Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

6 or 8 MPIX?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 3, 2005 11:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi,

I'm looking at something like a Minolta A1 or A2, or Panansonic Lumix FZ5.

I also see cameras like the Canons 300D, 20D, 350, Nikon D70, Pentax
*istDS and Minolta 7 on some websites.

Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
drugstore.

Are Nikon and the others going to have 8 Mpix SLR cameras soon? (They
all seem to have 8 Mpix in the other cameras like the Minolta A2, the
Nikon 8400 and so on, so why not on the SLR's? (I know the sensors are
different but if Canon are doing it where's Nikon and the others?).

I have a film rebel, but I don't use it much.

What lens should I get? I just need something to take on a vacation
with the familly and stuff like that. I'll probably use it at work too.
Some of them come with lenses so I'll probably just do that. One of
the Canon 300 kits has a 18-55 lens. Is this okay? Can I use my Rebel
lens instead? 28-80.

I also have a Canon flash, but I don't know the model, it's about 5
years old. can I use it if I get a 300 or the new 350D.

Thanks!

Ck

--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Irritating Usenet Signature Here.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

More about : mpix

Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:31:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:06:22 -0500, Chuck Deitz <CDToo@FarReaches.com> wrote:
>
> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6?

No.

> Some of them come with lenses so I'll probably just do that. One of
> the Canon 300 kits has a 18-55 lens. Is this okay?

It's fine. It's not the world's best lens, but there seems to be
a consensus that it's a good deal for the money. I have one -- I
don't find myself using it very often, but your mileage may vary.
I don't think you'll find a lens that wide for cheaper.

> Can I use my Rebel lens instead? 28-80.

Yeah. On any low-to-mid-range Canon DSLR (10D, 20D, 300D, 350D),
it'll seem like a longer lens -- about 45-128. If you like the
28-80 range, then go with the 18-55, as it gives a similar field
of view (29-88, roughly) on the digital cameras.

Note that the 18-55 only fits on the digital Rebel and the 20D. You
can't use it on your film camera.

> I also have a Canon flash, but I don't know the model, it's about 5
> years old. can I use it if I get a 300 or the new 350D.

Dunno, sorry.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 5:31:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> Yeah. On any low-to-mid-range Canon DSLR (10D, 20D, 300D, 350D),
> it'll seem like a longer lens -- about 45-128. If you like the
> 28-80 range, then go with the 18-55, as it gives a similar field
> of view (29-88, roughly) on the digital cameras.
>
> Note that the 18-55 only fits on the digital Rebel and the 20D. You
> can't use it on your film camera.


Thanks!
Ck.


--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Irritating Usenet Signature Here.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Related resources
March 4, 2005 5:31:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ben Rosengart wrote:

> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:06:22 -0500, Chuck Deitz <CDToo@FarReaches.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6?
>
> No.
>


Let me guess, you own a 6MP camera? :-)

Yea your right, 33% again the amount of pixels isn't going to help the
resolution is it?

