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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
|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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
Are higher definition DSLR's significantly above 10 mega pixel near?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |