Nikon D100 vs. D2X Question

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Tim Smith, May 18, 2005.

  1. Tim Smith

    Tim Smith Guest

    OK, here's a basic question about megapixels. The D100 is a 6.1
    (effective) MP camera, giving 3006x2000 pixels at large size. This
    means that I can just about do a 8x10 print without interpolation (at
    somewhere close to 300 ppi) (roughly).

    The D2X is a 12.4 MP camera, with just about the same sensor size. At
    its full 4288x2848 resolution, I can obviously make bigger prints
    without interpolation.

    But if I do an 8x10 from a D100 image, and an 8x10 from a D2X image,
    will I see any differences? Will the D2X image be better than the D100
    image, the same, or worse? What effect do the smaller photo sites on
    the D2X have on equal size small prints? (Leaving out any
    considerations, if possible, about the fact that the D100 has a CCD
    sensor, and the D2X a CMOS sensor.)

    Perhaps a digital photo 101 question, so if there's a technically
    accurate explanation of this published somewhere, all I need is a
    pointer to it. Thanks.
     
    Tim Smith, May 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tim Smith

    Tom Scales Guest

    For an 8x10, you will not see a measurable difference. There are other
    reasons that the D2X is superior, such as focus speed, etc.

    I have both, and only shoot the D2X. No reason not to.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, May 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Some people claim they are able to tell the difference between a
    428 ppi print and a 300 ppi print by visual inspection. I am not
    one of them, and belong to the school that say that when printing
    there is nothing to gain by having more than 300 ppi continous
    tone.
    I say that at 8x10, they will be same. Some people will say that
    the higher resolution will be better.
    Pixels in a file has no size, so the printer doesn't "know" what
    size the camera's photosites were.
    An important point, because sensor technology have effects on such
    things as colour, noise, etc - but I've left those considerations
    out of this discussion.
    This webpage is by no means a technical explanation, but it tries to
    state some very simple things about ppi and related concepts in
    digital photography: http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/pixels.html .
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, May 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Tim Smith

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    You know how when you look at a picture from a 6MP DSLR next to one from
    a similiarly-megapixeled point-and-shoot, and the difference is plain as
    day, no matter what the DPI-math says? That's the difference between
    the D100 and the D2x. Well, okay, I came from a D70, so that's my
    reference point. It's significant. The image quality is really that
    much better. This camera burns the rotting corpse of 35mm film and
    spreads the ashes to the four corners of the world.

    Oh, but I haven't actually gotten any 8x10 prints from it yet, so, you
    know. Yeah, or something.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, May 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Tim Smith

    Alan Browne Guest

    Or make 150 dpi prints where at normal viewing distances you won't be
    able to tell the difference.
     
    Alan Browne, May 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Tim Smith

    Bubbabob Guest

    No, that's the difference between a crap lens and a good lens.
     
    Bubbabob, May 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Tim Smith

    Don Giles Guest

    - snipped -
    I shot a D1x for almost 4 years, I now have a D2x, you can see the
    difference. The tonal gradations as well as the fine detail is much better
    on the D2x.

    Don
     
    Don Giles, May 20, 2005
    #7
  8. Tim Smith

    Paul Furman Guest


    Ah, I didn't know it was a CCD/CMOS sensor change. I think it's not
    meaningful to ask this question disregarding the sensor design because
    there is a lot of difference in the performance of various sensor
    designs. It's generally harder to get the same number of photons into a
    smaller sensor and there certainly is a limit but the difference between
    6 & 12 MP is not that much. It would take 24MP to double the density of
    a 6MP sensor, not 12. My old Oly 3MP circa 2000 has a 12 micron pixel
    spacing and today's top end point & shoot cameras have a 6 or 7 micron
    spacing. That's a full double size but it was old technology and it's
    hard to even find the actual pixel size after whatever space is needed
    between the pixels and whatever special engineering they've done to
    optimize performance. Todays DSLRs have a spacing of around 30 to 75
    microns, that's significantly bigger than 7 microns and really makes a
    difference.
     
    Paul Furman, May 20, 2005
    #8
    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.