pocketable cameras. Will the market stratify so much the companies will have to push the market to tech points? The k3iii is beyond me but the kp isnt enough to change. I am caught between tech points. I guess it makes sense this is what is interesting to me.

[Fontan]

For me, pictures are as sharp as my eyes can see. With my ever declining visual acuity, the word sharpness has taken on a rather variable notion the last few years.

Knowing what the sensors of yesterday-years can offer w lower MP count in terms of satisfaction, I have to say the MP race has lost its practicality, other than the implication of cropping, as discussed here.

Improvement of technology in this area will disproportionately benefit cellphone cameras, which to me spells bad news for stand alone enthusiast cams.

I’m often just astounded by the quality of pics taken by cellphones, and this notion of the best camera is the one you have it on you is truer than its ever been.

I wish manufacturers focus more on user experiences, kinda like what Pentax seems to going for with K-3 III.

[Serkevan]

Instagram, as mentioned

Don't get me started on that. Instagram is the equivalent of putting an image through a blender, then setting the resulting paste on fire, then quenching it with acid

But, since with the K-1 I get lovely large prints when I want to, it's all good...

[LeeRunge]

There will always be a use for more MP. When will that niche become soo small or more expensive that it ceases to be added to the mass produced cameras. I think speculation is about other things than print size. How more tech will change our currrent use may be at the top. It might be that compositions become far less important as we move into immersive photos not meant to be viewed as a whole but as an environment. More likely the diversity of purposes will stratify the market into more specific sets. I think the interesting discussion is about how the curve will change. Pros with 5 different cameras will move to 6-7. Generalists might move to one more. Many generalists already have a video, pocket, and stills camera. What points will the market consolidate around as tech moves. The point and shoot crowd mostly stopped as the phone camera caught up while some went for the higher quality, still pocketable cameras. Will the market stratify so much the companies will have to push the market to tech points? The k3iii is beyond me but the kp isnt enough to change. I am caught between tech points. I guess it makes sense this is what is interesting to me.

We could eventually see high MP cameras capturing an area in wide angle and AI algorithms then cropping into what it finds interesting in composition. Luminar already has AI for composition and it works pretty good sometimes. I could see that being a future in auto modes.

---------- Post added 03-04-2021 at 01:01 PM ----------

For me, pictures are as sharp as my eyes can see. With my ever declining visual acuity, the word sharpness has taken on a rather variable notion the last few years.

Knowing what the sensors of yesterday-years can offer w lower MP count in terms of satisfaction, I have to say the MP race has lost its practicality, other than the implication of cropping, as discussed here.

Improvement of technology in this area will disproportionately benefit cellphone cameras, which to me spells bad news for stand alone enthusiast cams.

I’m often just astounded by the quality of pics taken by cellphones, and this notion of the best camera is the one you have it on you is truer than its ever been.

I wish manufacturers focus more on user experiences, kinda like what Pentax seems to going for with K-3 III.

The iPhone 12 pro max was a threshold moment for me this year replacing an iPhone 8. I'm constantly impressed with it. Burst rate-really fast, autofocus in the dark? Better than my FF's (Lidar), night mode? extremely good. ProRaw? DR in editing like my FF cameras. And video is killer with the Dolby HDR built in that DSLR/MILC can't even do in camera. Smartphones are developing at light speed in comparison to DSLR/MILC honestly. I'm concerned that soon they'll have 24-300mm eq. range and near equal image quality for the general population at which point sales will decline even further with ILC cameras.

[Lowell Goudge]

Sorry, to say but that does not reflect real world figures in any way that I can see.

1/100 of an inch is not the practical limit of visual acuity for a person with 20/20 vision, so I cannot guess where it comes from.

this comes from the definition of both depth of field, and acceptable limit of image blur for a full frame 35mm film printed to 8x10, such that the measured width of a point is less than this value as being indistinguishable as point

100 dpi is meaningless as no printer uses that measure or figure. PPI is the important measure and for a printer it will be either 300 ppi or 360 ppi depending on manufacturer and will also offer a native resolution of 600 ppi or 720 ppi there is also potentially small gains to be made in some cases doubling the latter figures.

the resolution of the printer and this has been discussed at length will always interpolate between points so the DPI discussion is mute. or you could resize at the end, using any one of many processing programs to interpolate from 100DPI to 300 DPI

[TonyW]

this comes from the definition of both depth of field, and acceptable limit of image blur for a full frame 35mm film printed to 8x10, such that the measured width of a point is less than this value as being indistinguishable as point

Not really relevant as we are using digital imaging with pixel count as resolution and printing much larger than 8x10

the resolution of the printer and this has been discussed at length will always interpolate between points so the DPI discussion is mute. or you could resize at the end, using any one of many processing programs to interpolate from 100DPI to 300 DPI

This is wrong or at least what appears to be the conclusion is wrong after any "discussion at length".