--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:28:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Many people who post on digital camera newsgroups have limited or no real
experience with high end EVF (electronic viewfinder cameras like the Sony
828, Nikon 8800 et al) cameras but they have a lot of opinions.
The main drawback as well as the main asset is the EVF as for most people
the zoom lens is of sufficient range and quality. If you do not understand
why the lens diaphragm is limited to f8 then it should not be of any concern
to you whatever.
Also those who have not worked extensively with images created from these
8mp sensors have absolutely no idea how stellar the images can be compared
to 6mp dSLRs.
If you want to see noise, moire and fringing pick up a D70. Because I am
used to a lifetime of using SLRs I tend to use my D70 more than my Sony 828,
but in general I prefer the image quality from my Sony 828. However because
of the lens, which is of excellent quality and effectively maintains f2.8
through its zoom range, the 828 is much heavier than other EVF cameras in
its class.
The extra 2mps of an 8mp sensor make a real difference in image detail and
sharpness prior to applying software sharpening.
In fact, if one wants a dSLR I think it unwise to buy anything other than
the new 8mp Canon dSLR (unfortunately I have a shelf full of Nikon lenses).
Nikon has not let out any information about their upgrade for the D70/D100
but market conditions demand it be out in time for the next Christmas buying
cycle and compete with Canon's upgrade to 8mp sensors.
It is not clear who is manufacturing the 12mp sensor for the new high end
Nikon dSLR (Sony? Mitsubishi?) or whether this will be the basis for Nikon's
upgrade of their consumer dSLR line.
An EVF allows one to preview what happens with exposure adjustments prior
to taking the picture, e.g exposing for the highlights or the shadows. This
can be very helpful as well as instructive.
However it can be difficult to track moving objects or to use an EVF in very
bright sunlight: sometimes one can only guess when to press the shutter
button. This is probably not an issue for most casual users.
EVF cameras handle much more slowly than dSLRS, most of which, like the D70,
handle almost as quickly as film SLRs.
If you do not want an SLR style/size/weight camera do not hesitate to get
the EVF camera of your choice. It will allow you to grow into digital
photography much more readily than any P&S style digicam.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 6:28:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"bmoag" <apquilts@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:9BQVd.9014$OU1.6839@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Many people who post on digital camera newsgroups have limited or no real
> experience with high end EVF (electronic viewfinder cameras like the Sony
> 828, Nikon 8800 et al) cameras but they have a lot of opinions.
> The main drawback as well as the main asset is the EVF as for most people
> the zoom lens is of sufficient range and quality. If you do not understand
> why the lens diaphragm is limited to f8 then it should not be of any
concern
> to you whatever.
> Also those who have not worked extensively with images created from these
> 8mp sensors have absolutely no idea how stellar the images can be compared
> to 6mp dSLRs.
> If you want to see noise, moire and fringing pick up a D70. Because I am
> used to a lifetime of using SLRs I tend to use my D70 more than my Sony
828,
> but in general I prefer the image quality from my Sony 828. However
because
> of the lens, which is of excellent quality and effectively maintains f2.8
> through its zoom range, the 828 is much heavier than other EVF cameras in
> its class.
> The extra 2mps of an 8mp sensor make a real difference in image detail and
> sharpness prior to applying software sharpening.

You mean the extra 2mps shoved into a smaller sensor make a real difference
in noise? Maybe my co-worker has a bad 828 but it is noisy.

Greg
March 4, 2005 6:28:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

G.T. wrote:


>
> You mean the extra 2mps shoved into a smaller sensor make a real
> difference
> in noise? Maybe my co-worker has a bad 828 but it is noisy.
>
>

You assume everyone gauge of image quality is noise. Also noise can be
easily fixed if an image is worth printing, lack of resolution and detail
OTOH can't be. I'd much rather see an image "saved" with some good NR
rather than being over sharpened.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:28:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <38q9inF5s0d2tU2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> Yea your right, 33% again the amount of pixels isn't going to help the
> resolution is it?

No, it really won't.

33% more pixels does not equal a 33% increase in resolution. More like
10-12%. Not to say that 10-12% is insignificant, but it isn't so large
as to make one superior and the other useless.
March 4, 2005 8:28:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:

> In article <38q9inF5s0d2tU2@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
>> Yea your right, 33% again the amount of pixels isn't going to help the
>> resolution is it?
>
> No, it really won't.
>
> 33% more pixels does not equal a 33% increase in resolution. More like
> 10-12%. Not to say that 10-12% is insignificant, but it isn't so large
> as to make one superior and the other useless.


Didn't say that but maybe you can explain why it would be only a 10%
increase is resolution? Seriously I'm not being a smart ass, just wondering
why it wouldn't be closer to the same as the increase in pixel count,
especially at low ISO's.

But if the optics can deal with it, 10-15% isn't anything to sneeze at.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 8:38:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 00:21:27 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:06:22 -0500, Chuck Deitz <CDToo@FarReaches.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6?
>>
>> No.
>
> Let me guess, you own a 6MP camera? :-)

Nope, 8.

> Yea your right, 33% again the amount of pixels isn't going to help the
> resolution is it?

Not for the O.P.'s needs, no.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:08:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 01:16:00 -0500, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But if the optics can deal with it, 10-15% isn't anything to sneeze at.

The O.P. wants to make drugstore prints and an occasional 8x10.
I'm not saying he shouldn't get an 8MP camera, I'm just saying
that the 6MP DSLRs are up to the task.

This isn't some kind of anti-8MP bias. I'm trying to unload a used
Olympus C-8080, so if I were going to be dishonest, I'd say everyone
needs an 8MP camera. :-) But look, from 6 megapixels you can print
8"x10" at a very respectable 270 dpi. For 4x6s or 5x7s 6MP is
higher resolution than the print.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:15:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
[]
> Didn't say that but maybe you can explain why it would be only a 10%
> increase is resolution? Seriously I'm not being a smart ass, just
> wondering why it wouldn't be closer to the same as the increase in
> pixel count, especially at low ISO's.
>
> But if the optics can deal with it, 10-15% isn't anything to sneeze
> at.

