Human Eye ... a 576MP marvel .... but u need only 7 :)

Today i came across a very interesting video about a camera lenses which is compared with Human vision. Human Eye ..... A medical marvel ..... only God/ALLAH can create. Ask any medical students/Doctors how difficult an eye internal structure is. 

I am sure many of you have came across a post which says that human eye resolution is 576 mega pixels .... Right! Ever wonder how this number came up? It was calculated based many factor which you will find on below link. 

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html

The eye is not a single frame snapshot camera. It is more like a video stream. The eye moves rapidly in small angular amounts and continually updates the image in one's brain to "paint" the detail. We also have two eyes, and our brains combine the signals to increase the resolution further. We also typically move our eyes around the scene to gather more information. Because of these factors, the eye plus brain assembles a higher resolution image than possible with the number of photoreceptors in the retina. So the megapixel equivalent numbers above refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.

But here is a surprise ..... out of those so called 576 Mega Pixels, we need only 7 Mega Pixels to view any thing/scene or stare in general .... & besides that one stare we need only 1 Mega Pixel to view the surrounding which mostly ignore by our brain including nose and glasses that are coming in our vision but our brain ignores it. Cannot believe it? .... Close your one eye & see.  Check out below link for a very interesting video explaining much more on this. 

http://gizmodo.com/what-is-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye-1541242269

Ok ..... Enough with the resolution. Now lets talk about focal length which caused me to writing this blog. 

If we try to replicate our eye focal length range into one lens, it is impossible at this point in time. May be in future any technology advancement can do that .... just may be. Our eye can see as wide as 150 degree which is equivalent to 5mm super ultra wide angle lens .... to .... recognising the small letters in book which is nearly 1 degree equivalent to 2500mm super ultra telephoto lens. So you getting the extreme dimension here .... from 5mm <----> 2500mm ..... all variation of these focal length is happening inside our eye. Now thats a medical marvel. I doubt i able to see any such lens at least not in my lifetime which can vary to these extreme values (in a single housing). Adding further, then we try to focus on a letter or a face, the 1 degree view kicks in (with 7 mega pixel resolution of course) and image made on "Fovea" which is a pitfall over a Retina inside of our eye ball .... a very tiny spot which is made of hundreds of thousands of optical nerves and other stuff (medical student s/Doctors knows what i am talking here). 

On the other hand, if we are standing still and trying to move around our eyes we can see almost 150 degree of view (equivalent of 5mm lens) which makes 576 MP of "snap shot" (in theory) but our eyes are capturing not a snap shot, they are constantly streaming live video stream  as mentioned above at many frames per seconds using 2 streams (2 eyes) and BRAIN process them one by eliminating unnecessary stuff like nose and glasses and this happening 24x7x365xYour total life. Even right now you are reading this line using 7MP of your eyes resolution and almost 2500mm of equivalent of focal length "Settings" inside of your eyes .... ignoring the rest of the screen  & world (or shall i say ignoring the rest of the 569 MP of your eye) of your laptop/computer/mobile. 

In last, there is a "general setting" of our eye which is called central retina which is equivalent of 38mm (50 degree) . Note that this focal length is vary from person to person ..... say from 28mm ~ 40mm. But in general its scaled mean value to 38mm. This is something you are viewing any thing in general or sitting in the cinema and trying to get back row seat to get complete view of the screen ..... rather then sitting in the front row and constantly move your head left to right trying to grab the movie. This focal length is basically derives the famous 35mm focal length on which almost all of the world MOBILE CAMERA are calibrated. Thats why all photo journalist prefer to work with 35mm focal length prime lens because it gives more of realistic view of any normal human vision as what we see & how we see the world. In short ..... 35mm focal length is the most used focal length in human history. 

Actually below image caused me writing this blog which was from a paid workshop over Nikon lenses from famous photographer John Greengo. Later i did some google and added couple of links above to add additional human eye mega pixel flavour to make something interesting & some additional info for learning purpose. 