Printers just do not operate in the way you appear to be describing:

"interpolate between points so the DPI discussion is mute".

Printers will only need to interpolate between points IF the native print resolution is less than the printers declared resolution. Epson and Canon low resolution 360ppi and 300ppi respectively. If the native file resolution matches the printers declared/required resolution no interpolation is needed and a proprietary bitmap is formed prior to sending to the printer pipeline. Should the native resolution of the file be less or more than the printers declared resolution the printer will resample to the correct resolution. In doing so it will use less than optimal algorithms (based on speed) such as Nearest Neighbour. Optimal results will be obtained with upsampling to the printers required resolution prior to sending to print where no further work needs to be done in the print pipeline.

300 PPI is only a 'magic' input resolution for Canon assuming the native resolution of your file is less than 300PPI at print size. 360 PPI is the 'magic' Epson input resolution number if your native file resolution is less than 360 PPI at print size. If the native file resolution falls above these numbers then there may be benefit to going to 600 PPI or 720PPI depending on image content

"...DPI discussion is mute"
Yes it is moot as DPI (Dots or Droplets per inch - a measure of volume not size!) is not a really an important function of resolution as it stands for the number of times the printer ejaculates ink onto paper per inch (with the volume of ink varying in most cases between 2 -5 picolitres). PPI is the overidding factor for resolution meaning the number of original native pixels an image contains which will define the final resolving power of the print. It can take many DPI to form just one PPI

"...using any one of many processing programs to interpolate from 100DPI to 300 DPI"
Yes, but again we are talking in terms of PPI not DPI. You should use your best processing algorithms from application such as PS or LR to upsample from 100PPI to your printers nearest resolution and ideally not really on the printer to do this for you as it is as previously stated sub optimal. This maybe 300PPI or 360PPI, Canon or Epson, but it may also be 600PPI or 720PPI or as a maximum 1200PPI or 1400PPI. With the caveat that there is generally little point in trying to resample an image less of less than 300PPI or 360PPI to either 600PPI or 720PPI, other than being able to apply greater sharpening amounts that may yield small improvements.

---------- Post added 03-04-21 at 01:42 PM ----------

TonyW that picture is amazing with the wide angle and resolution where the boat names are readable in those tiny crops. Is this a single shutter click? HDR? other? Wow just wow.
Thank You for showing this.

Well thank you, but it is not really anything special and I am not displaying false modesty here.

It was a quick grab in nice weather of an area we know and enjoy. A 7 shot hand held in portrait mode panorama with a Nikon D800 with a fairly modest Nikkor 50mm lens at ISO 200 1/400 @ f/13.

The camera native resolution being 36MP, 7360 x 4912 pixels, the overlap average per frame probably around 50% so we have a combined resolution of 105MP after cropping.

The intention was to spend the rest of the day and the next after an overnight to make some images the next day. I would have repeated this shot but this time taking more care with the camera on a tripod at base ISO and probably f/8 with mirror lock and remote release and try to rotate around the nodal point. Was not to be as the weather turned overnight to be very wet and stormy so after a quick visit to relatives we returned home

---

Last edited by TonyW; 03-04-2021 at 01:45 PM.

[photoptimist]

Higher resolution is likely due to four forces:

Competition on specs: Anyone who wants the best of the best, better than all the "old" cameras (= last year's model) will gravitate toward more megapickles.

The Bayer effectt: A 100 MPix color sensor is really a 25 Mpix red sensor + 50 MPix green sensor + 25 MPix blue sensor due to the Bayer filter so 100 MPix isn't really as high res as it seems.

