# Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by DBLEXPOSURE, Aug 27, 2007.

1. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

But where is your sense of fun?

We ask for 8X12 because we are trained like sheep. But when you need to
cover a space on the wall, you are covering an area. When you go to buy ink
for your printer you should think about print area because now is when you
pay for it...

Look, I know where you are coming from and I am arguing for the sake of
arguing, I will close with, when you ask for 8X12 you are asking for 96 Sqr
Inches, your just saying it in a different way.

Laters...

PZ
www.imagequest.ifp3.com

DBLEXPOSURE, Sep 1, 2007

2. ### Paul FurmanGuest

Or you can look at it this way:

8,000,000 sqrt = 2,828
12,000,000 sqrt = 3,464 122% wider prints
20,000,000 sqrt = 4,472 129% wider prints

Paul Furman, Sep 2, 2007

3. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

Or this way, @ 300ppi

every 90,000pixels = 1 Sqr inch

8MP = 8,000,000 / 90,000 = 88.9

20MP = 20,000,000 / 90,000 = 222.2

222 / 89 = 2.5

222 is 250% larger than 89...

But why bother with all that

20 / 8 = 2.5

I haven't given allot of thought to your math above but, I think you need to
take the 3:2 apect ration into account. Most image sensors are not square.
So you need to steal some from the height and add it to your width... If
you think in area, then it dosen't matter...

DBLEXPOSURE, Sep 2, 2007
4. ### Paul FurmanGuest

My math for the full difference between 8 & 20 MP is 158% linear. Or 63%
if you divide the other way around. It's true that it'll be 2.5x the
cost to print and 2.5x the storage space required on disk but people
think more in terms of print size so most people would think a 2.5x
larger print than 8x10 is 20x25 which would be 7.2MP vs 45MP at 300dpi.
Your math would call that a 6.25x difference!

It is. Someone might ask for a 12-inch, 18-inch or a 36-inch print, not
even knowing what the aspect ratio is & certainly not how many square
inches.
I don't think it matters for relative comparison.

Paul Furman, Sep 2, 2007
5. ### Scott WGuest

I have been late getting into this discussion but better late then never.

It seems to me that we think of all sorts of things in terms of their
area, not their linear dimensions. If someone tells me the new house
they are buying is twice as big as their old house I assume they mean in
area. If a state is twice as big as another we would also assume area .

If someone tell me one sheet of paper is twice the size of another I
would assume they are talking about area. After if I cut a sheet of
paper in half would I not now have two sheet that are each half the size
of the original?

If I should some one a 4 x 6 inch print and then a 8 x 12, and tell them
that the 8 x 12 is only twice as large as the 4 x 6 I am going to get a
mighty odd look.

Scott

Scott W, Sep 2, 2007
6. ### Paul FurmanGuest

This is true. But those things don't have fixed aspect ratios.
Well, yes but those pieces of paper are entirely different aspect
ratios. Quickly without a calculator: what is an enlarged print twice
the size of an 8x10, measured in inches?

I'm not even sure how I'd figure that out *with* a calculator.

OK, I came close with trial & error, it's about 11-1/4 x 14. Now if I
showed someone an 8x10 print, they might say "I want a print twice that
size" and I think they would probably mean 16x20 not a measly 11x14.
OTOH if I gave them 16x20 & charged \$1 / square inch they would be
shocked that the price went up from \$80 to \$320 instead of \$160 for
the 11x14
Maybe, depends on the person.

Paul Furman, Sep 2, 2007
7. ### DBLEXPOSUREGuest

8X12 is twice as large.

You see, you are expressing the image size as an area, you say X by Y or A
by C etc. you really are expressing the area of the print.

If you where to ask for a 10" print, the next logical question would be, ten
by what? You could mean 10X15 or 8X10 and so on...

But for some reason when we talk about the size of one print Vs. another we
only need to discuss one dimension? No, the other dimension is assumed.

I want to think that the argument of 8Mp is not 2.5 time larger than 20Mp is
an argument of convenience for the MegaPixels-don't-matter crowd. Because
as some have stated if you apply the math to only one dimension it is not
2.5 larger. But in reality it is 2.5 larger in every respect.

It will cover 2.5 times more wall, it will weigh 2.5 times as much as the
smaller, it will take 2.5 times the ink to print, the frame will require 2.5
time as much material to build...

Of course the camera will cost 8 to 10 times more money to buy... :-(

PZ

www.imagequest.ifp3.com

DBLEXPOSURE, Sep 2, 2007
8. ### The OneGuest

Yawn, I cant see how a 3 year old Canon could beat a state of the art Canon.
I mean Canon were making 12 megapixel full frame cameras 3 years ago, it
only proves how far behind Nikons really are. Anyway the D3 struggles to
match the 5D let alone the 1ds mkIII.

The gloves are off LMAO.

The One, Sep 17, 2007
9. ### The OneGuest

Talk about flogging a dead horse. Nikons are way behind Canons. 1ds mk III
v's D3, hmmm I wonder. No contest in fact Canon 5D v's D3 is a no goer.

The One, Oct 24, 2007