Your camera 6 megapixels ONLY ah?

[unseen]

A D1H with only 2.7MP can print upto 12r size......
so what does 6MP got to do when u have at least 2MP and above???

a 4MP will be just nice as, file size easier to manage n not overkill yr storage card.
save $$ buy other things.

hmmmm actually i'd wanna debate this point. I've never seen the images from a D1H b4, but simple physics tells me that you can't print 12R, but you WILL see the pixels. You can only fit so much details into 2.7 million dots/pixels. In comparison, a 6MP camera after downsizing etc, will trash the D1H for a simple printout if comparing detail, sharpness wise. 6mp is a full 100% more details.

Face it, in our IT age, 4 year old technology is 4 years old. it just cannot compare with new tech (only applies to IT). It's like holding on to your Pentium 1gHz and claiming that it's comparable to the latest Mac. How many devices can you name where the cheaper models now do NOT beat the top of the range model 4 years ago?

Anyway tech is advanced enough that simple point and shoot does give excellent results in many cases. If older dSLR users wish to forever remain conceited that theirs is the best, then so be it. I'd say you've been left behind by the digital age. I'd say a current year point and shoot can generally produce better photos than a 4 yr old dSLR.

 

[poh6702]

compare a 2MP with full manual controls in the hands of a photographer and a 4MP dummy idiot-proof, fully-automatic camera in the hands of a complete noob.

Let's slug it out.

Well, one evening I was having a dinner with a big group of colleague (about 20 people) sitting in a long table, the ambient was rather dim.

I was using my Nikon D70 plus SB800, one of the colleague was using a sony P&S camera, all my shots came out bright and clear like as though taken in the day, and the P&S all uderexposed:sticktong . He was very disappointed and asked me why, I told him the difference is the price.:bsmilie: (off course I know it is due to P&S flash underpower).

In bright day light, almost all camera can take rather good picture.

2 to 3 Mega pixels is enough for most people who wants to print up to 8R size. If the LCD monitor of 1024 by 768 (800k) is enough to view and check picture, I don't see why you need higher than that.:think:

 

[dundee]

I want to get a DSLR. Am eyeing a particular model. Someone asks me (and I have no doubt more people will ask in the future), "Why you want to buy 6 megapixels? Nowadays got 8 megapixels already what...."

eh dun complain lah.... my slr only 4MP :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[jnet6]

hmmmm actually i'd wanna debate this point. I've never seen the images from a D1H b4, but simple physics tells me that you can't print 12R, but you WILL see the pixels. You can only fit so much details into 2.7 million dots/pixels. In comparison, a 6MP camera after downsizing etc, will trash the D1H for a simple printout if comparing detail, sharpness wise. 6mp is a full 100% more details.

Face it, in our IT age, 4 year old technology is 4 years old. it just cannot compare with new tech (only applies to IT). It's like holding on to your Pentium 1gHz and claiming that it's comparable to the latest Mac. How many devices can you name where the cheaper models now do NOT beat the top of the range model 4 years ago?

Anyway tech is advanced enough that simple point and shoot does give excellent results in many cases. If older dSLR users wish to forever remain conceited that theirs is the best, then so be it. I'd say you've been left behind by the digital age. I'd say a current year point and shoot can generally produce better photos than a 4 yr old dSLR.

D1H is a pro body...... cannot compared to consumer body of a 6MP.....

 

[espn]

hmmmm actually i'd wanna debate this point. I've never seen the images from a D1H b4, but simple physics tells me that you can't print 12R, but you WILL see the pixels. You can only fit so much details into 2.7 million dots/pixels. In comparison, a 6MP camera after downsizing etc, will trash the D1H for a simple printout if comparing detail, sharpness wise. 6mp is a full 100% more details.

Face it, in our IT age, 4 year old technology is 4 years old. it just cannot compare with new tech (only applies to IT). It's like holding on to your Pentium 1gHz and claiming that it's comparable to the latest Mac. How many devices can you name where the cheaper models now do NOT beat the top of the range model 4 years ago?

Anyway tech is advanced enough that simple point and shoot does give excellent results in many cases. If older dSLR users wish to forever remain conceited that theirs is the best, then so be it. I'd say you've been left behind by the digital age. I'd say a current year point and shoot can generally produce better photos than a 4 yr old dSLR.

12R, a D1H can go 20 x 30 if you handle the image carefully. At least I'm confident I can do it. A 6MP, downsize, might not win the D1H's image quality. D1H arrived earlier than D100.

Of course 4 years technology is only 4 years old, but what we're comparing here is apple vs orange. Pro bodies will always be pro bodies don't bother comparing a consumer body. If you want, compare a D1H vs D2HS.

Any DSLRs, older or newer, will still beat the crap out of any P&S. This is not being conceited, this is just a truth. Sharpness, image quality, dynamic range, DOF are just some factors DSLRs will win over any P&S DC.

Well again, I'm not too sure a 3MP current DC can win even the image quality from D1H.

 

[espn]

The size of a DSLR sensor is larger than that of a small P&S but still smaller than a film negative. Hence, the quality of an image from a DSLR would be better than a P&S but poorer than film.

Actually, apart from the dynamic range that film can provide over digital, a DSLR can catch up pretty much far with film already.

 

[espn]

I was using my Nikon D70 plus SB800, one of the colleague was using a sony P&S camera, all my shots came out bright and clear like as though taken in the day, and the P&S all uderexposed:sticktong . He was very disappointed and asked me why, I told him the difference is the price.:bsmilie: (off course I know it is due to P&S flash underpower).