A lot of lenses can handle this: Any lens that shows a a good resolution improvement with a K-1 when using pixel shift (which is effectively a 36 Mpix red + 36 MPix green + 36 MPix blue sensor) would easily benefit from the 100 MPix Bayer color sensor. Heck, a lens that gets better results on a 24 MPix camera with pixel shift could use a 100 MPix camera that doesn't use pixel shift.

The new version of "printing large": To get the most out of a large 8k display, the camera needs to resolve 32 MPix in all three color bands. That actually requires a 128 MPix Bayer filter sensor.

[swanlefitte]

Not really relevant as we are using digital imaging with pixel count as resolution and printing much larger than 8x10

8x10 (at a given viewing distance)
80x100 at another viewing distance.
It is relevant until we talk about viewing at different distances. I like to think of the distance used as the threshold of viewing the whole. I view closer as immersive, inside the photo. Any distance beyond is encompassing. Pale Blue Dot vs google satalite view.

[Lowell Goudge]

Higher resolution is likely due to four forces:
.

I disagree, five not four

The cynic in me says that cell phone companies want to increase data usage

[normhead]

Higher resolution is likely due to four forces:

Competition on specs: Anyone who wants the best of the best, better than all the "old" cameras (= last year's model) will gravitate toward more megapickles.

The Bayer effectt: A 100 MPix color sensor is really a 25 Mpix red sensor + 50 MPix green sensor + 25 MPix blue sensor due to the Bayer filter so 100 MPix isn't really as high res as it seems.

A lot of lenses can handle this: Any lens that shows a a good resolution improvement with a K-1 when using pixel shift (which is effectively a 36 Mpix red + 36 MPix green + 36 MPix blue sensor) would easily benefit from the 100 MPix Bayer color sensor. Heck, a lens that gets better results on a 24 MPix camera with pixel shift could use a 100 MPix camera that doesn't use pixel shift.

The new version of "printing large": To get the most out of a large 8k display, the camera needs to resolve 32 MPix in all three color bands. That actually requires a 128 MPix Bayer filter sensor.

There is nothing int the real world that confirms this. It theory without empiracle examples. A theory isn't proved until there is empiracle evidence. Until then it's a hypothesis.

There is very little difference between many images and the pixel shift images, same time and place and I've taken at least 100. I would guess may 10-15 would show improvement worthy of the extra time taken to process them. The opposing hypothesis would be that it's rare that a 100 MP based on pixel shift image would be functionally better than a 36 MP image has more evidence to support it than what you propose. Your hypothesis that the technological value of a bayer output is a baseline zero, and the a non-bayer output is like 100 or something is not correct. I believe the actual measured difference it about 3-8 MP above Bayer on 36 MP even though by your calculation it should be counted as 100 MP. The Bayer method presents a great degree of accuracy. Your method would provide slightly more.... but in that range of improvement, it won't always be apparent.

This gleaned from empirical comparisons, not hypothesis.

[Sevilla]

Will the lenses be able to handle all those megapixels of resolution or it will be like the hyper charged WiFi stereos of the eighties when power was what people craved without realizing that quality was decreasing compared with the stereos of the previous decade.

[BarryE]

Will the lenses be able to handle all those megapixels of resolution or it will be like the hyper charged WiFi stereos of the eighties when power was what people craved without realizing that quality was decreasing compared with the stereos of the previous decade.

With those multiple tone sliders too. Then common sense prevailed, at least in the UK market, and the high end HiFi units went minimalist with no tone controls, just volume and balance. Can't see the DSLR market going that way, but, for me, it would be nice to see Pentax produce the absolute best stills camera with no frills - just the best IQ possible, weather sealing, and robust.

[krgroothuis]

We've been through this so many times.
As for the crop argument.

Smaller sensors for the most part have smaller pixel sites producing more definition in the area of the crop.
It's debatable which is more effective, tight framing on a crop sensor or much looser framing on an FF sensor. You might get better composition on an FF camera. Most likely not but it could happen. You will definitely get more subject resolution on a crop camera, unless shooting FF over 54 MP, or 645 over 108 MP.

So if your at all into resolution, you either choose 54 MP or thousands of dollars more to get the same crop image as you would using APS-c.

Consider the APS-c image pre-cropped.

