| Author |
Message |
kz8rt3
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
In article <MPG.1d6af70034c8e373989842@news.verizon.net>,
Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <kz8rt3-8E0389.16055015082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3@mail.com says...
I really depends on the subject matter. I can blow up cloud pictures
huge and still have them look acceptable because... well, clouds don't
have a lot of fine detail.
Detail is not everything.
Did I say it was?
|
No, you didn't. That is why I added it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kz8rt3
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
In article <MPG.1d6af6f0e7ce9abd989841@news.verizon.net>,
Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:
| Quote: | In article <kz8rt3-B59A45.16051915082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3@mail.com says...
I'm sure with creative upsampling and sharpening you could probably make
a 16x20 print that satisfies YOU from a 6 megapixel camera. Will it
satisfy me? Probably not.
Sharpness is not everything.
Did I say it was?
|
No, you didn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Baird
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
In article <kz8rt3-B59A45.16051915082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3@mail.com says...
| Quote: | I'm sure with creative upsampling and sharpening you could probably make
a 16x20 print that satisfies YOU from a 6 megapixel camera. Will it
satisfy me? Probably not.
Sharpness is not everything.
|
Did I say it was?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Baird
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
In article <kz8rt3-8E0389.16055015082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3@mail.com says...
| Quote: | I really depends on the subject matter. I can blow up cloud pictures
huge and still have them look acceptable because... well, clouds don't
have a lot of fine detail.
Detail is not everything.
|
Did I say it was?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
frederick
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
Tony Polson wrote:
| Quote: | David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote:
(Kodak Film scientist in a prior issue of Photonics magazine said color
film had an estimated 25MP or so of image detail - not counting the B&W
techpan - so we know that less than that simply isn't up to the best
film can produce.)
Just because film can, in ideal conditions, produce image quality that
is comparable to a 25 MP digital camera doesn't mean that everyone
needs to buy a 25 MP camera.
25 MP probably represents the best that the best film can produce when
scanned on the best scanners. For example, scanning Fuji Provia 100F
at 5400 dpi (39.1 MP) produces images that aren't significantly better
than at 4000 dpi (21.4 MP). The extra information just isn't there.
But 99.9% of 35mm photography is of far lower quality than this.
People using consumer-grade print film and having it developed and
printed at the average minilab might never need more than a 3 MP or 4
MP digital camera to get the same, or better results. That's why the
current ranges of 6 MP and 8 MP DSLR cameras can all produce images
that many people consider to be significantly *superior* to film.
|
Well stated Tony.
I think I've posted this link before:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
Luminous Landscape's take of Provia 100f vs a 5 year old, 3.3mp dslr... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg Campbell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:06 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
David P. Summers wrote:
| Quote: | I went and looked at the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel XT. The view
finder ont he Nikon was better. On the Nikon I could tell if the picture
was in focus easier and it took more care to manually focus with the
Canon (at first I thought I couldn't focus it all, but it turned out
part of that was that I needed to adjust the diopter setting). I know
I'll be manually focuses most of the time, but I will want to check the
autofocus, if I have time, and there may be few cases were I need to
manually focus. Now clearly this is subjective, but the trade-off is
versus the 6 Megapixels for the Nikon vis-a-vis 8 on the Canon. So....
I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
think having 8 megapixels is?
|
You're looking at 15% greater linear resolution. With all the other
variables that affect image sharpness, that doesn't amount to much...
People get all hung up on dpi and MP while forgetting about lens
quality, 'sweet spot' aperture, camera shake, focusing error, etc. -
all of which have a much greater impact on image clarity.
(IMO, 'upgrading' from 6 to 8 has more to do with bragging rights and
'gotta keep up" insecurity than image quality.)
If all other things are equal, sure get the 8MP. If the extra cost
means you'll need to get a cheaper lens, or cut back on required
accesories, get the 6MP and don't look back.
-Greg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rod Williams
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:58 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
Greg Campbell wrote:
| Quote: | David P. Summers wrote:
I went and looked at the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel XT. The view
finder ont he Nikon was better. On the Nikon I could tell if the
picture was in focus easier and it took more care to manually focus
with the Canon (at first I thought I couldn't focus it all, but it
turned out part of that was that I needed to adjust the diopter
setting). I know I'll be manually focuses most of the time, but I will
want to check the autofocus, if I have time, and there may be few
cases were I need to manually focus. Now clearly this is subjective,
but the trade-off is versus the 6 Megapixels for the Nikon vis-a-vis 8
on the Canon. So....
I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
think having 8 megapixels is?
You're looking at 15% greater linear resolution. With all the other
variables that affect image sharpness, that doesn't amount to much...
People get all hung up on dpi and MP while forgetting about lens
quality, 'sweet spot' aperture, camera shake, focusing error, etc. - all
of which have a much greater impact on image clarity.
(IMO, 'upgrading' from 6 to 8 has more to do with bragging rights and
'gotta keep up" insecurity than image quality.)
If all other things are equal, sure get the 8MP. If the extra cost
means you'll need to get a cheaper lens, or cut back on required
accesories, get the 6MP and don't look back.
