Digital Media | Spotlight: Photography | Inside Aperture | Blogs
Is Bigger Always Better?
One of the most common questions people ask when trying to decide on a new camera is the resolution size of the files. There is an implicit assumption that bigger is better and that in order to make large prints, you need a camera capable of capturing huge files. I confess that to a certain extent I buy into that thinking - it’s why I have a Canon 1DsMKIII which is capable of producing 21.1 megapixel files. I love the ability to record fine detail and the option to crop a significant portion of the image and still have enough pixels left to make a good sized print.
Recently I had the opportunity to work with a woman who makes huge prints - at least by my standards. Usually they’re 24 inches x 31 inches and she regularly sells them for significant sums of money - in the thousands. You would think these files must come from a medium format digital or at least the Canon 1DsMKIII. In fact most of these files are from a Canon 1D MKII - a camera with 8.2 megapixels. But that’s not all, some of these prints are from significantly cropped versions of those files. In fact one was from a crop that used roughly 1/3 of the original image. That’s less than 3 megapixels! And she made a stunning 24 x 31 inch print! She didn't even do anything fancy to resize the image. She simply resized it using Bicubic Smoother in Photoshop. Granted the image is somewhat grainy - but that suits the content and feel of the image. Until I saw these prints I would have said that it was impossible to create a print that large, that you could view at a close distance, from so few pixels. But she didn’t know that so she went ahead and tried, and the results were truly impressive.
In addition, with my 21.1 megapixel camera I have to be careful about the lenses I use. With that high a resolution, the short comings of any particular lens become more apparent - even lenses from the manufacturer. So although I can capture more detail, I can also more readily see if a lens is not sharp from edge to edge at a certain aperture or has any distortions. It’s an interesting dilemma. As I hear about the Sony 24 megapixel sensor and the rumored Nikon 24 megapixel camera, I have to assume those will face similar issues even more.
There are other factors that come into play such as various technical aspects of the sensors including the size of the sensor, the size of the photosites, the density of the photosites, etc. Of course the 20+ megapixel files also take a lot of storage space both on the CF cards and on the computer. And it goes without saying that the cameras themselves cost as much as some cars. Are the 20+ meagapixel cameras worth it? That’s an individual decision. But after seeing those prints and the prices they command, it does make me pause and think a bit. I’m really not sure how big is big enough, but I’m pretty sure that bigger is not always better. What do you think?
Comments (9)
I think that 21.1 megapixel files are too much (at least for me).
I would rather have a Canon 1D MKIII (10 Mpixel) or a Nikon D300 (12Mpixel).
I thought the the sensor was target to compete against Canon 5D and not 1D. May be in size but not in speed. So the price is not targeting a car.
It would be an interesting feature to get automatic cropping to APS-C when I telephoto and are more interested in speed. That would more or less combine 1D and 1Ds best features into one camera. D3 is more or less doing this, if I understand the news correct, when you put on a lens made for APS-C.
Or several pixels working together in low ISO, creating fewer pixels and less noise. Available light photos are usually not printed that large anyway.
Some jobs require the large sensors (Hassys with digital backs, for example) but for most photography work the larger cameras present more problems than they solve.
Amateurs will be foolish to buy a 20MP+ camera unless they have a very specific goal in mind that requires it.
That might be the reason why the Faveon chip is better ? See Sigma SD14 as an example, less nominal pixels but sensitive to individual colours.
The other big issue, for non-pros anyway, is whether your technique is good enough where the detail being captured is actually sensor-limited. I would argue that, for most people hand-holding their Canon 400D or Nikon D80, they are really not getting anywhere near 10 megapixels of resolution in their photos because their camera is moving slightly, or the focus isn't quite right, or myriad other issues.
Their images are still 10MP in size, but that's not the same thing at all as actually capturing 10MP worth of resolution in a photo - people don't seem to understand that.
I'll bring along a 4x5 Super Speed Graphic if my intent is to make a really big print. It and two modern lenses cost less than a Canon L-series lens and weigh less than a 1Ds Mk III body. There's a dynamite 40"x50" print from it hanging in our living room (the Eiffel Tower at twilight from the Trocadero).
One thing that most people seem to be oblivious is noise and DOF. Trying to squeeze 10 Mp into a small sensor will invariably cause poor performance in terms of noise, as we can see on everyday P+S. Additionally, small sensors and ultra short lenses have a different behavior than FF and pro lenses for the same nominal MP. Obviously, manufacturers are happy with this misconception.
On the other hand, sometimes I wonder why someone would need 10 or 20 Mp if they would only display the pictures on a computer screen, and to do so they need to downsize. A waste of space, IMHO.
Thanks for the article, Ellen.
I ponder that issue a lot and it gives me quite a chuckle. I remember shooting with a Canon PowerShot A10. It is a 1 megapixel camera. However, I had a weekly assignment producing a publication where I was the photographer and that was my camera! I made great photos with it and no one was the wiser.
Ultimately, I believe the publishing intent is a key factor for me with a camera. I shoot headshots, portraits, and some editorial stuff. The overwhelming majority of what I do is destined for the web or small-scale publications with 100 line screens on less-than-prime stock. Some get reproduced as 8x10 and 9x12 headshots. My main body is a 20D with a 70-200mm L. That combination far exceeds my needs now and in the immediate future.
And Travis nailed home an amazing point. Kudos for that! I have a shaky left hand (don't know if it's an RSI or something) and I have to always concentrate in order to get a steady shot. I wish that his point could be discussed more in a detailed article.
There are a lot of good points being mentioned here. Output intention certainly should factor into the decision and good technique is imperative with any camera to get the best results. And yes, sensor size is also a factor - 10megapixels on the sensor in the tiniest point and shoot is not the same as 10 megapixels on a full frame sensor, etc.