smallaperture
Senior Member
synapseman said:
I suggest you read Ken Rockwell's article on the Megapixel Myth. Not too long ago, there was a Canon D30 having only 3Mp and it still beats those 8Mp digicams hollow.
Your camera 6 megapixels ONLY ah?
- Thread starter synapseman
- Start date
- Status
I suggest you read Ken Rockwell's article on the Megapixel Myth. Not too long ago, there was a Canon D30 having only 3Mp and it still beats those 8Mp digicams hollow.
av98m said:
Personal inadequacy and low self esteem ?
When people say things like that to me, i just smile and reply, "sure, of course, you are better. let's take everything away, what are you now? ". If they don't even have the humanity to stop and furrow their brow in deep thought, they're not worth anyone's time.
LENS said:
if i'm not wrong it's because the 4mp dslr sensor is physically larger than the one found in a p&s digicam. at the same resolution, the photosites (correct term?) on the digicam's sensor will be much smaller compared to the ones on the dslr, and the amount of light that can be detected by the photosites is correspondingly less. the signals will therefore have to be amplified to a greater extent to compensate for this, and this will introduce more noise to the photo compared to the dslr.
hopefully i recall correctly. ;p
Some prosumer cameras are 8 megapixel machines. So are some DSLRs. Most people are inclined to ask, "What's the difference?"
Well, both get the job done, but the DSLR does it better. A DSLR is, in general, faster, more responsive, and has better image quality.
Some might find it hard to understand the issue of sensor size, but if you draw it out for them, they'll probably understand. First, draw a large rectangle to represent a film negative. Tell them that all information in a scene is captured onto this rectangle/ film negative. Then draw a much smaller rectangle and explain that it represents the sensor of a small P&S digicam, and mention that it works in the same way as a film negative by capturing information.
Now if we were to print out all this information captured onto two pieces of paper of equal size, it's obvious that you'll need to enlarge the digicam picture a lot more than you would need to do for a film negative. Enlargements lead to loss of quality.
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.
Then there's the issue of ISO performance, but we probably don't have to dive into that.:bsmilie:
Well, both get the job done, but the DSLR does it better. A DSLR is, in general, faster, more responsive, and has better image quality.
Some might find it hard to understand the issue of sensor size, but if you draw it out for them, they'll probably understand. First, draw a large rectangle to represent a film negative. Tell them that all information in a scene is captured onto this rectangle/ film negative. Then draw a much smaller rectangle and explain that it represents the sensor of a small P&S digicam, and mention that it works in the same way as a film negative by capturing information.
Now if we were to print out all this information captured onto two pieces of paper of equal size, it's obvious that you'll need to enlarge the digicam picture a lot more than you would need to do for a film negative. Enlargements lead to loss of quality.
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.
Then there's the issue of ISO performance, but we probably don't have to dive into that.:bsmilie:
Newman said:I think your explanation is misconstrued. It seems like you are trying to explain why more megapixels is better than less.Also, does it mean that a 1Ds MkII is worse than a film SLR?:dunno:
Maybe I wasn't clear, but all I'm trying to say is that a bigger sensor is better than a small one.
If I remember correctly, a 1Ds MKII is a full-frame camera. The sensor is of the same size as a film negative. But here is where megapixel count seems to come in. There's no current calculation to measure how many megapixels it would take for a full-frame DSLR to outresolve film, but some others out there still feel that digital will need to go further before it can reach the quality of film.
Again, just my thoughts. Some feel that the highest-end professional DSLRs produce images that already rival that of film cameras, or have already exceeded that. It's a debate that is very old...and heated.
Personally, I use, and have only ever used digital, and will probably continue to do so for the rest the life of my hobby. I don't wish to spend money on consumables, shoot a lot, and want instant results. Digital is just the thing for me to get into.
I think the 4/3 fans will dislike you for saying that.
They did not like it either when I said some other things.
They thought I was anti-Oly. Actually I like Oly a lot.
But NOT the e-300, which is humongous, very bulky for a 4/3.
I think the correct words when I look at it is : no style.
Maitani had lots of style when he created the OM1 and the XA.
The e300 looks like a plain loaf of bread.
