Nikon D100 vs. D2X Question

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

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.

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

Tim Smith <tssmith@sonic.net> writes:
> 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.

Correct.

> But if I do an 8x10 from a D100 image, and an 8x10 from a D2X image,
> will I see any differences?

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.

> Will the D2X image be better than the D100 image, the same, or
> worse?

I say that at 8x10, they will be same. Some people will say that
the higher resolution will be better.

> What effect do the smaller photo sites on the D2X have on equal size
> small prints?

Pixels in a file has no size, so the printer doesn't "know" what
size the camera's photosites were.

> (Leaving out any considerations, if possible, about the fact that
> the D100 has a CCD sensor, and the D2X a CMOS sensor.)

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.

> 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.

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 [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Tim Smith wrote:

> 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).

Or make 150 dpi prints where at normal viewing distances you won't be
able to tell the difference.



--
-- 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: Remove FreeLunch.

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

Tim Smith wrote:
>
> But if I do an 8x10 from a D100 image, and an 8x10 from a D2X image,
> will I see any differences? ...
> ...(Leaving out any
> considerations, if possible, about the fact that the D100 has a CCD
> sensor, and the D2X a CMOS sensor.)


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
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants