Is 36MP excessive?

[Horatio]

I have a Nikon D700, which is 12MP. I'm thinking about buying a D800, which is 3x more resolution. I know I can make bigger, more detailed prints with the larger sensor, but would it help with scanning negatives?

 

[BMbikerider]

I am sure that someone somewhere will disagree, but I sometimes use a D800 and other times a D300s which is of course equipped with a cropped sensor and is 12MP the same as your D700. I rarely print larger than an A3. (cropped) By that I mean I print larger than A3 but only using part of the image. To be honest I doubt if you would be able to tell the difference if you used a very good macro lens and the camera on a tripod or other fixed support a flash or with a remote release.. Perhaps my standards are not as high as some, but there again I don't get my worry beads out when I try something new or a new process- I just to it!
I was told years ago when I hankered after a better lens and one of my mentors asked. 'Do you you use a tripod?' to which I replied that I didn't. I started to and the quality of my negatives improved without an expensive lens purchase.

I am intrigued as to why you need to scan another image, I am a little confused. Answers on a postcard please>

 

[F4U]

I'm a strong subscriber to The Law of Diminishing Returns. Some day they will have 36 trillion megapixels. Will it be of any more use to the average photographer? I doubt it.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Yup.

Back in the day I wouldn't upgrade unless the pixel count doubled. I'm still using a 5ds which is 50mp and see no real reason to upgrade with a newer Canon. In your case going from 12 to 36 is pretty much a no brainer. I am not familiar with Nikon but you may want to go to the last best SLR they made if it is better than the D800 since they will never make another. Food for thought.

 

[wiltw]

The typical 'best' resolution achieved with the 'excellent' film-era lenses on film would measure 84 ll/mm, and only very rarely could 120 ll/mm be achieved.
84 ll/mm with very fine grain film translates to (84*24*2)+1 or 4033 pixels vertically, so the D800 sensor has resolution that matches the typical 'excellent' lens on very high resolution (slow ISO) film. OTOH, your lens becomes the limiting factor in using a camera to convert analog image to digital.

Most film-era lenses rate no better on very fine grain film than 'VG' or about 64 ll/mm, or (64*24*2)+1 or 3073 pixels vertically, so your D70 would not be able to capture all that could be held on very fine grain film.

 

[koraks]

It depends on how big you want to print, in the end. For me, 12mpix maxes out at around 11x14". Beyond that, things start to break down. It's personal and depends on what you're looking for in your print; for me, detail and acutance are key, which means that resolution is an important factor. But not everyone's requirements or photographic approach is the same, so some will argue you can go way bigger at the same resolution.

I am not familiar with Nikon but you may want to go to the last best SLR they made if it is better than the D800 since they will never make another.

I'm not incredibly familiar with the Nikon ecosystem either, but AFAIK the D800 was succeeded by the 850 and the difference between the two in terms of sheer image quality isn't too big. I'm not really sure if anything followed with a significant quality gain within the dSLR ecosystem. Nikon like the others went over to mirrorless, investing their efforts into the Z-system.

I presently use a Nikon D800e which I have on loan side by side with a Canon 7D; so that's 36Mpix vs 18Mpix. The difference in sheer resolution to me is very real, but only for prints bigger than 11x14. Differences in dynamic range and color rendition are much more significant (again, for me). The D800 definitely outperforms the D700 in terms of dynamic range as well. I still consider dynamic range the Achilles heel of digital cameras (if your reference is negative film, which for me it is) so any gains in that area are welcome. For digitizing negatives this is less of an issue because you're not likely to exceed the capabilities of the digital capture device (for slides, this can be a different story).

Keep in mind that when it comes to digitizing film, native mpix isn't really what you end up with in terms of actual resolving power. Something is lost due to the inherent optical imperfections along the way. So would the higher pixel count of the D800 help? Depends - but it sure doesn't hurt any, either.

 

[bdial]

Based on my experience, yes. My first dive into camera digitization was with a Z6 (24 MP). Then I got a D850, using the same lenses, the D850 captures better details from 35mm originals.

 

[4season]

I never met a pixel I didn't like, and both of my primary cameras feature resolution-quadrupling pixel-shift, yielding 20/80 and 60/240 megapixels respectively. The latter is a particular favorite, as it omits the optical low pass filter, yet even with highly resolving lenses, moire is rarely a problem, but the more resolving the imaging sensor + optics, the more demanding it becomes of technique!

But for scanning film, eh, I mostly stick with my Epson V700 flatbed scanner. For color negative film, I have the sense that even 12 megapixels for a 24x36mm image would be plenty. Fujifilm's Velvia is a high-resolution film, but I never shot much of it. Kodak's Tmax is very good, but I still think ~20-24 megapixels (for a 35 mm image) works well.

Have also examined film under a microscope (both optical and digital) and came away thinking that there wasn't much point in higher-res scans.

 

[xkaes]

Based on my experience, yes. My first dive into camera digitization was with a Z6 (24 MP). Then I got a D850, using the same lenses, the D850 captures better details from 35mm originals.

That's to be expected since the D850 has twice the resolution/MP of the Z6.

 

[koraks]

But for scanning film, eh, I mostly stick with my Epson V700 flatbed scanner. For color negative film, I have the sense that even 12 megapixels for a 24x36mm image would be plenty.

Depends on a lot of factors, but IMO this only holds true with relatively low-resolving CN film and an excellent scanning/digitization system. In practice, there's a real benefit (as seen in the final print/the max print size with the imagine still holding up) of digitizing at significantly higher resolutions than this. And 12mpix from a flatbed is just a non-starter; I've done loads of flatbed scans and the main advantage is that this is a fast workflow. In terms of image quality, it's mediocre.