Anyway in a few weeks when the Canon full frame less costly digicam is revealed that will end the issue.
Other brands will follow soon with full frame digicams of their own soon.
NO NEED TO :
BUY ANOTHER SET OF LENSES
which is the ONLY reason why some marketers try to make you go into another system; call it 5/4 /8/7/ 2/3 /1/2 whatever.....
millions of photographers buying entire new sets of lenses means billions of $$$$$$$.
APS tried that too. And deserved to FAIL miserably.
To be honest, I know nothing about the 4/3 system...is this a better system than the others on the market?
When I was shopping for the DSLR in the past, I did have a look at the E-300, and it was attractive because of the price and because of the two kit lenses that came with it, which would have covered a good range for me. Unfortunately I didn't like the image quality when it came to high-ISO performance. Looking at it, I knew this wasn't one of those cameras I could take indoors, bump the ISO to 1600 and fire away without worrying about the noise.
Other than that, it's a really well-priced camera. The style, as you mentioned, might leave something to be desired. Personally, I didn't mind the looks of it. It looked solidly built on top of that...like it could take a good beating and still survive, unlike say...the 350D.
When I was shopping for the DSLR in the past, I did have a look at the E-300, and it was attractive because of the price and because of the two kit lenses that came with it, which would have covered a good range for me. Unfortunately I didn't like the image quality when it came to high-ISO performance. Looking at it, I knew this wasn't one of those cameras I could take indoors, bump the ISO to 1600 and fire away without worrying about the noise.
Other than that, it's a really well-priced camera. The style, as you mentioned, might leave something to be desired. Personally, I didn't mind the looks of it. It looked solidly built on top of that...like it could take a good beating and still survive, unlike say...the 350D.
Pablo
Senior Member
Hi,
As for the 6mp vs bigger mp.
Just how big do you want to print the photo's ?
A good photographer with a 6mp camera can "produce" better photo's than a bad photographer with an 8mp camera.
One reason being is that the good photographer will frame the shot well, whereas the bad photographer can't frame
and looses the extra megapixels by having to crop the picture for a similar result.
Cheers
As for the 6mp vs bigger mp.
Just how big do you want to print the photo's ?
A good photographer with a 6mp camera can "produce" better photo's than a bad photographer with an 8mp camera.
One reason being is that the good photographer will frame the shot well, whereas the bad photographer can't frame
and looses the extra megapixels by having to crop the picture for a similar result.
Cheers
My personal suggestion - Don't.synapseman said:
First of all, people who compare cameras based on Megapixel count are prolly up to their necks in the megapixel counting game. They wun noe the difference between a CCD chip and a CMOS chip. Much less explaining the principle of interpolation and the density of the chip and other technical stuff.
You can:
- Show them the price tag for the body only
OR
- Show them your works which would be impossible for a fully-automatic, 8MP camera with absolutely zero control over any functions to replicate your results.
I have relatives who act smart and shows off their Ixus (the earlier one, 3.2MP). When my cousin asked me in a condescending tone after I'd examined the camera what camera I own, I coolly said.
"Nah... My camera's nothing. Just a normal professional range SLR. Cheapest one. The body alone costs $1700. My lenses... erm... let me count... Yah, I think I'd spent $3K on lenses and accessories. Hey u free next week? You can come over and I'll show u some pictures I took. Wun say its very good. Quite lousy actually."
It shut them up. And in case u're wondering, they din pop over to look at my pictures. ;p
There are more den 1 way to skin a chicken. In this case, its just a matter of showing them who's camera's bigger.
Maybe next year I'll get my cam with my 17-40L and see if they'll show off their Ixus or not. :think:
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.dominator said:there was once i was trying to help a group of friends take picture during tour, took out my compact nikon 2mp camera.
lady friend ask "how many mp?" :think:
me "2mp, why?"
lady friend "alamak, like that better use my 4mp to take, later your one not nice!"
me ""
Let's slug it out.
jsbn said:
You sure know how to work magic with sarcasm...a bit nasty but good enough for this purpose. :devil: Then again, it is "eye for an eye" payback for the snobbish behavior.
It really depends whether the person asking is genuine in his query or just out to show off the little knowledge he has.
- Status
