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
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
Greg Campbell wrote:
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
In message ,
Bill 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. -- John P Sheehy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
Greg Campbell wrote: 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
wrote in message ... In message , Bill 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). |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
"John Ortt" writes:
wrote in message ... In message , Bill 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
In article , John Ortt
writes wrote in message .. . In message , Bill 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). Eh, no. you have a crop factor because the sensor subtends a smaller angle due to it being smaller and at the same distance. You could eliminate the crop factor by mounting the sensor closer but you would no longer have optimum aberration correction and would loss focal range unless the lens was designed for this. -- Ian G8ILZ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
cjcampbell wrote:
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
6 Megapixels vs 8
cjcampbell wrote: Greg Campbell wrote: 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. Actually, I agree that the difference between 6 and 8 MP is for all practical purposes close to meaningless outside the marketing office of the particular company, but quadrupling of the number of pixels is not necessary to get better quality in photos. Doubling does nicely for some things, and, if Pentax produces a 12 MP camera in the next year or so, that's what I plan to do. After that, I'm probably done buying cameras. I kept my Olympus OM1ns for about 18 years. I figure the Pentax should last out the rest of my days, even if MP counts blow up to 30 or 40 or more. Oh. Someone else commented on cropping being because of poor technique (using the wrong equipment): not really, or not always. My printer for a full bleed print has different crops for 4x6, 5x7, 8x10 and 8-1/2x11, while my editors may choose to crop a shot to fit on a particular page space. When any of that happens, it's really, really nice to be able to chop off a piece and blow up the result and still have a sharp picture. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
6 Megapixels vs 8 | David P. Summers | Digital SLR Cameras | 49 | November 10th 05 12:17 AM |
Big Megapixels? - From NY Times | Robert Morrisette | Digital Photography | 20 | March 23rd 05 03:36 AM |
Help My Buy: Features More Important than Megapixels | Ben | Digital Photography | 10 | February 16th 05 09:10 AM |
How many MegaPixels to print 8X10 | tk | Digital Photography | 91 | August 25th 04 10:32 AM |
olympus c-5050 5.0 megapixels new in box - S0052467_enl.jpg (0/1) | [email protected] | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 3rd 03 05:20 AM |