 

[KinoGrafx]

I have a Nikon D700, which is 12MP. I'm thinking about buying a D800, which is 3x more resolution. I know I can make bigger, more detailed prints with the larger sensor, but would it help with scanning negatives?

How much wall space do you have for monumental prints, really… That’s just the way I approach it
As an aside, years ago I “scanned” (with a panasonic gh1) some of my dad’s gorgeous kodachromes shot in the mid 1950’s and then had them printed at 16x20 and they were beautiful.

 

[Paul Howell]

If you want to make large prints with a good amount of detail then moving up to 36 or 40+MP can be a good investment. Question as posed is how many large prints do you have room for? Are you thinking about have a library of images that you intend to rotate? I had it on my list a Sony A99II which is 42Mp, but to process say a 100 raw 42MP images I need to upgrade my PC as well, then how many large prints do I want and can afford to have printed or invest in a large format inkjet printer. In the end I will stick with my Sony A900 or maybe a A99 which is 24MP full frame.

 

[KinoGrafx]

…and just parroting what has been said many times already, nobody looks at a large print with their nose smashed up against it. That’s why billboards are something like 12dpi?

 

[mshchem]

I agree that there's no sense chasing pixels, however, I experienced something surprising yesterday. I was playing with an impulse purchase from a couple years ago. I slapped my oldest lens, Leica Summaron, 5 cm f 2, 1934 vintage, on my M11, being careful not to collapse the lens into the 60 mp sensor. No contrast, as you would expect, I used the rangefinder to focus, took a couple pictures of the wife's coneflowers, zooming all the way, I'm guessing to 2% and there's a big fat bumble bee filling the frame. Sharp no, but imagine what could be accomplished with a modern lens, not necessarily Leica, but a humble 10 year old Voigtlander

My favorite go to camera is Fuji 6x9 rangefinder, kinda like a 60 mp rangefinder, only no dopey computers

 

[beemermark]

It's not the Mp but what each new generation model brings to the table. Higher ISO, lower noise, etc. I have fantastic 11x14 framed pics from my Nikon D200. But they were taken in bright sunlight. My D750 is a far better camera but for my photography I don't see any reason to upgrade.

I always believed that on a film camera 11x14 was probably the maximum you could do with a tripod and careful developing and printing. The other day I was re-re-reading one of my Leica books and a full page print caught my eye. The subject was what was possible with slow film (32 ISO or less) and the best development possible. So the print was like 48x and still sharp (but he grain was a downside). The book was printed in the late '70's and the camera/lens was an M5 and 50 Summicron.

 

[mshchem]

1934 Leitz Summar 50% crop resized from JPEG straight from M11 60 Mpixel sensor. Zoom in on that bee.

 

[mshchem]

91 year old lens!!

 

[Steven Lee]

The megapixel count is incredibly important for scanning film. It affects the character and "roughness" of grain and it's visible even in web-sized images. The lower the megapixel count, the worse grain looks. But when you increase resolution, grain becomes more uniform and less distracting. I like to describe it as "tight". Mind you, it requires a fairly high quality scanning lens, good technique with re-focusing on every frame and eliminating vibrations, and proper handling in RAW processing too.

I have gone through 3 iterations with my scanning rig. In terms of megapixels, I went from 24 to 33 to 60. And each iteration delivered cleaner images than the previous one. Scanning HP5+ for example on anything less than 30MP is butchering it, and that's probably one of the reasons wet printing purists dislike scans. Most of what we see online comes with exagerated grain due to poor scanning.

 

[BMbikerider]

Do you not think past the pixel numbers and consider that an image that has no grain looks artificial? By that I mean it looks too good. This is partially tempered by my consistent use of film as my preferred way of recording a subject. I have no desire to have everything, sorry for this expression - 'picture perfect' 'cos there is nothing that can equal the Mk1 eyeball and what I see is what I want, not something created artificially.

Certain lenses made by Leitz and possibly Zeiss have a quality that equals no other. They may not be the sharpest (I did say certain lenses) but the quality just jumps out at you as being something different. My wife made a statement not long after digital became the new 'kid on the block.' that was it looks artificial and not often do I agree with her, but I do so fully here. Both of us think that images appear more 'rounded' which is an expression which may be difficult to explain, the nearest I can think of being being looking 'natural'

Ask yourself this:- Is the reason I prefer digital over film, is it is easier to get a good picture with less effort? My mind is the more you put into your work, whatever it may be, the more satisfaction you get out of it. The term 'quick fix' comes to mind.

 

[Hassasin]

FIRST and foremost, these are from different digital age, change it and that may be all you will ever need

 

[Chan Tran]

If you use it for scanning negative that is larger than 35mm then it's useful. For 35mm there is no need. 12MP is about right for 35mm negative. For use as digital camera the 36MP is helpful when you have to crop.

 

[benveniste]

…and just parroting what has been said many times already, nobody looks at a large print with their nose smashed up against it. That’s why billboards are something like 12dpi?

Billboards are designed to be viewed as whole at distance. That's not always the case.

One specific use case is group portraits, where people do get "close in" to look at the people in the picture they know. Another case is when a landscape or street shot shows a sign -- people will get close in attempt to read the sign. Ditto to identify flowers in a landscape. Still another case is macro photography of coins and jewelry.

I did switch from a Nikon D200 (DX, 10 megapixels) to a D800 (36 megapixels). But then again, I also shot 645 and 4x5 inch film to record more detail.