A&P this megapixels thing is starting to get to me

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Bloke, Nov 10, 2008.

  1. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    more and more megapixels with each generation. do most people make 8x10 prints or larger when they have invested in these cameras? anyway my point is has anyone upgraded bodys just to get more megapixels or is there some other reason most people upgrade (ergonoics?)

    let me know how you feel about the megapixel wars.

    anyway this is giving me the dreaded Gear Acquisition Syndrome. i now want to make huge prints. this leads me to want a camera that can deliver. this leads me to these 2 choices.



    [​IMG][​IMG][/URL
     
  2. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    I upgraded from a 10.1 MP cam, to a 10.1 MP cam... :mamoru:

    400D to 40D. I upgraded because I have big hands and I wanted better noise handling, as well as 6.5fps.
     
  3. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    do you feel that 10mp is the minimum you need
     
  4. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    I have 12MP workin for me. If 5.3 let me get a good quality 20X30 inch print (used a DX lens on the D700), I think the 12MP should be fine for the 40X60 inch print...I'll be seeing tomorrow :noes:
     
  5. mikeskillz

    mikeskillz New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2006
    Messages:
    5,753
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'd take an 8mp full frame camera over a 20mp cropped sensor.

    above 8 i stop caring, but i like to have at least that amount of resolution for personal keeping of the photos, even if i never print them large.

    also, the only unjustified jump i've seen from canon (which i'm most familiar with) is from 10.1 on the 40D to ~15.whatever on the 50d.

    imo the most important "jumps" in the short history of digital cameras is the playback LCD.
     
  6. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    how does a 5.3 mp get a 20x30" print? is it really that good
     
  7. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nah. To tell you the truth, I didn't even know what MP the 40D was when I bought it... lol

    I was going to buy a 1D, but I felt that the 4mp was going to be limiting in some areas (as well as not handling high ISO too well).

    I'd be fine with the 40d being 8mp, or maybe even 6 if the light sensitivity would rock.

    That being said, I'd LOVE a 4-6 MP P&S that would give me a relatively noiseless 3200-6400 ISO.
     
  8. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    im suprised one does not exist yet, well not really. id like one as well
     
  9. MSIGuy

    MSIGuy om nom nom nom!

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    4,724
    Likes Received:
    0
    The general public (to whom most P&S's are marketed) doesn't see a need for high ISO sensitivity, but is brainwashed into thinking, "oh, this one has 10mp, it must be better! For example, Canon G10...
     
  10. Tedrzz

    Tedrzz New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    how big of prints do you consider "HUGE"?
     
  11. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    :cool: so i guess this answers the question i was having about whether or not i could print a 20x30 from my 8mp 30d. i'm taking a family photo for my inlaws and i know that they will want a huge print to hang in the living room.
     
  12. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    50
    If you are sending your print out to be printed, you can get a good print from just about any size camera if the guy doing the printing is good enough.

    Any good print shop is using a RIP program to maximize the quality and consistency of their prints, and one of the beautiful things about RIP programs is their algorithms that resize images to the correct print size. You can essentially work with and save your image in it's maximum size, then bring it into the program, and have the RIP resize your image to whatever you're printing that day. I have ONE 'print' version of each of my images, and use that one image and the RIP to print from 4x6 to 40x60. The program kind of works like one of those programs that enlarge your images - genuine fractals and such, but instead of enlarging your image for the screen, it sends the enlarged data to the printer and never alters your image.

    I've printed 24x36 from a cell phone camera, and from proper viewing distance everyone just assumed it was from a dSLR. It looked good enough that if it was matted and behind glass, no one would have ever questioned the source of the image.

    I honestly NEVER consider the MP size of an image when I go to print it. It doesn't matter.

    The whole MP war does have some merit, but it lies in the amount of data captured, and total sharpness and clarity of your images. Just like an image on a MF negative has more data than a 35mm neg, a MF hasselblad captures more data than a D3.

    But if we're talking the difference between a 40d and a 5d, it wouldn't matter one bit in the final print. It would probably matter more in your ability to edit the image.
     
  13. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. The way my prof. told us to enlarge was really simple too. He said that CS3 has worked out a lot of kinks when it comes to enlarging so it was a lot easier than when I used CS2 at my old school and had to enlarge in increments. It's funny how I was afraid of printing big from the 5.--mp from the D700 yet I printed a 20X30 from my D70 (6.1MP). The D700's print came out better too.
     
  14. adamfool

    adamfool New Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    uk
    Mamiya 7 :drool:

    6X7 negs, yummy! shame about only having 10 frames for each roll of 120!
     
  15. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    im not satisified with my results from 35mm slide film ----> A3+ size. i can see the grain getting blown up more than i like. the sharpness is fine but i can see how a large negitive would be of benefit
     
  16. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    50
    Thats the problem with scanning film and trying to print.

    The scanner scans the grain, and because the grain has defined edges, it sharpens the grain as well as the subject.

    This is the reason I giggle when anyone says that film is superior to native digital.

    Their statement is only true if you're printing the film in a chemical darkroom where you can fine tune the focus on the image instead of the grain. You can't really do that successfully when you're scanning a piece of film, and you inherently enhance the film grain to a level that makes it inferior to a native digital print.

    Drum scanning is the only real way to extract all of the data in a slide or piece of film and get it on par with a native digital file.

    Here are some samples I have of one of my images scanned with a 4000, then with a drum scanner:

    4000:
    [​IMG]

    drum:
    [​IMG]

    full scan 4000:

    [​IMG]

    full scan drum:
    [​IMG]

    This isn't really an issue with detail, so much as it is an issue with what the scanner considers worth capturing and enhancing. So you're pictures that are shot on film and scanned in are always going to be 'crunchier' and grainier than the exact same picture either shot on film and developed in a chemical darkroom OR shot digitally then printed digitally.

    FWIW, I have that waterfall printed 30x44 on my wall at home right now from the drum scan. It's freaking beautiful.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
     
  18. jared_IRL

    jared_IRL OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,726
    Likes Received:
    50
    i'm not saying that's not beautiful, and it's a great scan too.

    but this is one of the ones you can't print large, correct?

    Or am I confusing the issue you're having here?

    Also, there is a difference between the ability to view lots of detail in an enlargement on screen, and print successfully.

    Perhaps you'll want to look into Genuine Fractals. I believe it will give you a better ability to zoom in on screen and see detail.

    It may actually give you the ability to print better, since you'll have to sharpen less to get a crisp print, and thats where scanned film hits the wall.
     
  19. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    no this is from when i borrowed a camera. (same as the one on top but black)

    anyway i think ill buy that fuji (the very one in the pic)! its less than $500 and the Mamiya 7 sells for $800-1000 for the kit. the only real diffrence is the fuji has no meter. for that much i can buy one hell of a meter or plenty of film :hs:
    also i NEVER use unsharp mask i dont like the look it gives, makes things look harsh
     
  20. EWhytsell

    EWhytsell New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,296
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just saw in last months Sky & Telescope magazine that an observatory is building/installing a 3.2giga pixel imager if that makes you feel any better.
     
  21. .chris

    .chris You drown before the water lets you in. OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    53,105
    Likes Received:
    473
    Location:
    954
    my 6mp D70 prints GREAT on 20 x 30 so i still have yet to upgrade.
     
  22. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    anyone know the filter diameter of the fuji?
     
  23. tetsuo

    tetsuo And shepherds we shall be...

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    wouldn't that depend on which lens is on it?
     
  24. Bloke

    Bloke Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    26,775
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Pekin, IL
    80mm f3.5 isnt this a fixed lens camera?
     

Share This Page