Now just think for a second .... how much powerful human eye is. How the mighty one created something that we as a human is yet to discover and understands many hidden feature of human body. 

Till next time ..... Happy Learning Guys !

Babar Swaleheen

Facebook , Twitter , Flickr , 500px , YouPic

BBM Pin: 75DEED40

35mm Prime Shoot Out ....

So the other day one of my friend at work who owns multiple Zeiss lenses, was telling me to go at least ones in my life for Zeiss lens and test it. So i took the liberty and asked him to lend me his Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 ZF.2 lens. Note that Carl Zeiss makes only MANUAL FOCUS LENSES. 

I took the lens in the office and had it coupled with my D810. Then i requested another friend of mine at work and asked him to be my model which he happily did .... and i was blown away with the image that i had from the Zeiss :) 

Note that this image is right from the camera (SOOC) and no editing or retouching done. Not to mention that Carl Zeiss makes only manual focus lenses. Hi-Res can be viewed using this link.

After watching the Zeiss performance i thought to start compare it with the 35mm that i own (two of them). I have one cheap glass from Samyung 35mm f/1.4 & another is old pal from Nikon 35mm f/2D. Then i requested another friend of mine to give me Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art series lens.



Note: Being a Nikon shooter you will not find the canon in the below list. So Canon shooters can stop reading here if they like.

Now i have following 4 champions to compare .....

A- Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 ZF.2 (S1000)
B- Nikon 35mm f/2D ($330)
C- Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Art Series ($900)
D- Samyumg 35mm f/1.4 ($400)

So i have tested the famous photography term "BOKEH" first .... because thats what these lenses are famous for. I coupled each of them over my D750. I went outdoor near by park with some far street to have them as a Bokeh. First i choose flower first as a foreground subject and the street light to have some Bokeh. But due to heavy wind, the flower was constantly swinging and i was not able to capture the flower tek-sharp even at higher shutter speed. 

So later i decided not worry about much over the foreground subject sharpness and focus only at the Bokeh at the background. For the sharpness i have done indoor test shot which you will find below in the end. 

So here is the first Test shot of the Bokeh from lens-A (Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/35 ZF.2)

You can download this file using this link

Followed by lens-B (Nikon 35mm f/2D)

You can download this file using this link

Followed by lens-C (Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Art Series)

You can download this file using this link

Finally lens-D (Samyung f/1.4)

You can download this file using this link

Now surprisingly i have found Nikon 35mm f/2D the "least" minimum focus distance (0.85 foot) in compared to the rest of the 3 which all got 1 foot, thats why you can see bigger Bokeh created by Nikon lens even @ f/2.

Now the next topic is Sharpness. How Sharp each lens is .... lets find out. 

But before we head for the comparison, note that i have used my camera in manual focus mode, used the "live view" and "zoom +" button to make sure it is really sharp and then took the shot. The camera was in manual mode with AUTO WB & AUTO ISO. Aperture was open to maximum for all 4 lenses. 

Here all 4 lens sharpness in one shot to compare. 

Zeiss result

You can see the Hi-Res file using this link

Nikon result

You can see the Hi-Res file using this link

Sigma Art Series result

You can see the Hi-Res file using this link

Samyung lens result

You can see the Hi-Res file using this link

All offers heavy vignette at the maximum aperture except Carl Zeiss which offer least vignette & this shows the clear superior optical quality and colour rendering offers by Carl Zeiss distagon which is a manual focus lens. In this world .... quality comes with a price and you will be paying the most to get the best which is Carl Zeiss. But will you able to sacrifice the auto focus thing against the superior optical quality .... at the heaviest price from the list?  I am just wondering .... if this normal Zeiss lens is performing top notch .....Imagine how OTUS going to deliver the quality !!!!!!!

