/p/ - Photography » Thread #4138018

[80 / 5 / 30]

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 03:53:40 No.4138018 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4138022 >>4138056 >>4138100 >>4138111 >>4138113 >>4138119 >>4138152 >>4138224 >>4138227 >>4138314 >>4139477 >>4139479 >>4139485 >>4139539

At what point does pixel count becomes irrelevant?

10 megapixel?
12 megapixel?
13 megapixel?
18 megapixel?
22 megapizel?
48 megapixel?

>inb4 sensor size

I didn't ask for sensor size

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 04:01:55 No.4138019 Report

Quoted By:

Never. More megapixels = better. Its as simple as that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 04:13:15 No.4138022 Report

Quoted By: >>4138026 >>4138035

>>4138018
I think it comes down to the cost of storage desu. Right now, I think 24-26mp is more than enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 04:22:43 No.4138026 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138022
Depending if you're a cropper or not. I'd say 30 is desirable and it saves you money on lenses in the long run as you can simply crop instead of buying other focal lengths.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 04:33:58 No.4138035 Report

Quoted By: >>4138072

APS-C: 25mp
Full frame: 45mp
Crop medium format: 200mp
Real medium fromat: 400mp

>>4138022
Are you in brazil? fast memory cards with 128gb are cheap

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 05:11:02 No.4138056 Report

Quoted By: >>4138069

>>4138018
>At what point does pixel count becomes irrelevant?
>I didn't ask for sensor size
Then you have no idea how digital cameras work. This thread is pointless same as your life. Your mother should have strangled you at birth.
Sage is a plant thar grows in all fields.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 05:24:14 No.4138069 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138056
>being this salty towards stranger that has nothing to do with him
Who rapes you when you was little?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 05:30:38 No.4138072 Report

Quoted By: >>4138089 >>4138111 >>4138315

>>4138035
20 years ago they said 2 megapixels was all you ever needed. Soon you there will be phone cameras with several terapixels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 05:50:20 No.4138076 Report

Quoted By: >>4138207

If you're printing postcard sized prints, 2-3 is enough.
Larger prints like a4 and a3, you can get away with 6, 10 will look better.
Higher than that and you'll rapidly hit the point of diminishing returns.

If you display them digitally (posting online) at least 50 megapixels and a lens that can resolve double that, otherwise the resolution delusion brigade will shit on everything you hold dear until the end of time.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 06:32:30 No.4138089 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138072
You can't and won't take pictures with any camera asshole, why bother thinking about alien phones

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 07:15:34 No.4138100 Report

Quoted By: >>4138105

>>4138018
I remember a decade ago some defence company bragged about having a 100++ megapixel camera on their spy satellite that can capture a picture of someone's zits from many miles away

Guess what? nowadays we have smartphone with 200 megapixel camera

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 07:26:26 No.4138105 Report

Quoted By: >>4138109

>>4138100
Filled with noise through its shitty little lens.
Waste of meganoise.

And no de-noise still looks like ass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 07:32:34 No.4138109 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138105
Is this some kind of cope?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 07:40:43 No.4138111 Report

Quoted By: >>4138211

>>4138072
>20 years ago they said 2 megapixels was all you ever needed
Who said this? Pretty sure you're either making that up, or you read some literal who's opinion it which is meaningless.

>>4138018
Relating megapickels to print sizes @ 300ppi helps keep things in perspective

A 5x7 print needs 3.2
An 8x10 needs 7.2
A 16x12 needs 17.3

Unless you're making huge ass fine art prints above 16x12, 18 is enough.
More megapickles does mean you can crop in and still keep to your 300ppi target, which is useful.
This is all assuming the lens(e) is good enough and generally the pickles actually have detail, so mushy overprocessed 200mp phone photos don't count here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 07:43:17 No.4138113 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138018
For stills, more MP is always better, so long as it’s not at the expense of anything else. Even if you don’t end up printing/submitting your final files at the native resolution, downsampling from (for example) a 4K image to 1080p usually looks better than a 1080p native image.