6Mp or 8Mp is a count within the sensor area, so the linear density in
each axis only goes up by the square root in the area density, 15.4% in
this case.

From what I've read, however, the better signal-to-noise ratio in a
digital SLR makes their 6Mp pixels look better than the pixels from an 8Mp
point-and-shoot, so that to the eye the extra resolution may (or may not)
be outweighed by the worse signal-to-noise.

It's one of those subjective comparisons, and why some people may prefer
film, which also has a higher resolution and higher noise (grain), to
digital.

Cheers,
David
March 4, 2005 10:15:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

> Stacey wrote:
> []
>> Didn't say that but maybe you can explain why it would be only a 10%
>> increase is resolution? Seriously I'm not being a smart ass, just
>> wondering why it wouldn't be closer to the same as the increase in
>> pixel count, especially at low ISO's.
>>
>> But if the optics can deal with it, 10-15% isn't anything to sneeze
>> at.
>
> 6Mp or 8Mp is a count within the sensor area, so the linear density in
> each axis only goes up by the square root in the area density,

So this "15%" is based on about linear improvement? I thought someone was
saying that the 2D image quality would only improve by 1/2 the increase in
pixels, that didn't make sense. I can see what you mean that the linear
increase (Lpmm) wouldn't increase 33%.

>
> From what I've read, however, the better signal-to-noise ratio in a
> digital SLR makes their 6Mp pixels look better than the pixels from an 8Mp
> point-and-shoot,

I'm sure that's true. I'm not sure on the larger APS size sensors that the
noise increase would be too much.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:21:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
[]
>> 6Mp or 8Mp is a count within the sensor area, so the linear density
>> in each axis only goes up by the square root in the area density,
>
> So this "15%" is based on about linear improvement? I thought someone
> was saying that the 2D image quality would only improve by 1/2 the
> increase in pixels, that didn't make sense. I can see what you mean
> that the linear increase (Lpmm) wouldn't increase 33%.
>
>>
>> From what I've read, however, the better signal-to-noise ratio in a
>> digital SLR makes their 6Mp pixels look better than the pixels from
>> an 8Mp point-and-shoot,
>
> I'm sure that's true. I'm not sure on the larger APS size sensors
> that the noise increase would be too much.

For a given sensor size, the trade-off in number of pixels isn't obvious.

- If you, say, quadruple the number of pixels, the area of each is
quatered, and the noise goes up proportionately. How does the eye react
to having more pixels but with each pixel being noiser?

- If you halve the pixel-to-pixel centre spacing (to double the number of
pixels in both X and Y dimensions), then there may be a certain fixed are
required per pixel for readout electronics etc., so the smaller pixels may
do worse than you expect, as the readout area is a greater fraction of the
pixel area.

- If you produce a new sensor with these smaller pixels, likely something
else in the process or design has improved, so you may recover some of
that loss due to smaller area!

The way things are measured right now, you end up needing a final subject
judgement about whether you prefer A or B.

Cheers,
David
March 4, 2005 11:52:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38q9inF5s0d2tU2@individual.net...
> Ben Rosengart wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:06:22 -0500, Chuck Deitz <CDToo@FarReaches.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6?
> >
> > No.
> >
>
>
> Let me guess, you own a 6MP camera? :-)
>
> Yea your right, 33% again the amount of pixels isn't going to help the
> resolution is it?
>
the number of pixels isn't the whole answer. I can take an 8 megapixel Canon
Pro 1 and the 6.3 megapixel image from a Digital Rebel (300D) will be
better. I hear it every day in the store, well that's 8 MP so it's better.
Sensor size and quality has to be considered.
March 4, 2005 11:56:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

get the 350D. You already have a lens for it and it will be an ecxellent
camera.
March 4, 2005 11:58:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"10-12% is insignificant, but it isn't so large
> > as to make one superior and the other useless.
>
>
> Didn't say that but maybe you can explain why it would be only a 10%
> increase is resolution? Seriously I'm not being a smart ass,

yeah you area a smart ass...
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 12:34:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chuck Deitz wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at something like a Minolta A1 or A2, or Panansonic Lumix FZ5.
>
> I also see cameras like the Canons 300D, 20D, 350, Nikon D70, Pentax
> *istDS and Minolta 7 on some websites.
>
> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
> to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
> drugstore.

For "mostly smaller", 6 Mpix is more than enough; for 8x10 or 8.5 x 11,
Mpix is sufficient. If the dollar difference makes no difference to you
then simply go for the 8 Mpix.