But ..... in my humble opinion ..... all this comparison comes down to your budget & your skill set. I have shooted images with all 4 of them. Apparently the most low quality colour rendering lens among the list is Samyung which producing yellowish tone image and it also a manual focus lens (second cheapest among the list). I have some stunning & tek-Sharp images from it. Take a look on a sample image using this link. You already experienced the Zeiss result at the top of this blog. Then i left with Nikon & new Sigma Art Series which i will check later in detail

Honestly speaking the most budgetary lens with better sharpness even @ f/2 (due to less focus distance) and able to deliver most contrasty images is Nikon old Pal .... 35mm f/2D. Not to mention it can Auto Focus but only over full frame & D7X00 crop bodies. No Auto focus offers over D5X00 & D3X00 crop bodies.

On Long term basis, Sigma is not a good choice. Even it offers superior optical quality and Auto Focus ability and with little less price with almost near-to-quality to the Carl Zeiss, but they are made for the current generation of the camera. Imagine if you change the body after few years and if not work on the new one? Atleast with the similar brand lenses, you have very very rare chances of compatibility issue.

Hope you all will find this blog interesting & help you choose the best 35mm lens as per your taste & budget.

Happy learning Guys.

Babar-Photography

Facebook , Twitter , Flickr , 500px , YouPic

BBM Pin: 75DEED40

Nikon vs Canon ..... heads-on

The legendary war between Nikon & Canon .... it was there even before the first world war .... and its still here as i am writing this Blog ... 

Well so whats new in this blog .... well lately i have done something not regular .... As most people know i am one loyal Nikon user .... i bought Canon 7D mark II .... why ? because now i want to explore the other side of the window .... As my most countryman yelling about Canon all the time .... and act as a die hard fan .... so want to see whats so much special about Canon ....

(Note: This comparison is only for the sensor performance .... nothing more .... i am not comparing 7D mark II AF system or any other parameter with Nikon)

So buying canon body is not the only thing i did .... you need lenses .... for normal usage i have the famous lens that almost all canon user have with their full frame bodies hooked up all the time .... 24-105mm f/4L lens .... but over the crop body of 7Dmk2 i am not able to get the most from the lens due to the crop factor of 1.6


Any ways ... lets cut to the chase ....


Today i have compared the 7Dmk2 crop body sensor with Nikon D750 !!!!! ...... wait a min .... how can i compare the crop body with full frame body ??????  Right ...!!!!

Well first off .... i dont have any Nikon crop body .... sold my D7100 long time back .... and then i have done something extra with D750 .... i have used my D750 full frame body in "DX" (crop mode) so instead of using the 36x24mm of the sensor area .... camera only use the 24x16mm sensor area which behaves exactly like the crop body in terms of Dynamic Range and ISO performance etc etc

I have used the famous Nikon wide angle lens 14-24mm f/2.8G lens which is the optical marvel in our present time and delivers the sharpest details across all the aperture values. So that lens is works fine over the Nikon body and deliver all the lens EXIF details from the lens CPU to the camera body which you will find the RAW file that i will be sharing in the end of this blog.

What about using this lens over the Canon body?  ....

Well for that i have used special adaptor which is called "Fotodiox Lens Mount Adapter" using which you can use any Nikon lens (G-Type or D-Type) over Canon body. The beauty of using this adapter is, you can control the aperture opening. Obviously you cannot dial-in the exact aperture value like f/4 or f/8 etc .... but you can easily dial f/2.8 or f/16  .... by fully open or fully close the aperture ..... sweet right :D ... well for other value, you needs practice ... thats all i can say ....

Here is the link for this adaptor along with the details ...

Fotodiox Lens Mount Adapter


So ones you mount the adapter over the canon body, you can easily mount the Nikon lens on it and then start shooting.... obviously you not able to see the aperture value which you need to manual adjust by moving the blue knob (showed in the video how to do it) .... but i was kind a surprise to see the 7Dmk2 internal camera meters the scene and was telling about the scene for its exposure. Based on that i had adjusted my ISO & Shutter speed which you see in the below images ....