For video, enough megapixels to do 8K is probably the limit, due to a combination of storage medium limitations, bandwidth limitations for end viewers streaming the video, and the absolute limit of the resolving power of the human eye when viewing video content. Somewhere out there is a chart explaining the mathematical relationship between display size, viewing distance and pixel density that essentially proves going beyond 8K is pointless, and the only upgrades possible from there are increasing FPS and dynamic range. Google it or some shit, idk.

From the photographer/videographer standpoint, the one other advantage I can think of that applies to both is that more MP gives you more freedom to crop without unacceptable resolution loss. It’s not a use case that will come up every time you shoot, but it’s worth mentioning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 08:32:44 No.4138119 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138018
for web viewing?
6MP
for personal viewing?
12MP
for professional viewing?
48MP

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 09:12:05 No.4138127 Report

Quoted By: >>4139434

Plenty of photojournalists were using the Nikon D1 back in the early 2000s and creating great images (some good examples online). 2.74 megapixel CCD. Used today with something like Gigapixel AI I imagine you could produce quite large and detailed prints.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 10:56:46 No.4138152 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138018
Depends on the resolving ability of your lens and your sensor size.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 14:42:38 No.4138207 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138076
Here’s ren kockwell being a dumb boomer. 36mp is the minimum for full frame.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 14:44:07 No.4138211 Report

Quoted By: >>4138219 >>4139506

>>4138111
>cropping isn’t real
>16x12 is huge t. bilbo baggins posting from his hobbit hole

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 14:57:10 No.4138219 Report

Quoted By: >>4138226

>>4138211
Need vs want/prefer
Most people don't print anything larger than standard letter size.

He's being generalistic, you dont have to be all like "YOU DIDN'T SPECIFY XYZ, GOTCHA" because you're outside of the norm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 15:06:53 No.4138224 Report

Quoted By: >>4138269

>>4138018
6 megapixels are enough

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 15:10:57 No.4138226 Report

Quoted By: >>4138247

>>4138219
You don’t even need a camera either you arbitrary shitter

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 15:12:21 No.4138227 Report

Quoted By: >>4138229 >>4138250

>>4138018
24MP is probably the highest a hobbyist would need, and that’s even good for people making large wall prints of landscapes, panoramas etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 15:17:59 No.4138229 Report

Quoted By: >>4138250

>>4138227
this, reminder that at one point 5D2 was king of the market with its meager 20MP

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 15:46:43 No.4138247 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138226
You dont need oxygen you fucking fungus

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 15:57:31 No.4138250 Report

Quoted By: >>4138260 >>4138263 >>4139497

>>4138227
No cropping allowed? Printing is cheap but no one would dare touch A0?

>>4138229
People didn’t have better unless they shot 120, 4x5, and up and if the quality was poor, “that’s better than last year’s ok?”

Now a 36mp camera is $500 off ebay and boomer tards are buying brand new 20mp camera anyways because “ya dun need moar” “muh electronics will die after 5 years of existence”

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 16:35:25 No.4138260 Report

Quoted By: >>4138275

>>4138250
How much are you cropping out? And why are you printing A0 if you can’t even compose a frame correctly?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 16:45:15 No.4138263 Report

Quoted By: >>4138275

>>4138250
20MP is enough, lol. What is more, 12MP is enough.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO frontview.jpg, 78KiB, 1024x768

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 16:51:35 No.4138269 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138224
this

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 16:57:33 No.4138275 Report

Quoted By: >>4138276 >>4138280 >>4138281

>>4138260
Why are you even a photographer if you're such a rigid thinker you can't imagine using more than one aspect ratio or frame shape

How's a simple scenario your stembug brain can understand? you want a narrower field of view, but the lens you have with you is too wide. Crop. You just saved $800, only your image will be 20mp. But that's enough for you right? You'll never print that one huge but you did get the shot instead of fiddling with lenses.