>
> Are Nikon and the others going to have 8 Mpix SLR cameras soon? (They
> all seem to have 8 Mpix in the other cameras like the Minolta A2, the
> Nikon 8400 and so on, so why not on the SLR's? (I know the sensors are
> different but if Canon are doing it where's Nikon and the others?).

Canon have their own sensor design capability and are close to the
fabricator (if indeed they don't fabricate themselves). Nikon, Pentax
and Minolta get their sensor from Sony, so they're slaves to Sony's
desires and pace.
>
> I have a film rebel, but I don't use it much.

Pity.

>
> What lens should I get? I just need something to take on a vacation
> with the familly and stuff like that. I'll probably use it at work too.
> Some of them come with lenses so I'll probably just do that. One of
> the Canon 300 kits has a 18-55 lens. Is this okay? Can I use my Rebel
> lens instead? 28-80.

Sure. On a 300D it will crop out to seem like a 44-127mm.

>
> I also have a Canon flash, but I don't know the model, it's about 5
> years old. can I use it if I get a 300 or the new 350D.

I don't believe the older flashes work properly on the digital cameras,
although in manual mode it might... then you have to set the flash power
per an incident flash meter reading or via a chart.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 3:27:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <38qcp0F5plhgsU1@individual.net>, fotocord@yahoo.com says...
> > No, it really won't.
> >
> > 33% more pixels does not equal a 33% increase in resolution. More like
> > 10-12%. Not to say that 10-12% is insignificant, but it isn't so large
> > as to make one superior and the other useless.
>
>
> Didn't say that but maybe you can explain why it would be only a 10%
> increase is resolution? Seriously I'm not being a smart ass, just wondering
> why it wouldn't be closer to the same as the increase in pixel count,
> especially at low ISO's.
>
> But if the optics can deal with it, 10-15% isn't anything to sneeze at.

You're equating a factor measurement with a linear one.

The number of pixels increases at a rate higher than the linear
dimensions of the file produced. Since resolution is a feature of
spatial frequency it relies on the number of rows and columns.

To make the example simple, let's imagine a square 3x3 sensor. It
produces 9 pixels (3 x 3) and can't resolve much. Now, compare that to
a 4x4 sensor, which has 16 pixels (an increase of 78%) but only one
additional row and column of pixels for a slight increase in resolution.

It gets a little more complicated when you're dealing with rectangular
sensors of differing aspect ratios, but the basic concept is the same.
In order to record more data over the entire plane, you have to record
more data at each row/column. That adds up fast while the total amount
of resolving power of the sensor is increased only slightly.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 7:05:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

One advantage of 8MP over 6MP is your cropability.... I know I'm always
taking a simpler, better image out of the taken one. By having a 20D I can
go deeper, and still print at 20cm x 30cm.

I agree that you don't even need 6MP for making 10x20's, and If I were
offered a choice between a quick 6MP and a slow 8MP I'd go for the quicker
working camera.... Fortunately it's not a decision if you go with the two
Canon 8MP right now... The write time is very quick on the 20D (and I assume
it will be on the 350XT as well).

As far as the 18-55 kit lens from Canon. My first copy was not great, but
I'm very happy with the replacement. I don't use it that much, but it does
take decent images... especially for the price I paid to have it.

Al...


"Chuck Deitz" <CDToo@FarReaches.com> wrote in message
news:4227b54e$1_5@x-privat.org...

> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
> to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
> drugstore.
March 4, 2005 7:40:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chuck Deitz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at something like a Minolta A1 or A2, or Panansonic Lumix FZ5.
>
> I also see cameras like the Canons 300D, 20D, 350, Nikon D70, Pentax
> *istDS and Minolta 7 on some websites.
>
> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
> to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
> drugstore.
>
> Are Nikon and the others going to have 8 Mpix SLR cameras soon? (They
> all seem to have 8 Mpix in the other cameras like the Minolta A2, the
> Nikon 8400 and so on, so why not on the SLR's? (I know the sensors are
> different but if Canon are doing it where's Nikon and the others?).
>
> I have a film rebel, but I don't use it much.
>
> What lens should I get? I just need something to take on a vacation
> with the familly and stuff like that. I'll probably use it at work too.
> Some of them come with lenses so I'll probably just do that. One of
> the Canon 300 kits has a 18-55 lens. Is this okay? Can I use my Rebel
> lens instead? 28-80.
>
> I also have a Canon flash, but I don't know the model, it's about 5
> years old. can I use it if I get a 300 or the new 350D.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ck


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.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 9:00:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chuck Deitz wrote:

>Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints
up
>to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
>drugstore.

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).
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:22:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
>to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
>drugstore.

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....