After i have adjusted my Nikon D750 into DX mode i have shot some sample images and then shot the same scene with canon 7D mark II ..... used the same lens Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 on both bodies ... and used the same  Aperture, ISO & Shutter Speed for the shots .... lets start looking at the images below .... note that the images on the left is from Canon 7D mark II and the one at the right side is from D750 (in DX mode).

Images at left from Canon 7D mark II & right from Nikon D750

at 100% Zoom 

So you can all witness the Canon 7D mark II sensor performance here from the above images. I tried to be neutral as much as i can but still if you guys have any doubt ... I am sharing the RAW files of these 2 images (one from Canon & one from Nikon) to play with and see the result by yourself  and see who is the winner .... its you photographers who going to decide .... Not me :D


I also shot a small video for this test that i had done using Nokia Lumia 1020 :)  ... you can watch that video using below link


Testing Canon 7D mark II sensor


In the end i like to add one note here. The newly announce Canon MP monster 5DS/5DSR are both build on the same pixel pitch of 7D mark II which is "4.1µm" . So if you think 7D mark II sensor is not upto the mark when it comes to recovering the details from underexpose images ... Then dont expect much from 5DS/5DSR due to the same pixel density.


You can download the sample RAW files & the above comparison images in Hi-Resolution using below link.

Sample RAW Files from Canon & Nikon


Thanks for reading this blog. Hope you guys fine this blog informative.


Happy Learning Guys !!!

Babar-Photography

Facebook , Twitter , Flickr , 500px , YouPic

BBM Pin: 75DEED40

Windows of the Photography

Now this may sounds like we are talking about some operating system of a computer .... right !

Well not exactly .... i am here referring all those windows which we have in our home in every room, door ways & hall from which sunlight or any other kind of source of light get enter and we can use this light to capture stunning images/portraits.

So why windows? Why not door? ... why not any other structure available in home from which light can be passes ? ..... Well answer is .... we can use almost any structure inside out home from which light can be passes and get modified in flattering way ....

When i started photography i use to capture images of my kids at home .... At that time i didn't have any flash or any other light source. So i practiced a lot at home over my kids using window light as its almost available instantly with any effort and kids are familiar with it.

Later i found out that many great photographers also using the same "Window" Technique to get the flattering effect of light and get very stunning portraits. That's one of the another reason why windows light is used to so much for "Black and White" images because of its flattering and "Wrap around" kind of effect. I will show some examples shortly below what i mean by "wrap around" effect.

So how u starts using window light? .... you might be thinking you go near to the window and just start taking images !!!!! ..... well yes exactly thats how you kick off :) .... You take the model .... place it at the side of the window and start taking images.


Note that there are different types of light coming from window .... for example ..

1- Hard Direct Sunlight which comes straight into the room through windows which we often blocked using window curtain. Not a pleasing light at the first place. Most probably you need to diffuse it before you use. So how we can diffuse it? .... Simple .... Used any plain shower curtain and put it over the window to diffuse the light .... Or .... Use any white bedsheet to put it over the window and get diffuse light ..... or just simply pull off the window curtain to block/diffuse it (note that the diffusion of such light will heavily be depending on the type of your window curtain). The more layers of shower curtain/bedsheet you going to use .... the more light going to diffuse and get flattering effect. But yes, it does requires some extra effort before you use it.

2- Side Sunlight which usually harsh and direct during noon time but when sun goes to set it becomes softer due to sun position. So the best time to use such light is either 10 o'clock when Sun is not much high ..... or 4 o'clock when sun is going to set. You cannot use such light in the middle of the day. Well yes you can but you need to work on the window light to diffuse it as per above point.

3- Bounce Sunlight which usually get inside from window by getting bounce from any near by structure or building. Such light is already diffused and flattered and can be used directly.