>>4138263
20mp isn't enough for a "my home is worth at least six figures and has wall space to match" sized print unless you intend to curate your own home and tell people to stand so many feet back, or just accept getting lower quality despite spending thousands on gear. When you can buy 36 megapixel cameras for $500 and 42 megapixel cameras for $800 it's really stupid to spend thousands on some 20mp shit and say "what more do you need"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 16:59:33 No.4138276 Report

Quoted By: >>4138277 >>4138280

>>4138275
yes but there's a problem. those cheap high megapixels look like they were designed this century. i need dial for everything, a silver body, black leatherette, and a zone focusing scale so people know i'm a photographer instead of a pedophile.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1675962165120.png, 348KiB, 1021x450

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 17:03:26 No.4138277 Report

Quoted By: >>4138279

>>4138276
Nothing says "photographer" more than a DSLR. Pedos use phones and compact digicams with a lens that pops out.

DSLRs are also more compact.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1675962445619.png, 342KiB, 681x706

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 17:07:38 No.4138279 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138277
Well, MOST DSLRs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 17:07:41 No.4138280 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138276
kek
>>4138275
>what is DeepPRIME
>what is Gigapixel AI

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 17:08:37 No.4138281 Report

Quoted By: >>4138282

>>4138275
>I should be able to crop out 90% of the frame and still print billboards at 300ppi
lmao I love how retarded /p/ is. You must be one bored individual.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 17:10:07 No.4138282 Report

Quoted By: >>4138285

>>4138281
Being able to crop out 50% of the frame is like turning your 50mm into an 85mm, and being left with 20mp after that means you can still print your tiny man idea of "huge" at 300ppi.

Printing at lower quality levels is like using a phone for photography. You're wasting your fancy equipment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 17:13:41 No.4138285 Report

Quoted By: >>4138292

>>4138282
>Being able to crop out 50% of the frame is like turning your 50mm into an 85mm
Too bad about those pesky lp/mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 17:24:08 No.4138292 Report

Quoted By: >>4138319

>>4138285
>His lens isn't sharp enough to produce an acceptable image after cropping out 50% of the frame
Sorry you bought a fuji anon

remember 30lp/mm was considered good quality at one point :^)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:00:07 No.4138314 Report

Quoted By: >>4138320 >>4138330

>>4138018
If you are good, 10 megapixel is enough.

If you have to reframe your photo on post. Then get a canera with more than 20 megapixel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:01:22 No.4138315 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138072
>terapixel phone
>saves file in jpg with 30% quality

cANON

cANON Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:03:25 No.4138319 Report

Quoted By: >>4138321 >>4138330

>>4138292
At 60MP (Sigma fpL and Leica M11) you're looking at lenses that can resolve 264lp/mm. Sure, it's not as bad as shooting high resolution film like Spur Orthopan UR but it still limits what lenses you can use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:05:10 No.4138320 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138314
I would say get a Full Frame 50 megapixel camera with a Canon EF 17-40mm and never miss any photo again.

With such an wide lens, there is plenty of free space around the subject for you to crop into the best frame ever in post production.

cANON

cANON Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:05:28 No.4138321 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138319
My bad, it's actually 132lp/mm, my calculation was actually lines/mm instead of lp/mm

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:18:07 No.4138330 Report

Quoted By: >>4139352

>>4138319
Increasing the sensor resolution still increases the sharpness of the whole system slightly

After a point it's better to increase the sensor and lens size instead of photosite density

>>4138314
>I am creatively bankrupt and worship the machine rather than using my mind
Also, if you dare print large and not employ a cope rope, 36mp is the minimum and full frame hits the point of severely diminishing returns around 50mp. This gets more and more noticeable as you shoot at higher ISOs. After NR, the quality loss is less noticeable with the higher resolution camera.

