If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
3, 4, 5, 8 MP 8x10 printout comparison - Long
Curious about just how many megapixels you need to get a
good 8x10 print, I did a test. I went to http://www.steves-digicams.com and downloaded a similar image from his samples for four different cameras. The cameras we 3mp Canon S30 4mp Minolta Dimage Z2 5mp Canon S60 8mp Nikon 8700 The images were pictures of a shelf in Steve's house containing some photography magazines, an M&M candy statue, a barometer, an orangutan poster, and some other things. The photos were not identical, but are very similar. I loaded up each image in IrfanView and printed each at 8x10 size on a Xerox Phaser 7700. The Xerox is an office printer that is definitely _not_ photo quality, but it still gives a useful color print. I examined the photos on a CRT screen, on the paper printouts, and on the printouts with magnifying lenses. For whatever they're worth, here are my impressions: 3 mp. I own a 3 mp camera and had always been satisfied with the 8x10's I printed from it. Looking at the printouts from two feet away, they looked fine. It was only when I looked at the other printouts that I realized how much the 3 mp was missing. Specifically: The larger object in the image that has little or no fine detail (the M&M statue) looks very good, probably about as good as with the other cameras. However the fine print seen on the Ozium can and the Digital Camera magazine spines is readable, but not sharp and clear. Was the Ozium can not in perfect focus? My guess is that the focus may not have been perfect, but the low pixel count was contributing to the lack of sharpness. The finest print on the barometer is not readable either on screen or on the printout. 4 mp. To me, this looked better than than the 3 mp image, but there was still room for improvement. The fine print on the Ozium can was definitely sharper than on the 3 mp image. The spines of the magazines were slightly sharper, but still not perfect. The fine print on the barometer was still not readable, either on screen or on paper. Even from 2 feet away, the image looked clearer than on the 3 mp camera, though only in the fine detail areas. 5 mp. To my eye, the 5 mp image printout looked very good. The can and the magazines were sharp and clear. I thought the difference was noticeable in comparison to the 4 mp. The image of the digital barometer was clearer on screen than the others. The barometer part of the printout also looked better, but only slightly better than for the smaller pixel count cameras. From two feet away, the image didn't look much better than the 4 mp. If I looked at the details closeup and noted the differences between the images, I could then detect those differences from two feet away. At a casual glance, I did not notice the differences. 8 mp. To me, the 8 mp printout looked only very slightly better than the 5 mp printout. The Ozium can and the magazine images were both very sharp and clear, but I had to look very closely to see any difference between it and the 5 mp image. The characters on the barometer looked slightly contrastier and better defined than on the 5 mp, but only slightly so. From 2 feet away, it was hard for me to say that the 8 mp image was better than the 5. On screen, the 8 mp image was much better than all the others. This tells me that there is detail in the 8 mp image that is lost when printed at "only" 8x10. An 11x14 or 16x20 image would probably show a significant difference as compared to the 5 mp image. Conclusions: 3 mp: To my eye, the 3 mp camera is more than adequate for 4x6 and 5x7 printouts. It is adequate for 8x10s, and possibly even 11x14s, but only for images in which fine detail is not crucial for a good view of the subject. For example, portraits and landscapes, especially when mounted to be seen from more than two feet away, would look quite acceptable to me. If what I want is fine detail, for example to read the signs in the shop windows of that street scene one shoots on an Italian vacation, 3 mp is not enough. 4 mp: 4 mp looks better at fine detail. For me, I believe it's probably worth the extra money to buy. 5 mp: 5 mp looks better still. If I could find a reasonably priced camera that had 5 mp plus all of the other features I wanted (like a long zoom), I'd be willing to pay more for the 5 mp over a 4 mp camera. If I found a 4 mp camera that had all the features I wanted but couldn't find a 5 mp with comparable features without paying a much higher price, I'd be tempted to go with the 4 mp, or maybe to wait for prices on 5 mp cameras to come down. 8 mp: For my purposes, looking at images on screen and printing at up to 8x10, 8 mp seems to be overkill. Extra money paid for the camera wouldn't return noticeably better prints at 8x10 or smaller. If I wanted bigger prints or wanted to be able to crop an image, 8 mp would be worthwhile. But if I don't need that, I don't need 8 mp. Of course if 8 mp didn't cost any more ..., but it does. Finally, I should note that I am not a professional photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always say, your mileage may vary. Alan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ilford FP+ 8x10 sheetfilm in PMK Pyro rotary - help! | Chase Martin | In The Darkroom | 5 | August 20th 04 08:18 PM |
How long does unused fixer stay usable? | Richard Knoppow | In The Darkroom | 2 | March 30th 04 11:13 AM |