How many Pixels? Where does it end?

boccers_2000

boccers_2000

Suspended / Banned
Messages
379
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys.

I have a Canon 500D. 15 megapixels which when I bought it I thought was loads (and it is).

The canon 5D MkII. 21 Megapixels, now thats allot of pixels.

Lots of rumours about the 5D MkIII possibly having 32 megapixels.

Surely there comes a point when you simply cant get anymore pixels on a sensor.

Granted the pixels can probably get smaller but where do you all think it will end?

Will we get to a point where there are billions of pixels?

Just curious
 
I don't know I wonder this too. I remember having my first digital - a Nikon Coolpix with 3.2 MP. WOWWWWWW that was loads!!!

There must become a point where it is useless having more though? Either sensors will have to get bigger or pixels smaller but as the pixels get smaller they get more prone to error and noise.

After a point, pixels are just a gimmick - I've got more than you :razz:
 
My friends just brought a d7000?. it will only store 300odd picture in raw format with a 16gb card. that is not enough for a week hoilday. Are we heading back to the old days where you can only take 36picture before change card/film?
 
hyeongsoong said:
My friends just brought a d7000?. it will only store 300odd picture in raw format with a 16gb card. that is not enough for a week hoilday. Are we heading back to the old days where you can only take 36picture before change card/film?
Click to expand...

The D7000 is only 16.2mp ;)

I think the RAW filesize on my 7D is around 25MB and I make that about 600 shots on a 16GB card, I suspect your friend may have it configured to store RAW & JPEG going by the Nikon website http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7000/features03.htm

I suppose have more than say 30MP is only going to come into it's own if you're shooting commercially and large posters/displays are needed.
 
There's a price to pay for having more and smaller pixels (noise) and a limit to the number that are a benefit, so I doubt we'll just continue with ever more pixels. I suspect we're getting close to the optimum now.
 
Russ77 said:
The D7000 is only 16.2mp ;)

I think the RAW filesize on my 7D is around 25MB and I make that about 600 shots on a 16GB card, I suspect your friend may have it configured to store RAW & JPEG going by the Nikon website http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d7000/features03.htm

I suppose have more than say 30MP is only going to come into it's own if you're shooting commercially and large posters/displays are needed.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I should know about it . On my d90 I can take 1000odd the added extra 4mp shouldn't take that much space :bonk:....
 
I am sure I read somewhere once that if Canon had made the 5D MKII have around 16MP it would have "blown the competition out of the water" but the marketing people said it has to start with a 2, so 2xMP. So we ended up with 21MP.

Numbers sell it would seem.
 
TBH you dont need any more than 6mp for casual stuff. Anything else is a waste!

Mind you, I find the ability to crop on the 50d a godsend sometimes!
 
boccers_2000 said:
Hi Guys.

I have a Canon 500D. 15 megapixels which when I bought it I thought was loads (and it is).

The canon 5D MkII. 21 Megapixels, now thats allot of pixels.
Click to expand...

Crop that 5D image to APS-C size and it'll have less pixels than the 500D, so current 21-24mp FF sensors have some way to go to match current APS-C resolutions.
 
As well as the limitations on making the pixels physically smaller, beyond a certain size they will be smaller than the best resolution possible for a standard camera lens (i.e. no exotic "superesolution" discussions just yet please!). At that point there is no point in adding extra pixels - they will just add noise and nothing else.
 
Johnd2000 said:
Crop that 5D image to APS-C size and it'll have less pixels than the 500D, so current 21-24mp FF sensors have some way to go to match current APS-C resolutions.
Click to expand...

The resolution has nothing to do with it, as this is simply the pixel density for a given unit surface area. If canon/nikon/whoever wanted to make a FF sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C sensor, they could. Prototypes for 50, and even 100MP FF sensors have been around for a long time now, so really, they have no way to go at all.
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
This is besides the point.

The larger format has advantages in itself that APS-C sensors cannot achieve.

The resolution has nothing to do with it, as this is simply the pixel density for a given unit surface area. If canon/nikon/whoever wanted to make a FF sensor with the same pixel density as an APS-C sensor, they could. FF these days is not about absolute resolution. It's about a good balance of light captureing ability (govered by the size of the individual pixel site) and overall image resolution. This is precisely why crop sensors cannot match the ISO performance of FF sensors, as they simply capture less light and require more amplification to achieve like for like ISO numbers. Hence, for a given ISO setting, a FF sensor of 15MP, say, will have a better noise reproduction than a crop sensors of the same pixel count.

