Entry level Nikon 24mp?!

On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:
: RichA wrote:
: On Mar 30, 6:09*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: David J Taylor wrote:
:
: And more pixels will always get more out of the lens. *Just not
: necessarily nearly as much as the increased pixel count would
: indicate.
:
: Rich always looks at photos in 200% view, though ...
:
: Are you all so blessed as to have so many lenses you never, ever have
: to crop?
:
: Now, RichA, yes, we do have lenses. For example, I can couple a
: 70-200mm f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter (and still get
: a better image and more resolution with 8 MPix than a cropped 24
: MPix with a 200mm lens).
:
: Cropping is only ever *required* for format changes (say 1:1).
:
: In real life in 99% I crop only slightly, if at all.

Then you probably don't crop enough. We don't necessarily live in a 3:2 world,
and some pictures just look better when cropped to their natural aspect
ratios.

: Do you want 8 megapixels on that 1/4 page crop, or 3?
:
: A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.
:
: So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.

Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
publication.

Bob

On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

: A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.
:
: So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.

Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
publication.

Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page
phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed.

The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was
with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix.

Stock photography requires higher res.

News usually does not. Magazine (news/journal) does not.

To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but
that resolution disappears in print - and 3x more so in web display.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
:
: : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.
: :
: : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.
:
: Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
: publication.
:
: Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page
: phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed.

Forgive me, Alan, but you seem to be inventing your own reality. A few years
ago, when the best cameras we had were 10Mp, my wife and I submitted some
pictures for a calendar; and even with very little cropping, were barely able
to meet the minimum requirements. Maybe you're right, and 3 Mp is enough. But
if the editor doesn't agree, you're just another doggie howling in the wind.

: The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was
: with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix.

That was then, and this is now. (Besides, who, other than Davd Littleboy,
reads the Japan edition?)

: Stock photography requires higher res.

As does anything else, if the customer decrees it so.

: News usually does not.

At least it shouldn't. You're right to that extent.

: Magazine (news/journal) does not.

Debatable, and certainly unproven.

: To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but
: that resolution disappears in print -

Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

: and 3x more so in web display.

Three times the sensor resolution in each direction? Maybe, but that's well
more than 3 to 4 Mp.

Bob

On 2012-04-08 13:53 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
: On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
: On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
:
: : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.
: :
: : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.
:
: Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
: publication.
:
: Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page
: phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed.

Forgive me, Alan, but you seem to be inventing your own reality.

I don't need to invent anything to state what I stated.

I know 2 press reporters who used the Nikon D2H for about 5 years before
upgrading to the next one. One of them was published in the weekly news
magazine associated with his paper as well. A friend (freelancer) still
uses his D2H's as a backup to his two D3x's despite the huge pixel count
difference.

A few years
ago, when the best cameras we had were 10Mp, my wife and I submitted some
pictures for a calendar; and even with very little cropping, were barely able
to meet the minimum requirements. Maybe you're right, and 3 Mp is enough. But
if the editor doesn't agree, you're just another doggie howling in the wind.

As I said below, stock requires higher counts (usually for no good
reason), but daily grind news simply never did and still does not. The
only reason pro newsies use higher res cameras is because that is what
is sold and issued to them by the photo dept.


: The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was
: with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix.

That was then, and this is now. (Besides, who, other than Davd Littleboy,
reads the Japan edition?)

: Stock photography requires higher res.

As does anything else, if the customer decrees it so.

And news organizations (which I made crystal clear) do not and have not.

: News usually does not.

At least it shouldn't. You're right to that extent.

: Magazine (news/journal) does not.

Debatable, and certainly unproven.

Newspapers supplied their news photogs with enough D2H's to fill a cargo
ship. Many of those cameras saw 3 - 5 years daily, hard use.

: To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but
: that resolution disappears in print -

Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

Look on a news stand. NONE of those magazines needs more than a 4 MPix
camera. Even that leave oodles of cropping margin.

Most magazine print screens are about 180 dpi equivalent.


: and 3x more so in web display.

Three times the sensor resolution in each direction? Maybe, but that's well
more than 3 to 4 Mp.

Well ____ LESS ___.

Computer monitors are around 100 dpi. Prints are around 300 - 360 dpi
(typical). Magazines are around 180 dpi (some run higher - 240 - 300 or
so).

Your calendar editor may have needs - technically appropriate or not.
But that does not represent the needs of newspapers and magazines.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 9/04/2012 2:48 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

: A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.
:
: So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.

Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
publication.

Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page
phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed.

The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was
with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix.

I'm not sure about Japanese edition, but the US edition made quite a
public fuss about their first all digital article which was shot with
Nikon D100 (and D1x IIRC). The article was about fighter jets. At about
that time, if you searched their web site some shots common to both web
site and magazine were searchable by camera model. There were a couple
of surprises to me in that, firstly that while I expected to see lots of
D1/2 and 1D/s, many of the journos were using lowly 300d, D70, and
similar model cameras. Next surprise was looking through a current (at
the time) edition of Nat Geo and trying to guess digital or film for the
printed images. If it was so blindingly obvious that 3, 4 or 6mp wasn't
enough for a full page image, then it sure didn't show.

But regardless of this, the OP can keep the idea of a lowly 24mp Fx
camera. I still want a d800.

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

: A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.
:
: So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.

Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
publication.

Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page
phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed.

The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp.

The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was
with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix.

Stock photography requires higher res.

News usually does not. Magazine (news/journal) does not.

To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but
that resolution disappears in print - and 3x more so in web display.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: RichA wrote:
: On Mar 30, 6:09Â*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg
: David J Taylor wrote:

: And more pixels will always get more out of the lens. Â*Just not
: necessarily nearly as much as the increased pixel count would
: indicate.

: Rich always looks at photos in 200% view, though ...

: Are you all so blessed as to have so many lenses you never, ever have
: to crop?

: Now, RichA, yes, we do have lenses. For example, I can couple a
: 70-200mm f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter (and still get
: a better image and more resolution with 8 MPix than a cropped 24
: MPix with a 200mm lens).

: Cropping is only ever *required* for format changes (say 1:1).

: In real life in 99% I crop only slightly, if at all.

Then you probably don't crop enough. We don't necessarily live in a 3:2 world,
and some pictures just look better when cropped to their natural aspect
ratios.

Yes, some pictures work better 1:1/24:25 and some work better
2:1. Usually though 2:3 works fine for me.

: Do you want 8 megapixels on that 1/4 page crop, or 3?

: A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.

: So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.

Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
publication.

Remind me that I need at least 50 MPix in the output for
publication of a 5"x6" image on newspaper quality.

Then I shall remind you that I photograph as a hobby --- something
I do for fun --- and not something for the unrealistic expectations
of some editor.

-Wolfgang

On 2012-04-08 19:58 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

: A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at
: 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill.
:
: So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much.

Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for
publication.

Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page
phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed.

The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp.

The D2H was 4. True that the D1 was hugely popular with press photogs
and very much up to the task even for full page magazine photos.



--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp.

actually it was 2.7 mp from a 10.8 mp sensor.

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:55:04 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp.

actually it was 2.7 mp from a 10.8 mp sensor.

Neither of us are right according to
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...Tabs-TechSpecs

Regards,

Eric Stevens