Would you sacrifice pixels for anything? If so.. What?

Skyline On Fire

Skyline On Fire

Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
I was thinking today, on the 7D for instance, I don't particularly need 18 megapixels, and Id happily sacrifice 8 of those, for better ISO and low light performance, and even a little more FPS (not that 8 isn't enough or anything!)

That's the one thing I'm not keen on Canon for, the constant quest for more pixels, sacrificing the fact they could have far better ISO or FPS if they just sacrificed some.

Would you lower the pixel count on your camera in favor of better ISO and FPS?
 
Give me more dynamic range any day of the week. Happy with 10-12 megapixies.
 
So you want to lower the mega-pixel and up the frame rate, that would be a 1D IV then :D

I would drop the mega-pixel for less noise, more FPS and would love more dynamic range,
10 Mega-pixel is more then enough for me as I don't make billboard sized prints
 
Same here - as mentioned in another thread, I find my D3 more than adequate for the majority of applications, the D3x only coming out of the bag for studio work where I 'need' the additional qulaity...
 
whiteflyer said:
So you want to lower the mega-pixel and up the frame rate, that would be a 1D IV then :D

I would drop the mega-pixel for less noise, more FPS and would love more dynamic range,
10 Mega-pixel is more then enough for me as I don't make billboard sized prints
Click to expand...

I do want the 1D IV... But my account cant take another hit for a while!

Why are camera companies just hammering consumer and prosumer cameras with more and more pixels, rather than slowly building the pixel count and working on noise free, high ISO high frame rate instead? Its bizarre to me.

I guess consumers just want the biggest number of megapickles and they will be happy.
 
I bought a 2nd hand 1Dmk2 which has fewer pixels than my 50D but I prefer its noise handling, and image quality which has a much nicer look to it. The 50D has nore detail but somehow it just doesnt match the 'quality'. So to me the number of Mpx isnt that important, I would have preffered the 50D to have had fewer,
Matt
 
Skyline On Fire said:
Why are camera companies just hammering consumer and prosumer cameras with more and more pixels, rather than slowly building the pixel count and working on noise free, high ISO high frame rate instead? Its bizarre to me.

I guess consumers just want the biggest number of megapickles and they will be happy.
Click to expand...

Because I guess your average consumer just wants something to tell their mates down the pub and are unlikely to be pushing the AF or ISO system to their limits.

I wonder how many consumer dSLRs that are sold have never been taken out of fully auto?
 
Big_Ham said:
Because I guess your average consumer just wants something to tell their mates down the pub and are unlikely to be pushing the AF or ISO system to their limits.

I wonder how many consumer dSLRs that are sold have never been taken out of fully auto?
Click to expand...

Considering the capabilities of even the most entry level DSLR... Its a sad thing.
 
Its this choice with a Nikon D3 / D3x, The D3x has many more pixels but not as good an ISO performance or speed. The D3x is really for the studio whereas the D3 is a general purpose camera. I wouldn't give up any of my ISO performance for a few more pixels......
 
I'd rather have better AF performance, ergonomics and build quality than more mega pixels. So I bought a 1DmkII, sorted.
 
Craikeybaby said:
I'd rather have better AF performance, ergonomics and build quality than more mega pixels. So I bought a 1DmkII, sorted.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I bought a D1x which I loved using and wouldn't have got rid of it I hadn't bought the D700 and had a D200 too... There is a lot to be said about getting a high quality pro model of camera that is the last generation :thumbs:
 
I wish Canon would release say 2 versions of the higher end cameras, 7D in particular. One with the 18 Megapixels and all the spec it has now, and another with say 12 megapixels, better ISO performance, better dynamic range and maybe 10 FPS.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
I wish Canon would release say 2 versions of the higher end cameras, 7D in particular. One with the 18 Megapixels and all the spec it has now, and another with say 12 megapixels, better ISO performance, better dynamic range and maybe 10 FPS.
Click to expand...

