When is enough, enough?

I watch with a certain amount of bemusement the long anticipated announcement of the 1DSMkIII. To date I've not had any problems with my 1DSMkIs in terms of the actual image quality that they produce - in real usage terms. Yes, I can see the need for higher MPixels at times, but if I'm honest the number of times I could have seriously utilised greater file size is pretty miniscule.

So I'm interested to know other people's attitudes. Are we simply driven by technical specification, or do we seriously need more MPixels? This is especially relevant to underwater photography where the inherent optical problems associated with underwater optics are often the limiting factor in image quality whether this is chromatic problems with flat ports or corner definition with dome ports.

I am more interested in the quality of the image becoming better, and am really excited to see what the new DIGIC III chips in the Mk III can do, underwater. 16 megapixels are plenty at the moment, for me. 21 megapixels are not really that much more...

An interesting and topical subject. I actually think that the manufacturer's know that what photographers want is better image quality rather than more image. That is why we are seeing better A/D image processing etc. But they also know that headline MP figures still sell cameras. In fact I am sure that the marketing departments are driving this side of the spec sheet more than the tech guys.

I would imagine that the camera industry is very happy with the current state of affairs where new cameras sell in bucketloads because everyone MUST have the latest. It must be so much nicer for them than the film days.

Alex

would agree that the least interesting aspect of the mkIII is the pixel count.

14 bit processing

faster processing speeds

better high iso performance

remote live view

to name but a few

I just bought one of the run-out 1dsmkII's for a "great" (its all relative) price, that will keep me happy for a while. I am finding the files nicer to work with than those from my original 1ds.

MP count is as much a marketing tool than anything else.

There's such a large section of tech sales that go to "gadget guys" that just want the newest, shiniest, most high-tech toy and then trade it out in 9-12 months when something better comes along.

It's also used too hook first-time-buyers. If you're uninitiated and looking for your first dSLR, what "sounds better"? 16MP or 21MP? 21 of course. Sure you have no idea why, but we all have the innate concept of "more = better" - especially when it's backed up by big bold fonts on the packaging. If it wasn't important, they wouldn't make it so prominent on the box, would they?!?!

I think the current state is that the cam manufacturers know that MPs aren't what they used to be in terms of IQ. However, continuing to cram more in increases their sales considerably. So they keep bumping while trying to increase the other aspects of the camera to A) take advantage of all those MPs, B) make sure they're not introducing more noise due to more MP and C) adding features that are separate from MP that will result in better pictures.

A very timely discussion - with BOTH consumer compacts AND dslr's pushing the megapixel bar up at every turn. With compact cameras, the high-megapixel units offer literally nothing over a 6-megapixel compact with good image quality.

The 1DsIII isn't really like that though. Canon has made drastic changes to the body (I've tried the 1DmIII) and the user interface that make it a joy to use compared to the older body. No longer do you have to press down two buttons while turning a dial to make adjustments to ISO...sigh. Now you can press and release a button, THEN turn a dial and that's it. Gone too are the days of hitting menu, select, turn, select (and hold it down!) and turn turn turn...ugh. The battery is finally as good as the D2x battery. These two changes to the camera body make it as fun and easy to use as a D2x - finally.

Also added is 14bit DIGICIII processing. I've very interested to see what a sunball shot will look like from one of these camera. IF noise performance is also improved (and I'm sure it will be) then higher ISO shooting results will be better. Paul - have you compared the 1Ds files taken at ISO400 to a 5D or 1DmIII? ISO400 is something we use underwater fairly often, and an ISO400 image from the 5D looks like ISO100 from the 1Ds. Shoot the 1Ds at ISO400 and you're now comparing to ISO1600 on the newer cameras.

I shoot ISO1600 all the time topside (make a fair amount of money w/ these types of shots) and look fwd to better ISO1600 images from the new Canon.

So - like Eric I'm not that interested in more megapixels, but other improvements. When you look at the spec, you're only actually getting 700 more pixels in the horizontal direction. Not that much really.

Sincerely,

James

James. I haven't handled a MkIII yet - very thin on the ground here - but I too am interested in the 14bit processing and better ergonomics would be helpful. I so rarely use anything over 200ISO that this has never been an issue to date although there are times when I can see higher ISOs being useful.