Only boomers and the fools who regurgitate their blogposts disagree. The rest of the world has moved on to 36mp full frame and 24mp APS-C.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:24:47 No.4138332 Report

Quoted By: >>4138342

real photographers crop

there is no reason to move your camera to reframe the image or god forbid buy a different camera just for a certain aspect ratio. you paid for more image quality than you need to print 80% of the time. why not use it? why play "me have insight and always make best decisions first time!" "badass" and limit yourself to the photo you took yesterday when you can think of a way to improve it today? you gonna shun editing because you should have brought a full movie set with you to fix the lighting?

cANON

cANON Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:40:31 No.4138342 Report

Quoted By: >>4138359

>>4138332
Robert Capa used to say if your picture isn't good enough you're not good enough and HBC strongly opposed cropping.
I think they were both hack frauds and I advocate for the crop king, the 90D. Can't beat that reach (well maybe with some Pentax systems or custom modified builds but you completely lose autofocus and no longer carry a strong camera but a collection of adapters). High crop factors are underrated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Feb 2023 18:47:59 No.4138359 Report

Quoted By: >>4139354

>>4138342
They were hack frauds, but so are you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 16:19:38 No.4139352 Report

Quoted By: >>4139360

>>4138330
>The rest of the world has moved on to 36mp full frame and 24mp APS-C.

Hurr durr, the professional cameras from nikon and canon have no more than 20mp.

Canon EOS-1D X Mark III = 20mp
Nikon D6 = 20mp

This is factual

cANON

cANON Sat 11 Feb 2023 16:23:31 No.4139354 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138359
I'm a hack but I think calling me a fraud is excessive. I don't try to fool anyone into thinking I'm some top tier photographer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 16:40:08 No.4139360 Report

Quoted By: >>4139365 >>4139368

>>4139352
You fools, you're all fools. Megapixels depend on use case.

No, DSLRs are not professional cameras anymore. Saying a DSLR is still a professional camera is like saying professionals still ride horses. Sure, some do. In utah.
And professionals use megapixels as a tool, not a penis replacement.

The EOS R3 and Nikon Z9 are the professional cameras. The EOS R3 has 24mp and is better for action shooting. The Z9 has 46mp and is better for highly detailed shots where the photographer has more control. For most people, the Z9 is the better choice but canon is the official camera of the NFL.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 16:55:51 No.4139365 Report

Quoted By: >>4139370 >>4139373

>>4139360
R3 sucks for action shooting compared to the 1D X III, 12 vs 16 fps with mechanical shutter.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO s-l500.jpg, 43KiB, 500x314

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 16:58:00 No.4139368 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139360
No bro, DSLRs are professional. Want proof? One time a horse rode right past a broken down jeep in ukraine. The jeep couldn't start in the cold, but the horse just had a little frostbite.

Horses and DSLRs: 1
ICEs and EVILs: -9001

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 17:00:30 No.4139370 Report

Quoted By: >>4139372

>>4139365
>EOS R3
>Using the mechanical shutter
The R3's sensor clears so fast it has as much rolling shutter distortion as a mechanical focal plane shutter would at those speeds.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 17:01:46 No.4139372 Report

Quoted By: >>4139375 >>4139377

>>4139370
Enjoy your black bands from flash, even Canon admits it happens

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 17:02:08 No.4139373 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139365
the mechanical shutter is for flash use only.
you don't shoot bursts with flash.

the R3 can shoot 30 (24mp raw) to 195 FPS depending on your settings.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 17:03:52 No.4139375 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139372
Why would you use the E shutter in high speed bursts together with flash? You would get one properly exposed frame, two or four half-exposed frames, and a bunch of black. If you need artificial light and bursts, use continuous light.

