I display my shots on the web. G+, my blogs and here. How many pixels do I need??

[JBW]

Hi,
As I wander through the minefield of camera stats I notice time and again the disparity in the number of pixels various cameras boast of having. Everywhere from 12MP to 20+.

I can see where the more the merrier makes sense if I am printing out my shots. But I only see my shots on G+, my blogs, here and my monitor when I use them as a background.

Is there a point where the pixel count simply turns into bragging rights for someone like me?

I hope the question makes sense?
Brian

[Donald]

I am sure those with a more scientific mind that I will give far better explanations that I can, but I do know that many people do subscribe to the notion that the battle of the pixels was no more than a battle of the marketing departments of the various camera manufacturers - "My camera's got more megapixels than yours."

What does seem/may be a bit of a game-changer is the introduction of the Canon 5DS and 5DSR. A lot of the reviews are now saying that with either of these bodies, you're now into the realms of being equivalent to medium format photography at a fraction of the price and with a whole lot more lenses to choose from.

But the point remains, if you're only going to display on screen or print at smaller sizes, then yes, all those extra pixels a totally unnecessary.

[Manfred M]

I down sample most of the images I display on the web to 1600 pixels on the long side x 1068 pixels (on the short side) = 1.7 MP; maintaining a 24mm x 36mm (full frame) aspect ratio. This ensures fast load times for users and provides some level of protection from theft.

I rarely crop a lot (most of my crops are to get the image to the paper size I am printing at), so if all i were doing is posting to the web I would be able to get away with a 2MP camera. My 1920 x 1080 resolution computer screen is about 2MP as well. It's kind of difficult to get one of those these days.

Nicely said, pick any camera on the market today, and you;ll have more than enough resolution to post what you are doing.

[JBW]

Thank you Donald and Manfred. Seeing as you are both here how abut one more question? With what I shoot and how I present my shots is there any advantage to having a camera that works in RAW as well as JPEG?

[Manfred M]

Brian - what does your current camera do now? Are you editing and posting jpegs or are you working with raw files? If so, are you happy with your workflow?

If I honestly look at most of my work I would have to say that my jpegs are good enough, for both print and web postings at least 95% of the time. The only time I really need the extra headroom in the shots are when I either totally blow the exposure (which does happen from time to time) and more often, when the lighting is bad and I need to dig into the extra data that the camera has recorded in order to recover highlight details or less often shadow detail. In this case, going back to the raw data is a bit like insurance; you pay for it all the time, but only really need it when something goes wrong.

That being said, if you only shoot jpeg and your camera does not give you the "look and feel" that you are after in a jpeg, then you are stuck. Not all image processing engines are created equal and I've seen straight-out-of-camera jpegs I just did not like.

You seem to be spending more time working in post, so if you stick with purely jpeg, you might find yourself limited as you develop as a photographer. I firmly believe a good photographer should be able to work with raw data and come up with a better image than the camera turns out as a jpeg, but that's just my opinion.

[JBW]

Brian - what does your current camera do now? Are you editing and posting jpegs or are you working with raw files? If so, are you happy with your workflow?

You seem to be spending more time working in post, so if you stick with purely jpeg, you might find yourself limited as you develop as a photographer. I firmly believe a good photographer should be able to work with raw data and come up with a better image than the camera turns out as a jpeg, but that's just my opinion.

Currently my camera is pure JPEG. Am I happy with the end result is a very tough question. I am happy with where I am compared to where I was. I would not be happy to stay where I am. My workflow is constantly changing as I discover different ways to use and combine RawTherapee and Gimp.

You have struck the chord that keeps ringing in my ear. There is a limit to what anyone can obtain as far as equipment is concerned. But I have yet to reach my imaginations limit or my pp limits.

I simply do not know if working with raw data as well as jpeg will give me better shots but it will certainly give me more opportunities to create a better shot.

So to summarize; don't need the pixels but could put raw to good use.

Thanks again for helping me to understand this tech stuff.

[Donald]

I simply do not know if working with raw data as well as jpeg will give me better shots but it will certainly give me more opportunities to create a better shot.

That, I think, is the crux of the matter. The other part of as well is pleasure. I know that the busy porfessional wants to spend as little time as possible in post-processing and get on to the next assignment. However, for some of us humble amateurs there is great pleasure to be had from an hour working on a picture that you think can be made into a great image.

[JBW]

That, I think, is the crux of the matter. The other part of as well is pleasure. I know that the busy porfessional wants to spend as little time as possible in post-processing and get on to the next assignment. However, for some of us humble amateurs there is great pleasure to be had from an hour working on a picture that you think can be made into a great image.

Exactly!

[Manfred M]

So to summarize; don't need the pixels but could put raw to good use.

The underlying assumption here is that you will continue to shoot and reproduce images much in the same way you do today. You are not planning to do large prints in any serious way, otherwise a similar issue exists as in the raw / jpeg decision. We don't buy cameras for the "average" type of shooting we do, but rather for the outliers; whether that is night shots, sports shots, making prints, etc.