My real interest though lies in the reality of MPixels versus need, requirements, lenses, etc. Its very rare that an image is reproduced substantially larger than A3 in published material in my experience. When I've had images used large (up to 6 feet high from the 1DS), viewing distance has always been sufficient, which leaves the lenses. Somewhere Leica have produced some literature showing the lens quality required to fully make use of their 1.3x crop sensor and why they went for 10MPixels - its quite interesting and I must see if I can find a link, but I seem to remember that the gist of the text was that their lenses (truly excellent they are too) appeared to work with 10MPixel 1.3x crop sensor but increasing this might not necessarily improve things.

I have recently been trying to extract the last possible ounce of performance from my 24/1.4 underwater and can say that I can get central performance up to a very high standard (on a par with my macro lenses) but the edges simply aren't up to this underwater and I can't see any way of changing things to help improve them. And this is on my 1DS! So I'm very sceptical about increasing MPixels - although I take on board the other improvements which will no doubt be useful.

I am more interested in the quality of the image becoming better

There you have it. I feel a bit out of place in this discussion as I'm still shooting my EOS 10D, but then again maybe that fits directly into this discussion. I'm tempted to upgrade as much as the next guy, but I haven't really seen much difference in image quality to make me want to move up to a 20D or 30D. Now that the 40D has many more features and 14-bit DIGIC III, it might be worth a look. But, I will also be interested to see the new Olympus Pro body. If, as rumors would have you believe, the Oly does have some form of built in solution for boosting dynamic range in a meaningful way, that will be much more interesting to me than more pixels. Sony is also apparently experimenting with some things as they develop their larger sensors.

Having said all this, independent of image quality, the incentive from the manufacturers and the sensor makers is to sell more cameras. So you need to give people some reason to buy new ones, if not a good reason. I will be very interested to see how the Canon G9 performs as well. I haven't heard much good about the new little 12MP sensors.

Mike

Having owned/own a 20D, 1D, 1D mark IIN, and 1DsII, I guess I have a bit of experience in this area. While I don't own a 1D MarkIII, a good friend and owner of the local camera store does. From the photos he has shown me, the new 1D markIII produces excellent low noise, high ISO photos (IE iso 1600 up). Much better in this area than anything that I have seen from previous canon offerings. As such I am excited about the possibility that the 1DsIII will offer a significant improvement in ultra high ISO photo quality over my 1DsII.

Sometime in the next week or so I plan on trial fitting the 1DIII (the 1DsIII appears to be outwardly identical) into my subal housing and see what if anything works. If someone has already tried this I would like to hear about your results.

Cheers,

imasleeper

Thanks James for the insight

imasleeper

James,

I also agree with your comments regarding ultra high ISO image quality in the newer sensors.

Recently my oldest daughter was married and I had three photographers doing the shoot. They used a rebel XTi, a 5D, and a 1D MKIIN. The agreement was for them to do the shoot and give me the cards for post production work. It was the first time I was able to do a side by side comparison of these three cameras. As one might expect at lower ISO's the photos from the three cameras are very close in terms of IQ. However at high ISO's (1600) there was a clear winner---the 1DmkIIN. And from what I have seen I am convinced the 1DIII is even better and that is why I will give the new 1DsIII a look see when it is available.

imasleeper

it's not really a contest, the price range is huge:

$ 700 vs $ 3800 vs $ 7000 (amazon prices) If the result was any other that would be a major disappointment.

So is anyone going to attempt to answer the question? When is enough, enough (MPixels)?

Would people upgrade an existing camera to obtain the other benefits or are the increased MPixels (Useful or otherwise) part of the attraction? For a FF dSLR how many MPixels really are enough?

So is anyone going to attempt to answer the question? When is enough, enough (MPixels)?

Well, the answer is really it depends on what you're final output is going to be. My D200 makes nice 8x10 prints but if money were no object, I'd like to have a camera that could give me a 300 pixel per inch 16"x20" print with room to throw away about 10% of the frame so that I can have some freedom to crop. That would be:

(16x300)x(20x300)x1.1 or 31.68MP

And since the D200 is 10.0MP and the D300 is 12.3MP that means there is a 2.3 MP jump per generation. Which means that we need 8.426 generations and then we will get a 31.68MP camera with the D1142.6 (approximately). And at 2.5 years per generation it should be available sometime in early 2028 if current trends continue.