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please feed the 35mm lens/digicam databases: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 10:22:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

>>Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
>>to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
>>drugstore.
>
>
> 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....


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

Ck.

--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Irritating Usenet Signature Here.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
March 4, 2005 11:24:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>
> The way things are measured right now, you end up needing a final subject
> judgement about whether you prefer A or B.
>

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
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 3:02:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
[]
> 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....
>
> -Joel

Some recent cameras offer an extra-fine JPEG compression mode with
negligible loss. Of course, RAW still offers more dynamic range.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 6:19:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Chuck Deitz" <CDToo@FarReaches.com> wrote in message
news:4227b54e$1_5@x-privat.org...
> Hi,
>
> I'm looking at something like a Minolta A1 or A2, or Panansonic Lumix FZ5.
>
> I also see cameras like the Canons 300D, 20D, 350, Nikon D70, Pentax
> *istDS and Minolta 7 on some websites.
>
> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
> to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
> drugstore.
>
> Are Nikon and the others going to have 8 Mpix SLR cameras soon? (They all
> seem to have 8 Mpix in the other cameras like the Minolta A2, the Nikon
> 8400 and so on, so why not on the SLR's? (I know the sensors are
> different but if Canon are doing it where's Nikon and the others?).
>
> I have a film rebel, but I don't use it much.
>
> What lens should I get? I just need something to take on a vacation with
> the familly and stuff like that. I'll probably use it at work too. Some
> of them come with lenses so I'll probably just do that. One of the Canon
> 300 kits has a 18-55 lens. Is this okay? Can I use my Rebel lens
> instead? 28-80.
>
> I also have a Canon flash, but I don't know the model, it's about 5 years
> old. can I use it if I get a 300 or the new 350D.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ck
>

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 Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 9:37:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <4227b54e$1_5@x-privat.org>,
Chuck Deitz <CDToo@FarReaches.com> wrote:

> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
> to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
> drugstore.

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
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:14:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Drifter wrote:
>
>> Digital Cameras, A short analogy...
>
> You need an oil change.

I think it is more a case of retarded tining.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:58:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>>
>> The way things are measured right now, you end up needing a final
>> subject judgement about whether you prefer A or B.
>>
>
> 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.

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!

Cheers,
David
March 5, 2005 5:34:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Chuck Deitz wrote:

>> Is 8 Mpix really that much better than just 6? I want to make prints up
>> to a sheet of paper on my inkjet, but mostly smaller, like from the
>> drugstore.

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%.

>> Are Nikon and the others going to have 8 Mpix SLR cameras soon? (They all
>> seem to have 8 Mpix in the other cameras like the Minolta A2, the Nikon
>> 8400 and so on, so why not on the SLR's? (I know the sensors are
>> different but if Canon are doing it where's Nikon and the others?).

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

>> I have a film rebel, but I don't use it much.
>>
>> What lens should I get? I just need something to take on a vacation with
>> the familly and stuff like that. I'll probably use it at work too. Some
>> of them come with lenses so I'll probably just do that. One of the Canon
>> 300 kits has a 18-55 lens. Is this okay? Can I use my Rebel lens
>> instead? 28-80.

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.

>> I also have a Canon flash, but I don't know the model, it's about 5 years
>> old. can I use it if I get a 300 or the new 350D.

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.
March 5, 2005 6:46:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>
> 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!
>


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
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 9:01:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Skip M wrote:

>
> 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.

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.

Thanks,
Ck.

--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Irritating Usenet Signature Here.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:05:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <422a3af4$1_4@x-privat.org>, CDToo@FarReaches.com says...
> I don't know when I can get the 350 and it's only a
> couple hundred more from what I see.

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.
March 6, 2005 4:05:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c94214f768201298a764@news.verizon.net>, Brian C. Baird
<nospam@please.no> wrote:

> The 350D should be available in the next couple of weeks.

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
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 4:28:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <050320052011146727%fort514@mac.com>, fort514@mac.com says...
> > The 350D should be available in the next couple of weeks.
>
> 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.

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.
Anonymous
March 9, 2005 8:49:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charles wrote:

> In article <MPG.1c94214f768201298a764@news.verizon.net>, Brian C. Baird
> <nospam@please.no> wrote:
>
>
>>The 350D should be available in the next couple of weeks.
>
>
> 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.

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.

Ck.

--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Irritating Usenet Signature Here.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Anonymous
March 10, 2005 2:01:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:49:48 -0500, Chuck Deitz <CDToo@FarReaches.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

ZLRs have much to recommend them, but I do not think you will regret
going the DSLR route.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
!