Like the Nikon D2x, D2s and D2h or D3 & D3x. Sounds too sensible to me.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
I wish Canon would release say 2 versions of the higher end cameras, 7D in particular. One with the 18 Megapixels and all the spec it has now, and another with say 12 megapixels, better ISO performance, better dynamic range and maybe 10 FPS.
Click to expand...

You mean like they do with the 1D and 1Ds then?

One is more suited to sports/ action with less megapixels and greater FPS, the other has a higher pixel count (and is full frame, whereas the normal 1D is 1.3 crop) and less FPS.
 
High ISO performance without a shadow of a doubt. Found that today when shooting in a church - ISO 800 on my D2X is fine but beyond that and you're looking at noise aplenty. I can see why people now use D3 variants for that line of work....
 
Personally, I would swap all my pixels for a decent 5x4 and 10x8 along with film and a decent darkroom plus the time to endulge.
 
I cannot understand the high megapixel compacts, as they surely are the cameras least likely to be printed at large sizes. I would have thought that 10Mp was more than adequate particularly on small sensors
 
I'm still getting by on 6 mp on my trusty D40 and 5 mp on the Fuji S5600! At least it doesn't gobble up space on memory cards quite so quickly. :D

Like what others had said, I wouldn't mind excellent performance at high ISO settings in exchange for less megapixels (18 down to 10). I'd even give up another 2 or 3 if I could have an extra F number at both ends of the aperture scale.
 
artyman said:
I cannot understand the high megapixel compacts, as they surely are the cameras least likely to be printed at large sizes. I would have thought that 10Mp was more than adequate particularly on small sensors
Click to expand...

It's a marketing gimmick, pure and simple. The buying public love big numbers. A compact with 15mp must be better than a dslr with 12mp because 15>12.

I would think for most people 6mp is probably all that's needed, but the camera manufaturers need something new every year or so to tempt us to part with our hard-earned and most non-enthusiast photographers don't understand/don't care about ISO, so the easiest number to ramp up every year is the pixel number.
 
Yep Megapixels impress the punters, my bro in law couldn't understand why I use a DSLR when his compact has more megapixels, he was absolutely convinced his point and shoot would produce better pics than mine purely based on the Mpixel count.

Paul
 
Loads of pixels sells cameras. And that is what camera manufacturers are in business of doing. But I think that the premise of the OP is flawed, or at least maybe out of date.

The reason why increasing the pixel count tends to increase noise and other undesirable side effects, is mainly because of the disproportionate increase in the area occupied by the gaps between the pixels. So in effect, there is less light gathering area and the image signal has to amplified more, with a corresponding increase in noise.

But if you could have truly gap-less pixels, as some manufacturers are beginning to claim, then more pixels need not necessarily mean increased noise, plus you get the sharpness benefits.

The Canon 7D for example, has less noise than the 50D despite the extra pixels. It has about a stop less noise than my 40D, and that's with an 80% increase in pixels. Sure the 40D is old tech, but it makes the point. Likewise, the 5DMk2 has less noise than the 5DMk1, and 65% more pixels.

I think the big difference is between crop format and full frame, because it has a 2.5x larger sensor, gap-less pixels or not.
 
I'd want more dynamic range and lower noise.

sad fact is that the more MP we get the softer the images we are getting because of the noise. you can see this between the 7D and the 40D where the 40D images are sharper at higher ISO's because of less NR
 
Yes I would and have sacrificed MP.

I moved from a Canon 1DsII to a Nikon D700 dropping some 3000 pixels along the way (Very careless of me I know)

But I gained the ability to shoot just as quickly using the same 52 point AF system but at ISO 6400 instead of 1600.

It's been well worth it so far and I have no complaints at all about the choice I made.
 
I would be quite happy to lose pixels in return for better high iso handling.
 
If you had ever tried to take a photo on a D60 at ISO800+ you would know my pain, I'd happily swap MP for ISO!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top