I have several times stated that cameras with fewer megapixels can give better results than higher resolution cameras. Unfortunately, I am unable to clearly explain why. Fortunately, there is one photographer, who happened to earn a degree in Physics from Oxford when he was a teenager, and who can explain it in language even I can understand.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012...pline-image-quality/

Since most of the pics I post on AR were taken with a 10MP Nikon D60, I believe what he says to be true. The most expensive camera sold by Nikon (D4) is only 16MP and the latest camera made by Nikon (Df) is the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
I have several times stated that cameras with fewer megapixels can give better results than higher resolution cameras. Unfortunately, I am unable to clearly explain why. Fortunately, there is one photographer, who happened to earn a degree in Physics from Oxford when he was a teenager, and who can explain it in language even I can understand.

http://blog.mingthein.com/2012...pline-image-quality/

Since most of the pics I post on AR were taken with a 10MP Nikon D60, I believe what he says to be true. The most expensive camera sold by Nikon (D4) is only 16MP and the latest camera made by Nikon (Df) is the same.

The article is very informative in regards to resolution, but he is not necessarily saying the cameras with lower resolution can give better results. As I understand the article, what he says is as follows:

quote:

Empirical observation #1: Cameras with higher resolutions, for a given sensor size, are harder to hand-hold and get a good result than those with a lower resolution.

It means that if you use a camera that has higher resolution, camera shake can make it more difficult to use. But in this case I can compensate by using a tripod, or maybe lenses that incorporate image stabilization.

quote:

Empirical observation #2: Cameras with higher resolution require more precise autofocus.

I can compensate for this problem with lens selection. For example, instead of using the cheaper lenses, use a lens designed to aid this camera achieve more precise focus.

Also, he is talking about down-sizing photos. But while what he says is true, how about photos where you need the higher resolution possible to print very large images?

Ming's conclusions are simple: if you carry a tripod with you (and all tripods are not created equal), use a high resolution camera (he uses a Nikon D800E for his commercial photography work) and if you don't carry a tripod with you, using a low resolution camera will increase your chances of a perceptually sharp picture, perfectly acceptable for web posting or prints up to 8 X 12 inches. I don't know too many people who frequently make or have made enlargements greater than 8 X 12. But those that do know who they are and probably do use high resolution cameras on tripods. Don't forget, a good tripod and head will cost from $1,300 to $1,900 and good prime lenses start at around $1,600, zooms cost even more (although there are a couple of good primes for under $1,000).

But the point is: if you use a 36 megapixel Nikon D800E for casual hand-held photography, then your results will frequently be worse than if you used a 12 megapixel Nikon D700, because there's more "wiggle room" for camera shake in the D700. By the way, the D4 is the most expensive camera body made by Nikon, pretty much a purely professional sports photographer's or photojournalists tool. It only has 16MP. But they are "clean" pixels, the sensor has excellent low-light (high ISO) capability, the camera is exceptionally fast (10 frames per second) and it's super rugged. For $6,000+ it should be. No one camera does it all, so get the camera that meets your photographic needs. Most of us gearheads own more than one anyway. My own inventory is three film cameras (Nikons FM2, F3HP and F100) and four digital cameras (Nikons D60, D90, D7000 and D700). There are lenses all over the place.

With hindsight, I should stop buying camera bodies and buy better glass. Lenses can last a lifetime or more and digital camera bodies are obsolete and no longer produced around every 2 years.

While I believe your basic conclusion is correct, I would like a fine-tuned that a little bit.

Other than point-and-shoot camera which I use when I want to take pictures and not carry a camera, my experiences consisted at least this point of a D1x (approximately 6 megapixels) and a D2xs (approximately 12 megapixels). I print my pictures on Hewlett-Packard color Laserjet4550dn which will run on laser photograph paper was reasonable resolution of 600 dpi. The D2x will produce better output than the D1x is especially when using the highest quality Nikon lenses like the F1.4/42 mm, which makes a good high resolution normal lens for that camera. The better the lens quality the more the need for larger pixel numbers like 12 MB.

