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 SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 5th 08, 03:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 591
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?

Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel
near?

I don't follow the industry that closely, but aren't 16 MP cameras
available now? How much more "significantly" do you want, and why?
Do you regularly print - or want to print - ultra high quality
prints above 11 x 14? If not, what's wrong with 10-12 MP?

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet


  #2  
Old August 5th 08, 06:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
HEMI-Powered[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?

I don't follow the industry that closely, but aren't 16 MP
cameras available now? How much more "significantly" do you
want, and why? Do you regularly print - or want to print -
ultra high quality prints above 11 x 14? If not, what's wrong
with 10-12 MP?


I do mostly bird photos and since no available lens allows me
to always frame shots as full as I'd like, I often crop
significantly. I'm very happy with 10 mega pixels as a big
improvement over the 4.3 mega pixel camera I previously used.
Cropping has allowed me to get very satisfying results and if
greater resolution is available to me I'd love to have it.


That makes sense. I use higher MP counts than I need for the same
purpose, although in my case, it's usually to get a car picture
or a sign that I can't get close enough to.

I'm a low tech amateur but am enjoying what modern digital
camers offer.


Well, Charlie, how much money are you willing to spend to get an
effective optical zoom via cropping? Top-end Canon and Nikon's,
for example, that I think are in the 16 MP range cost at least
$3,000 just for the body, maybe in the $5,000 range. Now, as to
lenses, does your shooting prohibit a long-but-large lens, say
over 500mm, maybe a mirror 1,000mm? A very long full optical
telephoto is also very pricy and they are also way too big and
heavy to hand hold. Most nature photographers use a sturdy tripod
for these type shots but I can understand that some type of bird
shots such as on-the-wing can't easily be done that way, so maybe
a smaller mirror might work.

Or, have you considered a tele-extender? Yes, they tend to
seriously diminish quality but exactly how much depends on the
brand and your ultimate needs. Seems that somewhere along the
line you're going to have to compromise between size, weight,
cost, and sharpness.

So, it seems to me that you have several options including a more
expensive body with more MP than the 10 you've got or a really
long lens, assuming you don't already have that.

Good luck.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet


  #3  
Old August 5th 08, 07:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Jake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:03:06 -0700 (PDT), in
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems "." wrote:


I do mostly bird photos and since no available lens allows me to
always frame shots as full as I'd like, I often crop significantly.
I'm very happy with 10 mega pixels as a big improvement over the 4.3
mega pixel camera I previously used. Cropping has allowed me to get
very satisfying results and if greater resolution is available to me
I'd love to have it.

I'm a low tech amateur but am enjoying what modern digital camers
offer.


What is your max focal length now? Have you considered say a fast
200mm f/2.8 + a 2X TC?




Mmm. I think you would get a better image quality with a 400 5.6.


  #4  
Old August 5th 08, 10:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Jake
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?

wrote in message
...

What is your max focal length now? Have you considered say a fast
200mm f/2.8 + a 2X TC?


Mmm. I think you would get a better image quality with a 400 5.6.



Maybe, maybe not.


Also, I was really thinking more about a 70/80-200mm
f/2.8. In my case I've been shooting through three bodies with Nikon's
70-200mm f/2.8 VR. which I initially bought with the first body. I quickly
picked up a TC-2E-II and have been using these for years. While we might
argue about absolute quality a bit, there is no argument in terms of
versatility with this type of combo. I've also made comparisons against
the
200-400 f/4 VR in which it is very difficult to find fault with the
70-200+2x.



If you are happy with your setup, then that's all that counts.

I'm not a Nikon user myself, but I have to admit, the 200-400 f/4 is an
appealing lens.



  #5  
Old August 6th 08, 04:43 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default |GG| Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10mega pixel near?

.. wrote:

I should have mentioned that the 70 - 300 is a 1.4 at 70mm and 5.6 at
300mm and the 50-200mm is 2.8-3.5.


f/4 - 5.6 (not f/1.4 :-) but that's still pretty good.

It seems that all decisions are trade offs and except for more res.
I'm not willing to put out more $ for more lens. What I have now is
not too much of a downer for my usage.


