Resolution, output, collector or photographer?

[AC016]

Saw this come through on my reader feed on my blog. Good read.

OpEd: resolution, output, collector or photographer? ? Ming Thein | Photographer

 

[Marcel]

This is a MUST READ for anyone that has GAS or NAS.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[AC016]

One of my favourite paragraphs, is where he talks about the 5K display on the iMac and the fact that it is the highest resolution display you can get at the moment. It will display 14M pixels at any one time, which really makes you think. If all you are doing is displaying your photos online and are not doing any serious printing at all, what is the use of owning a D800 or any other high MP camera?

 

[Marcel]

One of my favourite paragraphs, is where he talks about the 5K display on the iMac and the fact that it is the highest resolution display you can get at the moment. It will display 14M pixels at any one time, which really makes you think. If all you are doing is displaying your photos online and are not doing any serious printing at all, what is the use of owning a D800 or any other high MP camera?

Exactly. But, don't forget the marketing that wants to to buy newer stuff as sales decrease on models that were in production for a bit. I remember when I was young, car companies would change models every darn year as long as the market would continue to support them and people would trade cars every other year and some every year just to stay up with the Jones.

It is a bit different with cameras because SOME photographers DO need all the pixels they can get. But for the common amateur and pro (portraits, weddings etc) that are printing to 16x20 or 20x24, most of today's cameras can handle the job. But we get caught with the Jones' and keep wanting more and more, forgetting the goal which is the image. A 50 Mp picture of a shoe will show the same shoe as the one taken with a 12 Mp. And a badly composed pic will look bad with either cams.

So, as much fun as it is to dream and feed our "wants", let's not forget that most of us might have all their "needs" fulfilled.

Happy shooting using the camera you already have until you really NEED more.

 

[AC016]

Exactly. But, don't forget the marketing that wants to to buy newer stuff as sales decrease on models that were in production for a bit. I remember when I was young, car companies would change models every darn year as long as the market would continue to support them and people would trade cars every other year and some every year just to stay up with the Jones.

It is a bit different with cameras because SOME photographers DO need all the pixels they can get. But for the common amateur and pro (portraits, weddings etc) that are printing to 16x20 or 20x24, most of today's cameras can handle the job. But we get caught with the Jones' and keep wanting more and more, forgetting the goal which is the image. A 50 Mp picture of a shoe will show the same shoe as the one taken with a 12 Mp. And a badly composed pic will look bad with either cams.

So, as much fun as it is to dream and feed our "wants", let's not forget that most of us might have all their "needs" fulfilled.

Happy shooting using the camera you already have until you really NEED more.

Yep, i agree. There are photographers that need those pixels because of how they are deploying their work/format they are selling it in. I printed out a 16 x 24 print of one of my photos taken when i had my D3000. It came out a bit soft, but i blame myself for that (being a newb, not using the camera right, not having the right file format to print, etc.). I was a total newb back then and i am sure that if i did the same shot today, i would do it a bit better. 16 x 24 is big and that print came from a 10mp camera. I have a 16mp camera now and can only imagine how much bigger i could print. Mind you, i am not sure my wife would want anything bigger then 16 x 24 hanging on the wall, lol. Point is, it is more then enough. If everyone thought about how they were going to "deploy" their photos and the fact that monitors are so far behind compared to camera sensors, i don't think anyone would bother with D750's or anything more then a 16-20 mp camera. Just my opinion.

 

[Woodyg3]

There are lots of performance improvements I might care about, like autofocus, buffer size, low light performance, dynamic range , etc. Meanwhile, a couple of my favorite pictures hanging on my wall were taken with a 4mp point and shoot. I don't need a ton of mega-pixels, and the 24mp my D7100 has is probably overkill as it is.

 

[mikew_RIP]

There are lots of performance improvements I might care about, like autofocus, buffer size, low light performance, dynamic range , etc. Meanwhile, a couple of my favorite pictures hanging on my wall were taken with a 4mp point and shoot. I don't need a ton of mega-pixels, and the 24mp my D7100 has is probably overkill as it is.

You have it right there,i have A3 prints hanging all round my house produced by a Fuji s602,3.1mp 6.3mp with interpolation (spelling ?),as an upgrade to the D7100 i feel i would benefit from a couple of stops on ISO (i hate doing noise reduction) so could have faster shutter speeds,lower light or poor contrast AF improvements,not even bothered about a larger buffer.

 

[traceyjj]

When I first got into digital photography (on a Sony Mavica) the resolution was ok for viewing on a computer screen and the occasional 6x4. I remember reading that 35mm film was equivalent of 10Mp and we woudnt expect to get that quality out of our consumer level devices. Boy oh boy was someone wrong!
It probably seems strange, but I dont often print my photos, but I still enjoy looking, and zooming in to see details I had missed while I was out taking the shot.. so I love my 36mp.... but I wouldnt want to go any higher.
I learned as an Oly user, there are only so many pixels that could fit on a sensor before the introduction of noise... yes, technology is getting better, but there has to be some point in the future where we say "enough already!"