Fortunately i am getting Type-3 light from above list at my home .... My bedroom windows is facing another big apartment building. So logically sunlight suppose to be block. But the direction of Sunset was at the "BACK" of my apartment so light fall straight at the building which is in front of my apartment .... gets  modified/flattered/diffused and then get inside my bedroom through the windows glass and curtain which further double diffuse the light to give me perfect soft, wrapping light. Below are the few examples which i shot at home.

So as you can see .... all images above images are taken using light coming from window .... nothing more.

So how harsh direct Sunlight is going to be? .... Take a look below for sample image. The harsh light is always edgy and not pleasing unless you not use it directly or digitally modified. Another point one need to learn that ... the far model is from the window ... the more harsh light is going to be ..... the more close you are from the window .... the more soft kind of effect you will get from the same harsh direct sunlight. Check below first 3 images where the models are far from the window so for them light was harsh ... direct and very edgy .... where as in the 04th image, the same direct sunlight was producing kind a soft wrapping light kind a effect even model is right next to the window wearing sun-glasses to avoid direct light.

In below image, the mode is close to the window thats why you can see soft wrapping of light kind a effect unlike above 3 images. All this happening due to "Inverse Square Law". 

In below image, i have deliberately positioned the model in a specific way so her face down get blown out due to harsh sun light .... I used direct sunlight as a source to illuminate model side way only ....

(This image is taken using Nokia 808 Pure View)

I have been told by one great photographer that .... the bigger the "Aperture" or opening of the window .... the more flattering and diffuse image is going to be. So i thought to give my self a try .... Below are the sample images. The first two images are taken inside the parking lot which got massive opening outside towards the sun.

The below image is result of big glass wall where the intensity of light is controlled by "Curtains" of the window which act exactly like "Aperture" of the camera. You can change the intensity of the light by opening or closing the curtains of the window.

Oh ..... i almost forget about the doors. What happens if we use door as an example. Lets take a look.

So above images clearly shows one thing .... the bigger the the door .. the more "wrap around" of light you will have.

Even you can use window light to capture Professional Portrait for Linkedin .....

To sum things up in the end .... i would like to stress on one thing .... As you can see ... almost all of the images you have seen so far in this blog are B&W images .... why is that ? .... reason is simple ... i have found window light the best source to get the flattering effect which i always need for B&W images .... such light gives me soft wrapping effect as i explained above by keeping the model close to the window and at the same time i can use high contrast in post processing to get the punchy feeling which is the core beauty of B&W images.

So if you have prime lens (say 35mm or 50mm f/1.8 lens) .... and a window at your home (for sure you will have it) ..... you can take unlimited stunning images inside your home at any point of time when sun is up in the sky. No need to go outside. There are many many world famous photographers out there who are using only and only window as a light source to take their model images.

So enjoy more B&W images which i capture using Window Light ..... or in short .... WINDOWS OF PHOTOGRAPHY and see their different effects as per SUN position ..... :)

Happy Learning Guys !!!

Babar-Photography

Facebook , Twitter , Flickr , 500px , YouPic

BBM Pin: 75DEED40

Do we really need more Mega Pixels?

This is long pending blog which i have been requested few months back from one of a leading Photographer of Pakistan to let amateur photographer the need or no-need of "Mega Pixels" ...

Mega Pixel war is not new .... its bin here since the dawn of the digital photography era. There is a great deal of importance placed on the issue of megapixels in the world of digital photography to the point that it’s the first question you ask: “How many megapixels does your camera have?”  It’s even gotten to the point where “low” megapixel cameras are almost seen as inferior to “high” megapixel cameras. Is this actually the case?

Consumers have come to believe that the more megapixels the better the camera. Is this true? Let’s get the answer to this question out of the way right now: “NO!” A better question to ask is “Do I need a camera with loads of megapixels?” Well, that depends. Let me explain further.

Putting it simply, more megapixels does NOT mean a “better” camera or a give you “higher quality” photograph.  So, what’s the big deal about megapixels?