All that said, prototypes for 50, and even 100MP FF sensors have been around for a long time now, so really, they have no way to go at all...
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must've missed the point where the post I replied to mentioned ISO performance or the many other advantages of FF sensors.
 
Johnd2000 said:
Sorry, I must've missed the point where the post I replied to mentioned ISO performance or the many other advantages of FF sensors.
Click to expand...

Forgive me. Allow me to edit my post down to the individual point that corrects your wildly incorrect statement :)

Edit: Is that more to your satisfaction?
 
Last edited:
Woodsy said:
Forgive me. Allow me to edit my post down to the individual point that corrects your wildly incorrect statement :)

Edit: Is that more to your satisfaction?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wildly incorrect about pointing out that a 21mp FF sensor has a lower pixel density than most current APS-c sensors. That's all I was saying. 21-24mb, on a 35mm sized sensor, is not such a big deal.
 
Johnd2000 said:
There's nothing wildly incorrect about pointing out that a 21mp FF sensor has a lower pixel density than most current APS-c sensors. That's all I was saying. 21-24mb, on a 35mm sized sensor, is not such a big deal.
Click to expand...

but! and referring to your previous post... Resolution isn't about pixel density.

Resolution is measure of detail held within an image and as you probably know? this can be affected by other factors such as lens quality, photo-site 'bit depth' which allows a larger number for the AD converter and thus provides better information and 'well-depth' which allows more light gathering before saturation. All of which add to the final detail contained within an image.
 
rowano said:
I don't know I wonder this too. I remember having my first digital - a Nikon Coolpix with 3.2 MP. WOWWWWWW that was loads!!!
Click to expand...

And morons were making postings entitled - "3.2 Megapixels is madness, nobody needs more than 2 MP".

And a few years later morons were making postings saying "8 MP is madness, nobody needs more than 6 MP"

And a few years later morons were making postings saying "12 MP is madness, nobody needs more than 8 MP"

And I'm bloody certain that in 2050 we'll have morons making postings saying "8 GP is madness, nobody needs more than 6 GP"
 
Truth is, the general buying public, are swayed by the big numbers. Oohherrr.... 21mp camera that must be really good :lol:

I'd love to see the camera makers work on expanding the dynamic range.
 
Splog said:
but! and referring to your previous post... Resolution isn't about pixel density.

Resolution is measure of detail held within an image and as you probably know? this can be affected by other factors such as lens quality, photo-site 'bit depth' which allows a larger number for the AD converter and thus provides better information and 'well-depth' which allows more light gathering before saturation. All of which add to the final detail contained within an image.
Click to expand...

No argument from me there. I was using "resolution" in the sense that the the OP referred to. Squeezing ever more pixels onto sensors. Not in terms of optical resolution, which I agree is a more complicated subject.

Not sure what I said to upset anyone. I wasn't trying to say that APS-C is better (or worse) than FF, or that higher pixel densities are either better or worse than lower. The OP seemed to me to be saying "isn't it amazing that numbers of pixels keep going up" and gave 15mp and 21mp are examples of "high" and "even higher". I was just pointing out that the former was actually "higher" than the latter.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
 
Johnd2000 said:
Crop that 5D image to APS-C size and it'll have less pixels than the 500D, so current 21-24mp FF sensors have some way to go to match current APS-C resolutions.
Click to expand...

I read this post in the sense that you were relating pixel count to resolution, which is what most people connect the two as. This does not, at least as far as I read it, talk about pixel density... And the reason I pointed it out, is that FF sensors dont have any way to come at all... simply because if you can make a crop sensor with a certain pixel density, then you can make a FF sensor with the same density just by making the footprint on the waffer larger. That's all

Johnd2000 said:
There's nothing wildly incorrect about pointing out that a 21mp FF sensor has a lower pixel density than most current APS-c sensors. That's all I was saying. 21-24mb, on a 35mm sized sensor, is not such a big deal.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what you stated in the original post. You said they have a long way to come to match the resolution. Hence I commented on it.