I believe that at some point the lens quality becomes more critical than the pixel count. That is why some people forget that a camera is an integrated system; shutter, sensor chip, lens, and memory. If you believe this you will have a lot better chance of making better pictures from an equipment point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by DMCI*:

I believe that at some point the lens quality becomes more critical than the pixel count. That is why some people forget that a camera is an integrated system; shutter, sensor chip, lens, and memory. If you believe this you will have a lot better chance of making better pictures from an equipment point of view.

I agree that the greater the number of pixels on the camera, the more the lens quality (or lack of it) becomes apparent. Partly because the high resolution camera reveals many of the lens defects, and almost all lenses have some area where they are lacking, compared to another lens. But even on a low-pixel camera things like contrast, chromatic aberrations, vignetting, etc all have an impact on IQ. But here again, some low pixel cameras are less likely to reveal some defects, like chromatic aberration. If Ming Thein's observations can be generalized, with respect to chromatic aberration for instance, he loves the expensive Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G lens on his Nikon D700, but prefers the less expensive 85mm f/1.8G lens on his D800e, precisely because the chromatic aberration of the ultra-expensive f/1.4 lens is not picked up on the D700 but it is revealed on the D800e. And this inspite of the fact that the less expensive lens has far worse control of flare, for instance. So yes, the lens choice is important in getting the most out of the camera, but what the "best" is depends on the conditions you shoot in, the camera you use and the talent used in post-processing to correct or mitigate the lens defects. For instance, some lens reviews will deplore the distortion of a particular lens, but who cares if it can automatically be corrected in post-processing or in-camera? And, here again, most of these internet-debated observations cannot be observed on a photo posted over the internet since they don't really come into play unless you print at a fairly large size.

Bottom line: too many people think that buying the latest and greatest will improve their pictures, rather than getting to know intimately their camera/lenses and their post-processing software. To do that you have to take and process a whole of pictures, which would be time better spent than poring over technical reviews of equipment. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

Bottom line: too many people think that buying the latest and greatest will improve their pictures, rather than getting to know intimately their camera/lenses and their post-processing software. To do that you have to take and process a whole of pictures, which would be time better spent than poring over technical reviews of equipment. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

My D3100 has 14.2MP. Until I get this camera figured out to my satisfaction, all the pixels in the world won't make me a better photographer.
Practice will make me a better photographer.

quote:

Originally posted by Zeke:

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:

Bottom line: too many people think that buying the latest and greatest will improve their pictures, rather than getting to know intimately their camera/lenses and their post-processing software. To do that you have to take and process a whole of pictures, which would be time better spent than poring over technical reviews of equipment. I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

My D3100 has 14.2MP. Until I get this camera figured out to my satisfaction, all the pixels in the world won't make me a better photographer.
Practice will make me a better photographer.

These are very strong points in my opinion and the message is often overlooked. So I will reemphasize it here:


Taking a lot of pictures is what develops a photographer's eye.

back in the days when I used to haul my Nikon F4 to Europe for three weeks or so, I used to come back with 3 to 4 rolls of film. The developing and contact costs were $100 or more. Then when I started using my Hasselblad system 120 film costs were even more. But I became a huge fan of the 2 1/4 slide.

Then I was able to get my hands on a D1X. Now I was able to take several hundred pictures a day and edit them at night reducing the number of mistakes. There was also no worry of pictures being modified by airport x-ray machines. The computer also allowed me to project digital images on the screen, even though in those days the rental of projectors approach the cost of purchasing those units today.



D2x Nikon shown with 28 mm/F1.4, charger, batteries and flash. this picture taken with low cost point-and-shoot.

Amazing, after all these years the one thing worth repeating is we generally get sharper photographs when using a tripod. That is called Photography 101.