I just went and checked my camera metadata and I seem to have shot over 50,000 images over the past 2-1/2 years; but I've only printed a few hundred of them. Yet one of the key decisions I made when buying my camera was to make extremely high quality large prints. Likewise, when we bought a car a few years ago, we based some of the critical buying decisions (all wheel drive and traction control and good road clearance) on driving in bad weather (lots of ice and snow), whereas we really probably only do that for a couple of weeks a year.

In many ways we buy based on anticipated future needs. I'll have to be frank; I've never been in a situation where I went back and thought I had bought something that was spec'ed to high for my needs. There are many times I wish I had bought a better model because of unanticipated requirements down the road.

[Donald]

In many ways we buy based on anticipated future needs. I'll have to be frank; I've never been in a situation where I went back and thought I had bought something that was spec'ed to high for my needs. There are many times I wish I had bought a better model because of unanticipated requirements down the road.

Oh, I am so glad to see someone expressing that view. Why? Because I've just ordered a 5DS (and an 11-24 f4L) to sit alongside my 7DMkII.

Makes no sense. No business case. But I've found myself with the means to do so and have secretly hankered after the challnege of shooting full-frame. Will it make me a better photographer? No, of course not. But it will give me years of pleasure.

[Manfred M]

Oh, I am so glad to see someone expressing that view. Why? Because I've just ordered a 5DS (and an 11-24 f4L) to sit alongside my 7DMkII.

Makes no sense. No business case. But I've found myself with the means to do so and have secretly hankered after the challnege of shooting full-frame. Will it make me a better photographer? No, of course not. But it will give me years of pleasure.

If I look at why I went full frame with a pro model camera:

1. Larger viewfinder. I have never gotten used to the small viewfinder on the crop frame DSLR.

2. Shallower depth of field - shooting a fast lens wide open. My kind of photography! Yes, this is due to the larger sensor.

3. Pro layout of controls on the camera body - I don't need to fiddle with menus get the camera to do what I want. Not only that, I can make the adjustments without taking my off the viewfinder. I can easily "landmark" them by feel.

4. Large high quality sensor. Get up there with medium format resolution. A 17" x 22" @ 300 dpi almost native resolution (16.3" x 25.5") print. I the film days this would have been a monster contact print.

[rpcrowe]

IMO, there comes a limit to how many pixels one ca cram into any sensor size. When jamming additional pixels, instead of increasing quality it just may decrease quality, especially in the area of noise.

However, while I did quite well shooting with my approximately 10 pixel Canon 40D - that was because I mostly cropped in camera and did not need to do much additional cropping. However, I choose to shoot my dog portraits in the landscape format because quite often I am tasked with producing calendars for my rescue dog work. I need square format images for posting on many rescue web sites and need to crop these from the landscape image. My approximately 18 MP Canon 7D provides me with greater ability to crop.

OTOH, I recently purchased a Canon SX50 HS bridge camera. Canon did not buy into the "pixel race" when they introduced this camera and limited the pixels to 12 MP. This allows the small format camera to achieve fairly nice IQ. If Canon tried to jam twice the number of pixels into this small sensor, IMO the general image quality - especially low light, would have suffered.

[Mike Buckley]

Makes no sense...But I've found myself with the means to do so and have secretly hankered after the challnege of shooting full-frame...it will give me years of pleasure.

That's exactly why it really does make perfect sense! Enjoy your new camera system!

[Mike Buckley]

Brian,

When you consider the possibility of buying a camera that produces raw files, also consider the processing power of your computer. The raw files will be much, much larger than the JPEGs. If your computer is not up to the task of working with such large files, everything you do with them including opening, editing, saving and moving them and creating JPEGs from them for display on the Internet will be brought to a slow crawl. If that happens, it could dramatically lessen your enjoyment by becoming a source of frustration, depending on your level of patience.

[JBW]

Brian,

When you consider the possibility of buying a camera that produces raw files, also consider the processing power of your computer. The raw files will be much, much larger than the JPEGs. If your computer is not up to the task of working with such large files, everything you do with them including opening, editing, saving and moving them and creating JPEGs from them for display on the Internet will be brought to a slow crawl. If that happens, it could dramatically lessen your enjoyment by becoming a source of frustration, depending on your level of patience.

Good point. I do a lot of my processing in uncompressed 8 bit TIFF. In my computer it is fine but as an upload option it can take anywhere up to 15 minutes to upload. Would raw be worse than TIFF?

[Mike Buckley]

I've rarely worked with TIFFs, so I don't know the answer to your question.

[JBW]

I've rarely worked with TIFFs, so I don't know the answer to your question.

The real need was to show me the question. Now I at least know that I need to find an answer. Thanks

[Manfred M]

In my experience, the raw files from my camera are smaller than Tiffs. Just for fun I opened a 41 MB raw which saved as a 106MB TIFF.

[JBW]

In my experience, the raw files from my camera are smaller than Tiffs. Just for fun I opened a 41 MB raw which saved as a 106MB TIFF.

Basically if my computer works well with tiff raw will not be a problem. I like that.

[JBW]

In my experience, the raw files from my camera are smaller than Tiffs. Just for fun I opened a 41 MB raw which saved as a 106MB TIFF.

I am giving serious thought to your suggestion that a Bridge just might be too confining in the future. But the possibilities and the cost in DSLR are daunting. Good thing I am too old to rush.