So, What Are These “Megapixels” Anyway?

In every digital camera, the image is captured by a image sensor. In a digital SLR, when you click the shutter button, light travels through the lens and hits the image sensor at the back of the camera. The image sensor is made up of millions of “pixels”.  One megapixel equals “one million pixels”.  Think of pixels as microscopic “buckets” that capture light. These buckets or pixels are laid out on an image sensor in checkerboard fashion.

For example a typical digital SLR at the lower end of the price scale may have an image sensor with an array of 3,888 pixels by 2,592 pixels. Doing the math, 3,888 x 2,592 = 10,077,696 pixels, which is approximately 10 megapixels.

At the other end of the spectrum, a top-of-the-line digital SLR might have an image sensor with an array of 5,616 pixels by 3,744 pixels. Again, doing the math, this works out to 21,026,304 pixels or approximately 21 megapixels (The famous 5D Mark II) .... or Like Nikon D800/D800E/D810 with whooping 7360 x 4912  pixels equal 36.15 Mega Pixels.

Putting it simply,

• Megapixels represent how many pixels or buckets are available on the camera’s image sensor to catch the light coming into the camera when taking a picture.
• The more megapixels, the higher the resolution of the photos, meaning the more “detail” in the photograph

More Megapixels Does Not Necessarily Mean “Better”

So which is better? The 10 megapixel camera or the 21 megapixel camera? Well, the answer is, it depends! Obviously, the more pixels a camera has, the more detail (or resolution) the image will have since there are more “buckets” of light that have been captured. But does this translate to “sharper” images? Not necessarily!

Let’s suppose I took a picture with a 4 megapixel camera and a 10 megapixel camera and then I print both pictures to the size 5 inches by 7 inches. Which picture will look sharper? The fact is that they will both look identical. You will not be able to tell the difference. At this size, it is too small for the number of pixels to make a difference to the naked eye.

On the other hand, if I were to enlarge both pictures to 11 inches by 14 inches, the 10 megapixel photo would now begin to look noticeably sharper compared to the 4 megapixel photo which would look grainer or “noisier”. Why is that? Because the larger the printed image becomes, the more the individual pixels begin to show.  If there are more pixels to start with, for example with a 10 megapixel camera compared to a 4 megapixel camera, then the more you can enlarge the photo before each of the individual pixels begin to show. Take a look at the bottom image ....

How many megapixels do you really need?

It depends on how large a sharp print one wants to make. For sharp prints use the formula: print width x 300 x print length x 300. You can relax the quality by changing the 300 value to 240. Much below 240 and the perceived print quality drops rapidly. Megapixel needs are shown in the table:

	Number of megapixels for given print quality
Print size (inches)	300 pixels/inch	240 pixels/inch
4 x 6	2.2	1.4
5 x 7	3.2	2.0
8 x10	7.2	4.6
11 x14	13.9	8.9
16 x20	28.8	18.4

Sensor Size and Picture Quality

The size of a camera's image sensor is the main determinant of picture quality and the larger the sensor area, the higher the potential for producing top-quality digital pictures. Equally important is the size of the actual photosites (buckets as mentioned above) on the sensor that collect the image-making light. The larger the photosites, the more light they can collect and, consequently, the more image data they make available to the camera's image processor. (Details of how to calculate the size of sensor photosites are provided below.

Sensor "Type"	Imaging Area dimensions (width x height x diameter in mm)
1/2.7-inch (mobile)	5.37 x 4.04 x 6.72
1/2.5-inch (mobile)	5.76 x 4.29 x 7.18
1/1.8-inch	7.18 x 5.32 x 8.93
1/1.7-inch	7.6 x 5.7 x 9.5
2/3-inch	8.8 x 6.6 x 11.07
Four Thirds (Point and Shoot)	18.0 x 13.5 x 22.5
APS-C (Canon )	22.2 x 14.8 x 26.7
APS-C (Nikon)	23.7 x 15.7 x 28.4
APS-C (Sony)	23.6 x 15.8 x 28.4
(Canon professional DSLR)	28.1 x 18.7 x 33.8
Full Frame (=35mm frame)	36 x 24 x 44.3

Advantages of having Lower Mega Pixels for better ISO

Now this is noticeable thing .... Why DSLR with much higher ISO range have less mega pixels? Here is the list of the high-end camera with the fewer & higher mega pixels ... along with their highest available ISO ranges. Check it out.