Slight correction, it's not the price. It's due to the sensor's design, your glasses' larger aperture. Price is the cost of these things that came with DSLR. If I can use a SB-800 as slave flash, I can probably achieve well light images off my CoolPix 4600 as well.

 

[FiveIronFrenzy]

Normally I just smile and say ' That's what they had when I bought this back then.' I think this makes it clear for most people and they wun probe any further. AND THEN we compare pictures
No point telling them how much my rig cost. So what if i tell them even the little ball on my tripod cost more than their camera? They say I hao lian only.
Just make them feel good about their higher megapixel p/s
and then make them wonder how come our pictures look so different.
Really, it puts us in a much better light both as a photographer, and as a person

 

[Zplus]

Anyway tech is advanced enough that simple point and shoot does give excellent results in many cases. If older dSLR users wish to forever remain conceited that theirs is the best, then so be it. I'd say you've been left behind by the digital age. I'd say a current year point and shoot can generally produce better photos than a 4 yr old dSLR.

Dude! You are definitely no tech here man!
Any tech guy will know that DSLR (old or new) has got much higher tech on their CCD/CMOS sensors then any cheapo P&S. Just up the ISO to say 800 (I'm not even saying 3200) and your P&S is toast. Not to mention anything more then 3fps... or interchangeable lenses at f2.8 or less!;p

Dude! What have you been smokin??
:bsmilie:

 

[Zplus]

I want to get a DSLR. Am eyeing a particular model. Someone asks me (and I have no doubt more people will ask in the future), "Why you want to buy 6 megapixels? Nowadays got 8 megapixels already what...."

Is there a convenient/easy way to explain the differences between a DSLR and a compact/prosumer camera? I'm kinda tired having to explain the concept of sensor sizes to laypeople every time they ask me the same question (which usually follows "your camera how many megapixels?").

What would you do/say?

See above for an example...
:bsmilie:

 

[Splutter]

Why dun just tell them that the mars exploration camera is only 1 megapix and it cost a million to build?

 

[eow]

not sure abt the old dslr will lose out to a newer P&s or vice versa..
the only apparent advantages that the dslr had over the pns is the usabiity of the iso and the availability of wide selection of lenses.

not all pns are the same ..technology really play a part imo
the next coming pns from fujifilm with it usuable high iso and manual control function will be a force
to reckon with..{f10 simply not my cup of tea expensive xd card and lack of control }

and pls prove me wrong...and post some of yr best pics taken with kit lens
to show any old dslr is better than a pns

 

[fWord]

Hmm...here's another way to look at megapixels:

Not long ago, Bell & Howell announced their new 10 megapixel camera, and it's going for around US$400, sized just like any other P&S. It should have taken the world by storm if it were really that fantastic.

http://www.thpsales.com/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=1122&idaffiliate=16

Tell the megapixel fans that even the newer entry-level DSLR such as the 350D is only 8 megapixels, then challenge them to buy this 10 MP camera. Take the same pictures and compare the quality.

I'd be VERY surprised if the Bell & Howell could surpass even a Canon PowerShot S2 IS, which, put simply, has resolution that is a whole 5 megapixels less.

 

[eikin]

not sure abt the old dslr will lose out to a newer P&s or vice versa..
the only apparent advantages that the dslr had over the pns is the usabiity of the iso and the availability of wide selection of lenses.

pls prove me wrong...and post some of yr best pics taken with kit lens
to show any dslr is better than a pns

the whole idea about using a DSLR rather than a PnS is the amount of 'control' the photographer has, to look at it another way, it is also the amount of 'responsibility' given to the photographer. PnS are usually built for minimal post processing, and ease of use. the less complex (or complicated) the better, that's why they are called Point and Shoot. as much as PnS cameras give the user less 'trouble' to obtain that picture perfect moment, it is seriously lacking when the user progresses and starts to explore other options of photograph-making.

 

[Zplus]

pls prove me wrong...and post some of yr best pics taken with kit lens
to show any dslr is better than a pns

Some pics taken with an ole EOS300D and kit lens - not the best ones...
And I was just playin arnd with it.

Good bokeh...

EOS 20D and kit lens at iso3200 - which you won't get on a P&S...

 

[eikin]

paiseh, have to OT ... i think this piece is wonderful! :thumbsup:

 

[eow]

the whole idea about using a DSLR rather than a PnS is the amount of 'control' the photographer has, to look at it another way, it is also the amount of 'responsibility' given to the photographer. PnS are usually built for minimal post processing, and ease of use. the less complex (or complicated) the better, that's why they are called Point and Shoot. as much as PnS cameras give the user less 'trouble' to obtain that picture perfect moment, it is seriously lacking when the user progresses and starts to explore other options of photograph-making.

Thanks Bro ekin for answering :thumbsup:
when first started into this hobby an advice i was given
is that a dslr can output a picture anytime better than a p&s... :nono:
now i known better:bsmilie:

Taking nice pics is all i need to enjoy this hobby be it Dslr or Pns as long as u known what u are getting and the limitation of yr gear and willing to compromise and work around it..

 

[eow]

Some pics taken with an ole EOS300D and kit lens - not the best ones...
And I was just playin arnd with it.

Good bokeh...

EOS 20D and kit lens at iso3200 - which you won't get on a P&S...

wah! i like it! :thumbsup:
what the kit lens used?

 

[Pro Image]

Guys,

Image sensor matters the most. Not MP counts.

 

[scanner]

Guys,

Image sensor matters the most. Not MP counts.

Err image sensor? Correct me if I'm wrong, thought it should be the sensitivity of the sensor (how much details the sensor can caputred), the dynamic range,noise level and etc....