Canon Eos 400D

Brian Lund wrote:
Have just upgraded to the above from an Ixus 500. I have an issue
which will probably seem stupid to most group members but I would like
some enlightenment!

I was very pleased with the definition of the Ixus pictures (5mp). The
standard auto EOS pictures (10mp), whilst physically larger, seem to
have lower definition (confirmed at lower pixels per cm in Photoshop).

"Lower definition" is somewhat unclear to me... Are your pictures less sharp
with the EOS 400D?
It is normal that DSLRs use less in-camera sharpening than most P&S do, so
generally you need to do more post-processing on a DSLR! However you can
turn up the in-camera sharpening (saturation and contrast too), read your
manual how to.

I recommend doing the picture processing in photoshop instead of in-camera
though!

About the pixels/cm issue... Does it matter? (The answer is no!)
Even if you have 1 pixel/cm set in photoshop your image will have exactly
the same pixel-count (megapixels). You can change this number in photoshop,
but there will be no visible change to the image, at all!

Does this mean that I need to physically reduce the EOS pictures to
smaller but higher definition images or is there a way of setting the
camera to take the same sized images as the Ixus but at twice the
definition?? to avoid playing around in PS with every shot.

No, you may need to add sharpening and/or other postprocessing. Definition
is a verry bad word, you've got somepixels*somepixels, don't worry about
anything else.

Also, double the Mpixels doesn't make your image twice as large, it makes it
about 40% larger!

And one last thing, if you have the kit-lens, it's okay but don't expect it
to be 100% sharp on pixel level, you have to offer a lot of money to get
that on a zoom lens.


Brian



Can also be thought of as not confusing pixel count on a display monitor
with pixel count of the image source. I don't use PS, I usually see
actual pixel numbers displayed which in my case is 2592x1944. If I had a
slide rule I could know for sure if this is same as the 5mp my canon
claims it is!!
Dave Cohen

In article P26th.2515$yj7.2125@trndny08, says...
I usually see
actual pixel numbers displayed which in my case is 2592x1944. If I had a
slide rule I could know for sure if this is same as the 5mp my canon
claims it is!!


Just over two and a half multiplied by just under two..

It's certainly a good first approximation..

T.
--
Do Binary Tripods have 11 legs ?

Can also be thought of as not confusing pixel count on a display monitor
with pixel count of the image source. I don't use PS, I usually see
actual pixel numbers displayed which in my case is 2592x1944. If I had a
slide rule I could know for sure if this is same as the 5mp my canon
claims it is!!

2592*1944 = 5,038,848 pixels (Or 5.04 Mpixels)

Close enough!


Brian