Learn to use a camera retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 17:10:32 No.4139377 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139372
The EL-1 can shoot 20FPS at the lowest power setting. At typical power levels it's closer to 10FPS, and 1FPS at full power. Mechanical shutter speed isn't very important. Doing any continuous shooting with flash, the only place where you need a fast mechanical shutter and a very niche application, is probably going to be limited to 12fps or less. It's not worth using an inferior DSLR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 18:28:22 No.4139434 Report

Quoted By: >>4139440

>>4138127
Further to this I looked up some images taken with the Nikon. Alan Diaz, won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize using a D1. Handy to have more Megapixels but not always necessary.

https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/alan-diaz

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 18:35:52 No.4139440 Report

Quoted By: >>4139457 >>4139483

>>4139434
That was a top of the line 35mm camera at the time and was up against sony mavicas. Even 35mm had more resolution, but getting tough shots like that required way more luck. It’s like winning the pulitzer with $12000 worth of sony gear.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 18:54:15 No.4139457 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139440
Error correction: a $9200 APS-C digital. full frame wasn’t accessible until a full year later.

Imagine saying winning a prize with over 10k worth of camera and lens (adjusted for inflation) proves gearfaggotry wrong. He had a massive unfair advantage, really.

Art_repro_fag22

Art_repro_fag22 Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:13:20 No.4139477 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138018
Whatever the maximum size you're interested in printing your images at in inches*300
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:15:01 No.4139479 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138018
my sister has a chad lumix with 6mpx

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:23:27 No.4139483 Report

Quoted By: >>4139488

>>4139440
I doubt if many looking at the photo cared what camera it came from - but i take your point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:25:14 No.4139485 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138018
8 megapickles is perfectly enough to view on a 4K screen

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:29:28 No.4139488 Report

Quoted By: >>4139491 >>4139505

>>4139483
Many looking saw it printed at like, 2 inches wide, or displayed 2 inches wide on a 800x640 screen next to pixellated gifs with visible dithering and banding.

but it was the highest level of technology available at the time. i'm sure a chinese katana would impress a peasant from end of the bronze age too, but he was still more impressed with iron tools than bronze ones, and neither would impress anyone reasonable alive today given that they typically cost just as much as their superior versions can be found for.

a 36mp full frame camera is like, $500. and yet people continue to pay $1000 for 20mp APS-C because they are so minimalist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:35:30 No.4139491 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139488
the cause is people reading old forum and blog posts made by 40+ year old men from the awkward time when high megapixel cameras became available but they couldn't get a 1tb SSD and 32gb of RAM for $100 yet, and they still considered 16mp incredibly impressive because all they had to compare it to was 8mp and fuji superia 400.

these days a phone has more resolution period than some of these cope cameras, but all the boomer blogs and forum posts were made before the release of the iphone 14 pro max and galaxy s22 ultra so the google searches on the matter are not aware of this yet. ken rockwell can only compare cameras to an iphone 8.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:41:07 No.4139497 Report

Quoted By: >>4139504

>>4138250
I've never needed more than 20 MP, even with occasional cropping. Higher megapixels would lead me to new but also expensive memory cards, a more powerful computer, and a higher price for the new body I want for other reasons than high megapixels. I'm even glad I don't have to spend much time with noise reduction as this also is significant in raw conversion.
There are people who complain that the cheaper Canon cameras don't have higher megapixel counts. No problem so far. Some of them are not willing to spend the money on the R5 either, they want the R5 for the price of the R6. I'm glad I can buy the R6 for a price I can afford and not have to reach for the R5. I'm glad that I don't have to pay for something that I merely utilize and that is of little importance to me.

My father, a boomer, added an R6 to the 5D4 even though he always complained that 20 million pixels was out of date these years. He has since admitted that 20 MP is fully enough, although he hasn't changed his mind and he would have liked 30+ MP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:52:30 No.4139504 Report

Quoted By: >>4139518 >>4139524

>>4139497
Here's one of those oldies behind in every form of tech now

has the money for thousands of dollars in cameras that phones are quickly catching up to. can't replace a UHS-1 64gb SD card or put a 1tb SSD in his dellnovo thinkbook.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:54:06 No.4139505 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139488
It wouldn't have been printed that small (especially after winning a Pulitzer). And a good 2mp photo would still impress me (not 2mp but do you remember the photo of the 2009 Hudson river plane crash taken with an Iphone)?

