6 or 8 MPIX?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Chuck Deitz, Mar 4, 2005.

  1. Chuck Deitz

    leo Guest

    Get the 8MP if you can afford it. I just printed a 12x18 at Costco from
    Canon 20D. It's an interior shot of a new pipe organ, using 17-40/4 at
    17mm, f/11, ISO 100, 5 sec, I upsized the file to the native resolution
    of the printer (3876x5814), The print is absolutely amazing. You would
    be happier with 350D's quicker response. Spend a bit more and you'll be
    happier for a longer time.
    leo, Mar 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
    Certainly at 4x6 you won't see any difference between 6 and 8 Mpix.
    The best thing you can do to improve the quality of your digital
    prints is not to use JPEG compression. The next step is to invest in
    a good lens. If you money left over, buy more MPix....

    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Chuck Deitz

    Chuck Deitz Guest

    Thanks everyone for your replies. If I do go the DSLR route, I'll look
    mostly at the 350D. Looks great.

    Chuck Deitz, Mar 4, 2005
  4. Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
    Some recent cameras offer an extra-fine JPEG compression mode with
    negligible loss. Of course, RAW still offers more dynamic range.

    David J Taylor, Mar 5, 2005
  5. Chuck Deitz

    Stacey Guest

    That's how I chose it when I was shopping comparing prints. Seems odd to me
    to compare 100% crops from a 6MP to a 8MP to compare "quality" when on the
    same size print, the 8MP's pixels will be smaller and whatever per pixel
    noise will also be less visible.
    Stacey, Mar 5, 2005
  6. Chuck Deitz

    Scharf-DCA Guest

    Don't look just at megapixels. Many of the 8 megapixel non-SLRs have
    very high noise levels, the result of small pixels.

    The 28-80 lens that came in the Rebel kits was a really poor lens, so
    don't base any decision on what to buy on that lens. It will still work
    on a Digital Rebel or Rebel XT, but it is not worth enough to make that
    a decision point on what to buy.

    Look at the Nikon D70 and Canon EOS-350D. Your old flash may work on
    the 350D, what model is it (the EZ series doesn't work).
    Scharf-DCA, Mar 5, 2005
  7. Chuck Deitz

    Drifter Guest

    I'm just going to repost an earlier article I wrote up...

    Digital Cameras, A short analogy...

    Digital Camera Automobile
    Image sensor resolution……..Engine
    Battery...................Gas tank
    Storage medium.....Trunk

    Lately advertisers are pushing "Megapixels" harder than ever as the
    standard measurement of how great their latest cameras are. With this
    Camera-to-Automobile analogy I am going to attempt to explain why
    "megapixels" alone is simply not enough to judge the superiority of a

    The sensors (measured in Megapixels) keep increasing in resolution
    just like automotive engines increase in horsepower. However, all of
    the horsepower in the world is wasted if you have bald slippery tires
    (or a crappy lens). A car will just spin the tires and a camera will
    give you high resolution -but still blurry- images.

    The improved automotive engine gives you more horsepower, but if the
    transmission hasn't been beefed up to handle it you get a pile of
    scrap metal. The higher resolution camera gives you more information
    but if the processor hasn't been beefed up you get slower response and
    longer wait times while the processor tries to render the larger
    files. Thus you may miss shots.

    The same applies to the "Buffer/Suspension" parallel. A more powerful
    engine might be able to haul a larger load, but an undersized
    suspension will collapse under that load. So will a too-small buffer
    choke under the load of larger image sizes, causing extended waits.
    Etc, etc.

    My point is simply that a dramatic improvement in one aspect of a
    digital camera can be rendered absolutely moot if the rest of the
    digital system has not kept pace. So cameras need to be judged a bit
    more "as a unit" not just by one criterion (like pixel count).

    Like automobiles, which camera is right for you also depends on what
    you plan to do with it. A small Ford Focus is perfect for commuting
    around town just like a pocketable point-n-shoot is perfect for
    snapshots of the family reunion. But that same Ford Focus would not
    do very well in a rugged off-road environment just like that
    point-n-shoot would not work for photographing distant nesting eagles
    or trying to keep up with the action of a sports event.

    "I've been here, I've been there..."
    Drifter, Mar 5, 2005
  8. For that usage, 8 MP has absolutely no advantage over 6 MP, unless you
    plan to crop and enlarge a very small portion of the overall image to full
    8x10 size.

    Merritt Mullen, Mar 5, 2005
  9. Comparing, on the screen, 100% crops from two different sized sensors will
    not be comparing the same sized image, so you are correct in what you say.
    It's not a fair comparison.