The above also means that sometimes I get a little math happy and really just need to go take some pictures.

Luke

If all other things were equal, no one would choose less pixels over more. All things are never equal, though, and many other factors take varying precedence over resolving power depending on each individual's needs and interests. No one can honestly say that some number of pixels is too much, though they can say that they prefer processing speed, frame rates, high ISO, or that their lenses and enlargement sizes limit the value of high pixel count.

If ever I encounter a once-in-a-lifetime shot, I'd want it to be the best quality it could be, and that means I don't care what I'm limited to today in print size, I want unlimited resolution, unlimited dynamic range, unlimited color, gamma, perfect exposure, perfect DOF, total absence of noise, and so on. Questions like this really don't further the understanding of what's needed. There's no such thing as enough pixels, just higher priorities.

I kept my Hasselblad film camera outfit (£3000 paid in 1970) until it was worth nothing but it got used heavily over a 20 year period.

I bought my first couple of digital cameras - Fuji S2 Pro - but after a year they were worth nothing. (I advertised them with a Subal housing at a quarter of their original cost and got nil response.)

I believe my D200 cameras (for example) will be worth nothing on the secondhand market when the D200next comes out. I now understand that everyone wants the latest camera. I also have a low mileage, immaculate condition 318ti Compact Sports sitting in my drive next to my new car. It is ten years old so it has no monetary value - but it still goes like shit off a stick.

Film and processing used to be the consumable cost but now it's the hardware. You don't invest in a camera. You simply spend on it. That's modern consumerism and the hardware manufacturers have wrestled the on-going cost away from the traditional material suppliers.

Of course, you always have the option to go out and take good pictures on whatever you have got!

LOL obsolescence is such a pain eh John?

I personally think enough will be enough when I finally admit that it's not the camera's fault the pictures don't come out right, but mine... but I think I'll be on the 1DMarkXXX before that happens.

Since my original post things have changed. I find Nikon's entry specification into the FF arena to be a fascinating insight. My own opinion is that Nikon have got it very right and that their MPixel count is adequate for a very great many uses. Ever increasing pixels is neither possible nor in all honesty desirable. Having more pixels to portray the same amount of information is after all completely pointless. I would like to see lens design catch up with sensor's ability and from my experience I would say that 10~15MPixel on FF is where we are at currently (enough is enough!!!), and increasing beyond this is more to do with marketing than final, real world image quality! Also, I'd suggest that technique might have to change and will be far more exacting if we really have sensors and lenses capable of 20MPixel+ image capture. IF Nikon's D3 delivers as specified and they can get over the marketing differential of being well behind on the MPixel count, then they should have a very good camera to offer.

Any other opinions?

They're not behind on the megapixel count anymore actually - they are ahead. The D3 is a sports camera and its 12 megapixels is slightly ahead of the 1DmkIII's 10

If you're looking for better image quality at 12 megapixels than what you're shooting now have you ever tried the 5D Paul? It has roughly the same # of pixels as the D300 will have but in a FF sensor.

I agree w/ what Craig says - There really is no "enough is enough" if everything keeps improving at this rate - and we can't get any closer to the animals on safari :-)

Cheers

James

They have digital cameras with MEGA pixels now??? Damn...I'm going to have to take down my ASCII naked lady pinups I printed off the linefeed dot matrix printer and go get one of them!

Seriously though, I'd say the limit depend on a lot of things like sensor size, sensor type, and how much added noise or DR you're losing for the extra MPs. And of course if the optics suck, even the best sensor just captures a distorted, blurred image.

Right now to my "novice" eyes I treat anything in the 7-10 MP type range as "the same" and try to look for the other features. Assuming 'more' really is 'better' beyond that, >10MP is probably really only going to benefit true pros vs. the average consumer. How often do you really do blowups beyond 11x14 type size anyway? Heck, Kodak had a pro body with 14 MPs (it was a digital back on a film camera if I recall correctly) back in like 2002 (?). So if that doesn't prove that MP's aren't the ONLY benchmark, I don't know what would.