A Nikon D1 could easily produce an award winning picture today.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 19:58:12 No.4139506 Report

Quoted By: >>4139514

>>4138211
If you'd have managed to read my post in full I mention cropping.
Also yes, 16x12 is huge for most people. Remember that 6x4 or 7x5 was the standard print size for many years before computers and then phones became the standard way to look at photos.
Compared to a 5in phone, even 8x10 is a nice size to most normal photographers (i.e. ones that do not frequent /p/).
16x12 is small for an art gallery, but people live in and put their photos in homes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 20:04:56 No.4139514 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139506
I still get 6x4 and 5x7 photos printed (and 8x6 on occasion). I believe 8x10 used to be a fairly standard size for galleries. For a 6x4 print 2-3mp is enough.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 20:08:35 No.4139518 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139504
If anything, the processors of my computers are lacking, but I'm keeping those for their auxiliary and as their easy to clean and repair.
The major point is, I don't need to pay on new cards that are incompatible with what I have. I don't need to buy computers I'm not interested in, that even in contrast would cause me trouble. I don't need to buy a camera I'm not interested in. It would be effort of money and time for nothing of gain for me. There is no reason to get upset at me. You are the one imposing your personal demands.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 20:14:07 No.4139524 Report

Quoted By: >>4139534

>>4139504
One could also turn the tables and try to interpret you. You've spent money on some presumably more contemporary system, and you're too new to realize that it's not necessary for everyone. In a few years, if not a few months, you'll have old crap, but it's perfectly adequate for you - because you chose it to suit you to begin with. You're not going to upgrade just because there's something new. You're going to have the same discussion about how the stuff you have is enough for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 20:29:52 No.4139534 Report

Quoted By: >>4139544

>>4139524
It's already old crap. The GFX100s shits all over every full frame ILC. There's a 60mp full frame leica out now that shits all over every other full frame camera as well. There's always a better system.

But the thing is my better system was only as expensive as yours so I get to feel superior without spending $10,000.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 20:49:31 No.4139539 Report

Quoted By:

>>4138018
>Photo
the more the better
>Video
Enough to cover the maximum resolution

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 20:53:25 No.4139544 Report

Quoted By: >>4139549

>>4139534
Better for you, yes. Cheaper for your demands, yes. Better for me, no. Cheaper for my demands, no. Again, I wouldn't leverage the detail of a high mp cam, it would just be there.
Since all my lenses, several film and digital cameras are in the EF bayonet, I weigh even legacy compatibility the highest. I'm only slowly adapting to mirrorless and rather prefer what I'm used to, will even less eagerly adapt to the RF mount, just do as DSLR are at their end.

Other reasons why shooting at high megapixels can be tedious, despite powerful computers, may include compositing, HDR, retouch. I'm just saying again, to me that's unnecessary even if the raw shots offer better detail.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 21:00:41 No.4139549 Report

Quoted By: >>4139559

>>4139544
Shoulda went nikon F.

High MP looks better scaled down and you can get away with sloppier/bigger edits btw.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 21:15:13 No.4139559 Report

Quoted By:

>>4139549
Maybe and yes. I am fully aware of that. For me, it's a diminishing return.
My dad is in the Canon system, we still share a lot and have the same workflow, even back up our images over the internet to our respective homes and have remote access to the computers. I got my first Canon kit as a gift from him, which was too ample for me at the time. So another DSLR system was never an option for me. I added Sony FE at some point and mainly adapting EF lenses when Canon was still far away from the R6/R5.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Feb 2023 21:33:32 No.4139565 Report

Quoted By:

6mp is enough for websites.
You don't realistically need more than 12. But honestly 16 is kind of an advantage over 12. I used to own a D5000 and was fine with it, however switching to D7000 opened my eyes.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches