resolve not to resolve?

[Rockmeister]

Having dug out and digitised some old fuji slide film, I got into old file resurection and was liking how the D90's 12mp performed whilst I was on my hols in new york 8 yrs back. It occurs to me that unless texture (in close up) or detail is vital for the message of our snaps, then 12mp is actually quite fine. In fact it concentrates the eye on colour, tone and composition which are, in some cases, most important. Why can't we choose how many MP our sensor uses? I'd quite like a lower resolution at times. This for example seems quite enough detail to me (Nikon D90, kit lens, 12mp JPEG)
slice5 by John Dutfield, on Flickr

 

[eternumviti]

Some of my best photos were taken on a D80 (10.5mp?) and they happily enlarge to excellent sub A3 prints. I subsequently used a D7000 (16mp) for some years, now have a D7200 (24mp). The pixel counts make very little if any practical or aesthetic difference, and I have exhibited photos from all three cameras side by side with no loss to the D80. The files from the D7200 are easier to work with, and even JPEGS have far greater latitude in terms of DR, but that's about it. I love the D80's files, and prefer them to the D7000.

 

[Rockmeister]

I agree...is there, does anyone know, a technical reason why a sensor can't contain a small prog which allows the user to select the number of pixels to use? Esp since IIRC, the fewer pixels on a large sensor, the better the dynamic range. Or do I have that muddled?

 

[sq225917]

Do you mean just use a portion of the sensor?

 

[Rockmeister]

Do you mean just use a portion of the sensor?

I guess so, but of the implications, I have no idea !

 

[Stunsworth]

Create an action in your photo editor of choice to resize the image.

 

[Stunsworth]

By the way, the in camera version of what you’re looking for is known as ‘Pixel Binning’.

 

[Rockmeister]

I guess so, but of the implications, I have no idea !

does this alter the actual resolution per sq inch? Pixel binning sounds close, but the Nikon menu shows no way to do this. I an ofc alter file size but it still uses all 24 MP but simply shrinks the image. Not what I want.

 

[sq225917]

Pixel size is fixed on the sensor, all cameras interpolare and dither to reduce noise. Being able to control this would give some funky results

 

[Mr Cat]

I'm sure there's a setting on some cameras - not sure if it only to JPEG (as opposed to RAW) where you could select such image quality...see here for example with a canon -
https://industrydev.com/how-to-set-the-photo-quality-in-your-canon-rebel-dslr-camera/

 

[Barrymagrec]

I agree...is there, does anyone know, a technical reason why a sensor can't contain a small prog which allows the user to select the number of pixels to use? Esp since IIRC, the fewer pixels on a large sensor, the better the dynamic range. Or do I have that muddled?

There is no actual connection between definition (number of pixels) and contrast range (bit depth) but for greater bit depth you obviously need more bits in the A to D converter which can be an issue with conversion speed, also, obviously the greater the bit depth the greater the memory required for a given number of pixels.

 

[Mr Cat]

I think rocky must have me on ignore..

 

[Rockmeister]

No Catty ...It's just that I don't think anyone quite 'gets' what I'm on about. Mea Culpa.

 

[Goldenmouse]

I don't think anyone quite 'gets' what I'm on about.

With all due respect Rocky ‘twas ever thus’.

 

[Bananahead]

You need to get yourself a Canon

Image Size

3:2 ratio (L, RAW, C-RAW) 6720x4480, (M1) 4464x2976, (S1) 3360x2240, (S2) 1696x1280
1.6x (crop) (L) 4176x2784, (S2) 2400x1600
4:3 ratio (L) 5952x4480, (M1) 3968x2976, (S1) 2976x2240, (S2) 2112x1600
16:9 ratio (L) 6720x3776, (M1) 4464x2512, (S1) 3360x1888, (S2) 2400x1344
1:1 ratio (L) 4480x4480, (M1) 2976x2976, (S1) 2240x2240, (S2) 1600x1600

 

[Cesare]

Yeah, just choose a different resolution to save at would appear to be the solution. The thing about sensor manufacture is that the cost is for the size of the sensor, not what you put on it. The reality is that making a 12mp full frame sensor costs the same as making a 50mp full frame sensor, so there is no point making lower resolution sensors other than to boost what you think you can charge for the higher res ones

I have a number of 'lower' resolution sensor cameras, and haven't really found any limitation. My Mamiya ZD for example is 22mp, but is medium format (1.1x crop of 645 format, with a 48 * 36 mm sensor) and this works really nicely. If you work that down to nikon crop size it'd be a 6mp sensor but scaled up somewhat.

I think the sweet spot for images is in the 12mp or so size, since it makes the files quick to edit, look great on screen, and print as large as you are likely to ever need without a problem. Add a few extra mp to allow for cropping if you need it, and the 16mp - 20mp is just about perfect with loads of storage space. In addition you get away with less than perfect lenses and hand holding when really you should be using a tripod. If you head out with a 50mp camera, all you spend your time doing in my opinion is realising the limits of physics (diffraction limited), the limits of your lenses, or the wobble of the earth on it's axis messing up your exposures

 

[Rockmeister]

With all due respect Rocky ‘twas ever thus’.

both unfair and accurate

 

[Darren555]

A sensor where you can dial in the resolution so for example, you can pick 12-16MP but very high ISO performance or 45MP for a low ISO high DR landscape image is the digital camera nirvana but we aren’t close to being there yet.

 

[tuga]

A sensor where you can dial in the resolution so for example, you can pick 12-16MP but very high ISO performance or 45MP for a low ISO high DR landscape image is the digital camera nirvana but we aren’t close to being there yet.

You'd probably need interchangeable sensors...or two bodies:

Sony Alpha a7S II - 12MP / ISO 50 to 409,600 (high-sensitivity 'S' model)
Sony a7R II - 42MP (high-resolution 'R' model)