If you notice, the lower the resolution, the better the ISO performance. Why is that??? 

Here is the deal ... what happens is, In above list all cameras are full frame. So it means the sensor size in all cameras are 36mm x 24mm. So what happening is regardless of how many MP are there, they are ending up fitting in into the same 36mm x 24mm sensor. Its like you are trying to push 12, 16, 18, 21, 22 or 36 people into 36 x 24 feet room. The more the people into the room the less the space they will going to get into the room which in this case is calls "Pixel Pitch". 

If you look at the last line which is pixel pitch which is the "width/space" of the photosites (or buckets or simply calls PIXELS) which captures the light. The more the width of the photosites, the better its capture light which means "LESS NOISE". Thats why few years back, many camera manufactures prefer to have less MP for better low light performance of the sensor. D700 is the perfect example of it. Regardless it got the 01st generation of EXPEED processor which was very slow when it comes to Noise Reduction, its pixel width was the biggest from above list which means its sensor was better in capturing low light with less noise in compared to all in the above list. I personally shot D700 at 8000 ISO and still it was less noise even though it got old processor. Imagine if it gets new EXPEED 4 processor. It will blow everything away. Nikon Df is one of the perfect example of it. Though its not a direct replacement of D700 but its more or like it. With no video feature just like D700, and less mega pixels ... in addition to it new EXPEED 3 processor, its ISO capability range shoots upto 204800 ISO makes it equals to D4 which is a Pro Body.  

In opposite to that, logically speaking if we have more mega pixels which will leads to smaller pixel width which means higher noise into the image. How is that possible? more pixel leads to noise !!!!!! 

Imagine, there is a room of 36x24 feet. Instead of 12 people i pushed 36 people into it. What will happen? well at first people will have less space (less pixel width) and if i give them task to do (capturing light in this case) there will be more noise and chaos in the room in compared of if i request the same task to 12 people which leads to the less noise and less Chaotic. D800 is the perfect example of it. But Nikon new EXPEED 3 processor was designed to combat this situation of higher noise and able to control the ISO upto 25,600 but not more. Canon on other hand played wisely and able to balance the higher resolution vs noise factor in their new camera body line up. I personally believe thats one of the reason Canon is not offering anything beyond 22.3 mega pixels because of the higher noise induction factor due to more mega pixels cramping into small space. 

In todays hi-tech world, technology evolved and new micro processor  played a vital role in digital imagining with incredible noise reduction performance. EXPEED 4 from Nikon & DIGIC 5+ from Canon are the leading examples. 

Enough with the pixels vs noise, switching back to the reality. Do we really need higher mega pixels? 

Well if you ask me, 12MP is more then enough. To print standard A4 paper in reality we need only 8MP. You need higher resolution for printing billboards. So dont get into this marketing stuff that higher resolution leads to better image quality. Yes you will get better resolution which you can use to crop the images which often need but not the better image. If you take crappy pictures with 36MP cameras, still it is going to be crappy image :) . 

And practically speaking when the last time you print your image? We always upload our images over the social media where it end up in compressed and less quality format regardless of any higher resolution camera we used .... that includes your 8MP iPhone :) 

So this is to address the question ..... do we really need more mega pixels ..... practical answer .... NO!

Happy learning guys !

Babar-Photography

Facebook , Twitter , Flickr , 500px , YouPic

BBM Pin: 75DEED40