    Comparing 6MP DSLR images and 6MP point-and-shoot images is a fair
    comparison, and that's where the noise difference is likely to show up,
    because of the significant difference of sensor size.

    If I look on my screen at 100% magnification 8MP images (3264 x 2448),
    then as my screen is 1280 pixels wide and 14.8 inches wide, the equivalent
    print size I am looking at would be 37.7 x 28.3 inches. Something to bear
    in mind when looking at 100% zoom!

    David J Taylor, Mar 5, 2005
  10. Chuck Deitz

    Skip M Guest

    For prints that size, 3 1/2x5 or 4.6, 3mp is sufficient, frankly. The
    difference between 8mp and 6mp for even an 8x10, if you're not cropping
    much, is mostly in the bragging rights. We're printing up to 24x36, for
    that, 8mp is the bare minimum, in fact, maybe a bit under minimum.
    There's an interesting article in this months Digital Photo Pro about this
    very subject.
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
  11. Chuck Deitz

    Alan Browne Guest

    You need an oil change.
    Alan Browne, Mar 5, 2005
  12. Chuck Deitz

    Frank ess Guest

    I think it is more a case of retarded tining.
    Frank ess, Mar 5, 2005
  13. Chuck Deitz

    Bill Guest

    On that size photos, it won't make a difference, unless you crop the
    original images a lot.

    For most of my shots, 8mp is more than I need, but it's good to have for
    the few shots that I crop down as much as 50%.

    I'm sure Nikon will come out with something to compete. It's the nature
    of the market.

    You could use the 28-80 on the Canon 300 with a crop factor, but it
    won't be as good as the 18-55 kit lense - the 28-80 is not very good.
    The 18-55 EF-S lense was made specifically for the digital models, and
    it performs quite well, especially for the price - it's a great starter
    lense. And you can add more lenses if you wish.

    Since you already have a Rebel, switching to the Digital Rebel/300 would
    be a very easy process with similar controls and features.

    Post the model number and someone should be able to confirm it. Or
    contact Canon and ask.

    Chances are if it's only five years old, it'll work fine. The issue is
    usually trigger voltage - if it's about 6 volts it should be fine. I
    have an old SunPak bounce flash from my film cameras, and even though it
    will only do TTL-auto, it works just fine for the few times I need it.
    Bill, Mar 5, 2005
  14. Chuck Deitz

    Stacey Guest

    Exactly... And even if you made a print that size, you'd use some sort of
    "smart" interpolation to get the DPI back up to 300DPI so even in this
    worse case senerio, much of this still wouldn't be seen. I just don't get
    why people get so hung up on stuff they see in 100%+ crops that will never
    show up in a print or a full screen image. I look at 100% when I'm
    sharpening but that's about the only time I do. For any other comparison, I
    look at the output.
    Stacey, Mar 5, 2005
  15. Chuck Deitz

    Chuck Deitz Guest

    I hadn't thought about cropping much becasue I never do that with my
    film prints. But since it's so easy in photoshop I guess it would easy.
    I can get the 300D downtown for about $800 without waiting, so it's
    very tempting. I don't know when I can get the 350 and it's only a
    couple hundred more from what I see.

    Chuck Deitz, Mar 5, 2005
  16. The 350D should be available in the next couple of weeks.

    Rumors have it in Australia already, but I haven't seen anyone posting
    pics yet.
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 6, 2005
  17. Chuck Deitz

    Charles Guest

    They have started to be available at some Best Buys in the US today.
    Some samples from purchased XT's have just been posted on dpreview.
    Charles, Mar 6, 2005
  18. I just noticed that right after I posted.

    The test images show noise that looks to be comparable with the original
    DRebel. Which means I might just hold off until I can afford the 20D or
    I see samples/tests that show similar noise levels to the 20D.

    Even if the noise is the same as the 300D, that isn't really all that
    shabby to begin with - considering the extra two million pixels and a
    slightly smaller sensor. Should shake up the market a bit.
    Brian C. Baird, Mar 6, 2005
  19. Chuck Deitz

    Chuck Deitz Guest

    I've decided that it's probably the 350D that I'm getting. I was
    looking at Minolta A1 and A2 and Panisonic Lumix, Canon G6 and the Sony
    DSC-V3 and 828, but it's looking more and more like the 350D now. I
    have a lens for it and I hope my flash works on it too.

    Chuck Deitz, Mar 9, 2005
  20. ZLRs have much to recommend them, but I do not think you will regret
    going the DSLR route.
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 9, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.