People are claiming you get better crops, but they aren' showing examples. maybe stop as yin it until you actually try it and prove it. The laws of physics say you're probably wrong 99% of the time. Talking about ice in a life time shots is pointless. You will have once in a life time shots once in a life time. You can uy a camera for your once in a lifetime shot... but so far I've probably owned 15 cameras in my life time. The odds that you'll get a once in a life time shot with s camera you buy next are 15-1 against you having that camera when your shot comes around, if you haven't already missed it. And the odds of the camera you have with you being the right camera for the jog depends on many other things besides megapixels. You could miss your once in a life time because you have too large a sensor and don't have the DoF you need at ƒ2.8. You could miss your once in life time because you left the right lens home and could have had the shot with something like the much despised 18-300. You could. miss it because the small pixels on your megapixel camera don't have enough dynamic range. Or you could miss it because your heavy gear is slow and cumbersome or too difficult to use ergonomically.

More megapixels provide few if any advantages after 16 MP. And much of the time, you can't tell the difference between 36 MP and 24 MP unless someone tells you which is which. Then you can go all nitpicky.

Pentax is going in the right direction with the evolution of the accelerator chip.

IN camera crop, in camera noise reduction. Look at the DXOMARK rankings. The Pentax 645z is still ranks #2 and the K-1 #11

The 51 MP Canon produces such inferior images, it's so far down the list you have to scroll down 3 pages just to find it. These are images that have been normalized for noise and resolution. SO bottom line, at present, more MP means inferior images.

Someone let me know when it changes.
Until then, keep hoping or the tech advances that will mean a 51 MP comer out performs a 36 MP camera. Someday in the future there may Coe a time when more MP is actually better. No-one has been more critical of what DxO means over the years. But, it's true standardized testing. It means what it means. If you do the same thing every time for every camera, the ranking will have some meaning.

I'll take that over the google eyed cawing of new camera purchasers any day. If you want the camera in your hands for the perfect opportunity, once in life time shot, you want one of these 14.

Hasselblad X1D-50c
102
Pentax 645Z
101
Panasonic Lumix DC-S1R
100
Nikon D850
100
Sony A7R III
100
Sony A7R IV
99
Nikon Z7
99
Sony A7R II
98
Nikon D810
97
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1R II
97
Leica Q2
96
Pentax K-1
96
Nikon D800E
96
Sony A7 III
96

And those images will all be pretty much indistinguishable. It takes a diference of 5 DxO points to be distinguishable pixel peeping, At reduced size for normal viewing, there will be no discernible difference. People who buy expensive gear with high MP would have done better with one of the 14 cameras listed, and possibly saved a pile of money.

If I had a million dollars I'd put it up as a reward for whoever could prove me wrong. Pictures with artifacts, noise, heavy noise, cross talk at pixel level and low DR etc. are not what you want for your once in a life time image. Some have this all wrong. The camera most appropriate for the job is what you want. Assuming that will always be the highest res camera possible is a mistake. You're probably more likely to miss achieving your once in a life time shot because you have a hi res camera as any other reason. The Canon 5Ds will be noticeably worse than any of the 14 cameras I listed, by a considerable margin, almost certainly visible at normal viewing. So actually in practical terms the opposite of what has been stated is true. For your once in a lifetime shot, you don't want a hi res camera. Maybe at some point in the future, but not now, and possibly not ever.

If you consider the DxO figures accurate for one testing procedure and set of applications, the 5Ds isn't really any better than a K-5ii. People need to contemplate that for a while. That isn't based on any MTF numbers but those are based on real world image quality, ie the real world. No hype involved.

So bottom line....the highest MP cameras do not produce the best images.... unless you're buying a hassy, and the Hassy is only marginally better than a K-1, for what 50x the price? The costs of larger files, slower post processing etc. makes really high MP a really expensive mistake as far as I can tell, taking advantage of the gullible.

@normhead : How do you think about the new sensor used in the Canon R5? I saw the results of the Canon R5 vs the sensor used in the Canon EOS 5DS R ? I once tested my K-1 vs the Canon EOS 5DS R and the sensor of the K-1 performed better in many regards. But now with the new sensor in the Canon R5 i saw amazing better results.

How about that ?

[dadipentak]

The pixel race has ended. The new trend is eye, bird, squirrel and camel detection.

I definitely want camel detection: there aren't many camels around here so it's advanced detection systems would be really helpful!