You could maybe get an old 300mm f/4 of some sort & work out adapters
but one good enough to resolve that much cropped detail is going to cost.

It's funny I was going to suggest an Oly for the pixel density till you
mentioned you are already there. If you are ever struggling with low
light a larger sensor would help.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #6  
Old August 6th 08, 06:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixelnear?

.. wrote:
"HEMI-Powered" wrote:


Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel
near?


I don't follow the industry that closely, but aren't 16 MP cameras
available now? How much more "significantly" do you want, and why?
Do you regularly print - or want to print - ultra high quality
prints above 11 x 14? If not, what's wrong with 10-12 MP?


I do mostly bird photos and since no available lens allows me to
always frame shots as full as I'd like, I often crop significantly.


Having a 16MP camera isn't going to help you much if the quality of
your lenses and the sturdiness of your tripod aren't up to the task.

--
Ray Fischer


  #7  
Old August 6th 08, 10:59 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Ray Fischer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,136
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?

wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:


Having a 16MP camera isn't going to help you much if the quality of
your lenses and the sturdiness of your tripod aren't up to the task.


Tripod, what's that?


It's the thing you left in the trunk of your car.

--
Ray Fischer


  #8  
Old August 6th 08, 03:11 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 591
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?

Perhaps in this post I can get to most of what all above have
said. I use an Olympus E-510 and love it ( read all the talk
about noise from small sensor) I still love it. I moved up
from a 4.3 mp Lumix and this 10 mp was a significant jump. If
what I have heard is correct I'd need a jump to over 20 mp
(and I think some have said I'd need 40 mp) to get as great a
percentage increase in res.

I do use on occasion a 1.4 teleconverter (Olympus) and have
the 70-300mm zuiko and the 50-200mm zuiko ED lens. I almost
never use a tripod but nearly always use a monopod or a chest
pod which give me very good stability. As you all know the
birds are active and setting up a tripod more often than not
misses a shot completely.

I've read about digiscoping and don't want to give up the
spontaneity of my present use for the frustration of missing
more shots.

I'm overall a happy user and am just thinking about what more
resolution would give me with my present lens. That exra
sharpness would of course be nice.

I've read a lot about the noise differences in the small
sensors as opposed to larger ones but for me at this point I'm
happy with what I've chosen in camera and lens.

Now I'm really confused. If you're a happy camper, at least
pretty much, why even bother with this post?

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet


  #9  
Old August 6th 08, 03:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
HEMI-Powered
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 591
Default Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?

added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

Doesn't the size of the sensor have a large effect on picture
quality? You can't talk about megapixels without talking about
sensor size. Point-and-shoot cameras vary widely in sensor
sizes and there's also some variation in DSLRs.
That medium format 33MP camera uses a much larger sensor than
the typical 24x16mm found in DSLRs, so it's probably not such
a great technical feat to put more megapixels on it.

Certainly true. Lens quality and the "quality" of the camera's
image processing firmware are also big factors as is the
compression algorithm if using JPEG. Overall quality isn't
limited to just one criterion like mega pixels no matter what the
camera makers would like the newbies to believe. It's hard for
anyone with even a modicum of knowledge to think that an 8 MP P &
S for $100 is going to match an equivalent image size DSLR but
apparently lots do. There IS a place for small P & S cameras,
they're quite handy for guys to just stuff in a pocket when they
go out or gals to put in their purse rather than to haul several
pounds around - so long as the users are realistic about what
they're actually going to achieve.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Don't be a fop or a blooter, make only pithy comments on Usenet


 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The mega-pixel war is over. Roy Smith Digital SLR Cameras 9 February 18th 08 02:03 PM
Fuji FinePix S9000 9 Mega Pixel Camera Came Out 17 Mega Pixel? WannabeSomeone Digital Photography 5 November 14th 05 06:09 PM
Definition of "pixel transition ratio" Charles Sten Digital Photography 1 February 2nd 05 07:23 PM
Higher pixel count does not mean better resolution! JohnR Digital Photography 19 October 19th 04 05:06 PM
8 mega pixel -which one Leo Reyes Digital Photography 37 August 5th 04 02:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:06 AM.


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.