-Greg
You will be able to crop a little more with 8MP but my theory is if you |
have to crop very often and very much you are probably shooting it wrong
in the first place. I have an XT and went with the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5
USMII lens and didn't get the kit lens. So far a pretty nice
combination. I got a good deal on the camera and lens for under $1000,
three months ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:30 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
Greg Campbell wrote:
| Quote: | I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
think having 8 megapixels is?
You're looking at 15% greater linear resolution. With all the other
variables that affect image sharpness, that doesn't amount to much...
People get all hung up on dpi and MP while forgetting about lens
quality, 'sweet spot' aperture, camera shake, focusing error, etc. -
all of which have a much greater impact on image clarity.
(IMO, 'upgrading' from 6 to 8 has more to do with bragging rights and
'gotta keep up" insecurity than image quality.)
If all other things are equal, sure get the 8MP. If the extra cost
means you'll need to get a cheaper lens, or cut back on required
accesories, get the 6MP and don't look back.
|
Greg is bang-on with this...6mp vs 8mp is a non-issue. Get the camera
body that does what you want and feels best in your hands.
I have a Canon Rebel XT which uses an 8mp sensor, but I could care less
about that - I'd be just as happy with a 6mp sensor. It's the features,
performance, and most important, the glass on the front that makes the
image.
A friend of mine still teases me about using high-end Canon L glass on
my tiny Rebel XT...but image quality is what it's all about for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjcampbell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
Greg Campbell wrote:
| Quote: |
You're looking at 15% greater linear resolution. With all the other
variables that affect image sharpness, that doesn't amount to much...
|
Indeed. You need to quadruple the number of pixels before you make a
noticeable difference for any practical purpose. Camera manufacturers
would like to have you think that a Canon 1Ds Mark II takes better
pictures than a Rebel XT because of the difference in number of pixels.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The real things to look at in a camera are how you are going to use it.
Heavier cameras are easier to hold steady, up to a point. Brighter
viewfinders make the camera easier to use. Lighter cameras are easier
to keep with you at all times. More complex cameras offer greater
flexibility at the cost of, well, being more complex. Blowing up and
printing small portions of photos is much more dependent on resolution
than viewing the whole photo on a computer monitor (most computer
monitors have about the same resolution as a 3mp camera -- at best).
Get a camera you will actually use instead of one that sits on the
shelf all the time. If the only difference is number of pixels, the
larger number is rarely worth the extra cost.
I use a Nikon D70 and a Nikon CoolPix 7900. The 7900 has more pixels
than the D70, but I can guarantee that the photos from the D70 are
going to be a lot better than the photos from the 7900. The D70 has
less digital noise, better white balance, and much better lenses than
the 7900. It is easier to hold the D70 steadily. The real advantage of
the 7900 is that I can keep it in my pocket and it is always there if I
see something interesting. It takes great pictures, but there is no way
that it can match what the D70 can do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
In message <QridnbKOvr4yyvjeRVn-rg@golden.net>,
Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
| Quote: | A friend of mine still teases me about using high-end Canon L glass on
my tiny Rebel XT...
|
The Rebel XT has a finer pixel pitch than any other Canon but the 20D,
so it and the 20D can utilize the sharpest lenses best.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Måns Rullgård
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 01, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
"John Ortt" <johnortt@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> writes:
| Quote: | JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:1vsam1p9vf7c8lo3kdtav62hd9ujr4nn8o@4ax.com...
In message <QridnbKOvr4yyvjeRVn-rg@golden.net>,
Bill <bill@c.a> wrote:
A friend of mine still teases me about using high-end Canon L glass on
my tiny Rebel XT...
The Rebel XT has a finer pixel pitch than any other Canon but the 20D,
so it and the 20D can utilize the sharpest lenses best.
Not so sure about this....are we talking in the canon line or between the
Nikon and the XT (and 20D)?
If we are talking just about the Canon range, I can see that the 20D and
possibly the XT might have a finer pixel pitch than the full frame cameras
but I believe the sensors are also closer to the lens (hence the 1.6 crop
factor).
|
The sensor is at the same distance from the lens mount on all Canon
cameras with EF mount. If this was not the case, focusing would not
work. The 1.6 crop models have a smaller sensor.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@inprovide.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:40 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
cjcampbell wrote:
| Quote: | You need to quadruple the number of pixels before you make a
noticeable difference for any practical purpose.
|
That would mean you only need lenses that double the focal lengths of
each other, e.g., 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 400mm, ..., not anything in
between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bj286@scn.org
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:17 am Post subject:
Re: 6 Megapixels vs 8 |
|
|
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
| Quote: | In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems bj286@scn.org wrote:
That would mean you only need lenses that double the focal lengths of
each other, e.g., 24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm, 400mm, ..., not anything in
between.
No it doesn't! There is much more to focal length selection than simply
the magnification factor. The field of view is a huge factor. That
changes with focal length.
|
E.g., if you want the field of view of a 35mm lens, you can use a 24mm,
and crop the result to get the same field of view of 35mm. Of course
you will lose resolution, but you will still keep more than 1/4 of the
full resolution. If only quadrupling would make any difference, your
keeping more than 1/4 of the resolution should be good enough, with
unnoticeable difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in