Splog said:
but! and referring to your previous post... Resolution isn't about pixel density.

Resolution is measure of detail held within an image and as you probably know? this can be affected by other factors such as lens quality, photo-site 'bit depth' which allows a larger number for the AD converter and thus provides better information and 'well-depth' which allows more light gathering before saturation. All of which add to the final detail contained within an image.
Click to expand...

Completely correct. As above really... my only issue was how I interpreted the post to be stating that FF sensors are not of the same resolution (in terms of the amount of pixels) on a given sensor. Under this interpretation, I pointed out that this was wrong. FF sensors could be made with the exact same pixel density as crop sensors. Of course, there is an ambiguity of the term "resolution". Literally, as you say, it means the resolving ability of something, what ever that may be. But as we know it also refers to the total pixel count of a digital sensor.

I do apologise for any misunderstanding :)

Without wishing to sound like a tool, I've studied the physics of sensors, down to the QM of the band structures of the wells. I would say I'm just that sad (which I am :D), but it was part of my undergrad and again on my current MSc.
 
boccers_2000 said:
Hi Guys.

I have a Canon 500D. 15 megapixels which when I bought it I thought was loads (and it is).

The canon 5D MkII. 21 Megapixels, now thats allot of pixels.

Lots of rumours about the 5D MkIII possibly having 32 megapixels.

Surely there comes a point when you simply cant get anymore pixels on a sensor.

Granted the pixels can probably get smaller but where do you all think it will end?

Will we get to a point where there are billions of pixels?

Just curious
Click to expand...

When will it end?
WITH 1 MILLION PIXELS MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

On a serious note though, have to keep buying hard drives to cope with all the raws off a couple of 12MP cameras. Its not difficult to fill a 2TB hard drive in a month of heavy shooting :eek:
 
mastertrinity said:
You do know that is 1 megapixel? ;)
Click to expand...

:lol:

At the end of the day it is just a number and doesn't necessarily equate to meaning anything better.
Yes it's a god send for extreme cropping which will explain why the camera used by the Ordnance Survey is somewhere in the region of 200 megapixels (to allow for extreme zooming).
To many people get sucked in by MP count.
As someone else has said, getting good dynamic range out of these pixel loaded sensors is another thing entirely.
 
hollis_f said:
And morons were making postings entitled - "3.2 Megapixels is madness, nobody needs more than 2 MP".

And a few years later morons were making postings saying "8 MP is madness, nobody needs more than 6 MP"

And a few years later morons were making postings saying "12 MP is madness, nobody needs more than 8 MP"

And I'm bloody certain that in 2050 we'll have morons making postings saying "8 GP is madness, nobody needs more than 6 GP"
Click to expand...

Are you saying I'm a moron? Lol!
 
I think when all's said and done, there are some applications where a silly amount of pixels are actually needed (OS Maps being one example).

For the vast majority of pro/full time photographers, the current top end Canon/Nikon camera range of around 15-25MP is still probably a lot more than most are ever going to need but does allow scope for cropping.

Point and Shoots with anything much over 8MP are pretty much pointless, in fact given that most home printers can only print as big as A4, anything over 5MP could be seen as pointless too. Most people with P&S cameras wont edit/crop their photos either.

As it's been said before, on the whole, megapixels is a marketing tool to shift more units, in the same way as a lot of manunfacturers use contrast ratio to sell TVs. Using that as an example, I got caught up in "figures" buying a new TV a couple of years ago until my brother said "Just go into Currys or somewhere and spend 10 mins or so just watching a TV, then do the same to another one" and he was spot on!!! The figures meant nothing and you have to trust your eyes to tell you which TV is best for you!
 
Surely the mp count must be related to the resolution that can be achieved. Not on it's own of course, you need a lens too :) Imagine a high resolution lens and a sensor with few and big pixels, how can the sensor possibly record the resolution that the lens is capable of delivering? It simply can't. As proof, as high mp count chips have found there way into cameras we've seen how some lenses have been found wanting as they can not match the chips resolution.

I can't see how it can said that mp count has nothing to do with resolution. To hit the max you surely need a mp count capable of recording the max resolution of the lens / a lens capable of providing the resolution that the chip can capture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top