A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

6 Megapixels vs 8



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 30th 05, 11:06 PM
Greg Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 30th 05, 11:58 PM
Rod Williams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 05, 02:36 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 05, 05:10 AM
cjcampbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 31st 05, 06:53 PM
John Ortt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 05, 01:29 AM
Måns Rullgård
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 1st 05, 09:52 AM
Prometheus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 3rd 05, 04:28 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #10  
Old November 3rd 05, 12:17 PM
Charlie Self
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.