Megapixel Question

I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found there
indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for opinions.

Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality? Noticeable?
I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is preserved from the
original?

--
*********************End Transmission********************************
Send all complaints, requests and/or thanks to

ICQ #34907449

Website - http://www.sithicus.org
Website - http://www.stardestroyer.org - All Star Wars / Star Trek
Railroad Picture Archives.net - http://crow_t_robot.rrpicturearchives.net/


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
-Edmund Burke

"Try not, do or do not there is no try"
- Yoda(Empire Strikes Back)

Crow T Robot wrote:
I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found there
indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for opinions.

Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality? Noticeable?
I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is preserved from the
original?

This is a strange question indeed. Not sure at what level to answer such
a question. You do know that the more pixels, the greater amount of
information, or detail in the image, right? Seems obvious that 10 would
be more than 6. What are you asking?

Gary Eickmeier

In article ,
Crow T Robot wrote:
Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical?

Lens and sensor physical size are just as important, if not more important,
than megapixels.

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:15:09 GMT, "Crow T Robot"
wrote:

I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found there
indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for opinions.

Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality? Noticeable?
I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is preserved from the
original?

Because you're asking about very specific MP numbers (6.2/10.2 vs
6/10), it seems you already have cameras picked out.
Which ones?
Sensors don't come by themselves, they are wrapped in cameras.
Different cameras have different features. Despite what David Pogue
tries to say, it's impossible to compare just megapixels; you must
compare cameras.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

The eternal, universal answer: it all depends on what you want to do with
those megapixels.
Also your aesthetic ability, your understanding of digital image processing
and printing are major factors: 3mps in the right hands are better than
10mps in the wrong hands.

"Crow T Robot" wrote in message
. ..
I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found there
indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for
opinions.

Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality?
Noticeable? I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is
preserved from the original?



There is obviously SOME degree of difference, but it may be so slight as to
go unnoticed. The following piece hardly represents the last word on the
subject, but I found it to be thought provoking:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:wlQah.7336$Kw2.7102@trndny05...
"Crow T Robot" wrote in message
. ..
I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found
there indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for
opinions.

Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality?
Noticeable? I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is
preserved from the original?



There is obviously SOME degree of difference, but it may be so slight as
to go unnoticed. The following piece hardly represents the last word on
the subject, but I found it to be thought provoking:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Until you read the last paragraph where he shoots himself in the foot.

"Crow T Robot" wrote in message
. ..
I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found there
indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for
opinions.

Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality?
Noticeable? I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is
preserved from the original?

--
*********************End Transmission********************************
Send all complaints, requests and/or thanks to

ICQ #34907449

Website - http://www.sithicus.org
Website - http://www.stardestroyer.org - All Star Wars / Star Trek
Railroad Picture Archives.net - http://crow_t_robot.rrpicturearchives.net/


"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
-Edmund Burke

"Try not, do or do not there is no try"
- Yoda(Empire Strikes Back)


Yes, there are about 40% more pixels. This does not equate to 40% more
resolution, it is more like 27% ideally, but other optical issues lower this
number. It takes about 25% increase in resolution to make a noticeable
improvement in every day shooting. Considering your lens can handle the
extra resolution, the 10MP camera is the way to go if you plan to make
larger sized prints, say 11x14 or more.

OTOH, if we're talking about point and shoot cameras, I'm not so sure 10MP
is the best due to noise issues. Noise reduction wipes out low contrast
detail that a lower res camera might retain. A 4 to 6 MP camera with a good
sized sensor (1/1.8") is the way to go here. The 10MP point and shoot camera
a pure marketing gimmickry.

-S

sally wrote:
In article ,
Crow T Robot wrote:
Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
from the numerical?

Lens and sensor physical size are just as important, if not more important,
than megapixels.

Most modern (say 1990+) lenses don't seem to have any issue with resolving to
the detail of a 10.2MP sensor, at least, not from what I have seen. I have
seen old AI lenses do fine on a D200 and the kit 18-70 lens does well. Detail
is still lost due to sensor limitations and not noticably from a lens
limitation (meaning resolving power).

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

"Pete D" wrote in message
news:456c0851$0$24725$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

Until you read the last paragraph where he shoots himself in the foot.

He does nothing of the kind.

He states a well-accepted maxim: that 300 dpi represents what is considered
film-quality when viewed at fairly close distances.

His major point was that it takes at least a DOUBLING of liner ppi--which
equates to a QUADRUPLING of total number of megapixels--to make a real
difference in viewable resolution at normal viewing distances.

He attacks the myth that an extra megappixel or two makes one camera
"better" than another.

To answer the OP's question, it is doubtful that there would be a
significant difference in quality between the two resolutions that he lists.
If you have any empirical evidence to the contrary, please post it for us to
review and scrutinize.