Regatta Offer: Save 15% With Code 15OFF

How many Pixels do you need?


binngreen 17 4
26 Aug 2005 7:02AM
"I consistently print spectacular 12 x 18" prints from my D70 at my local Costco warehouse discount store, even from BASIC JPG files." Nikon D70 = 6mb

The above comes from the site of professional photographer Ken Rockwell. I suggest you all read his report especially the article which explains the differences between pixel counts.

A decent digital SLR will outstrip any digital P/S camera even though the P/S may have many more million pixels. This is because the CCD in a SLR is much larger than P/S.

The thing is - this debate is becoming something like I remember from my photography club days over thirty years ago. Members spending hours debating which lens, camera, flash, etc, was best. The real photographers just went out and took photographs.

I once had a MG Maestro 2 litre turbo. The 0 - 60 speed at that time was supposed to better a Ferrari Mondial. See what I'm I'm getting at? This pixel thing is a manufacturers marketing dream, I wonder how many people will buy cameras just because they have more pixels than others.
sillyconguru 17 4.4k
26 Aug 2005 8:59AM

Quote:
I once had a MG Maestro 2 litre turbo. The 0 - 60 speed at that time was supposed to better a Ferrari Mondial. See what I'm I'm getting at?



No, they're both ***** Wink
binngreen 17 4
26 Aug 2005 9:48AM
'sillyconguru'

Thank you for your reply. I am sorry for confusing you with the analogy. I was trying to show that the continuing obsession amongst many snappers and amateur photographers with pixels is on a similar level to some motorists obsession with 0 - 60 mph figures. In other words, each shows a lack of understanding about the real qualities of the products.
sillyconguru 17 4.4k
26 Aug 2005 9:53AM
He-he, it's OK Geoff.

It's not just the number of MP that the "average" consumer is obsessed about, there's the "optical zoom" also. Many people don't care about the quality of the lens, just how "big" it is.
keithh 17 25.8k 33 Wallis And Futuna
26 Aug 2005 9:55AM
Sadly though..the Mondial had no qualities....mind you neither did the so called MG.

It's a bit like saying your D70 is as good as a Seagull SLR. In fact the Seagull is probably made of recycled Mondials.
Wink
sillyconguru 17 4.4k
26 Aug 2005 9:57AM
ROTFLMAO
Leif 16 777
26 Aug 2005 10:13AM
There's some good points here. I don't doubt that large prints can be spectacular (some I've seen are). Yes there is a tendency to consider pixels and to ignore the image.

"The above comes from the site of professional photographer Ken Rockwell. I suggest you all read his report especially the article which explains the differences between pixel counts."

Ahhhh, Ken Rockwell. He often reviews lenses and cameras which he has not actually tried.

From his site: " I do photography for love, not money". He does not earn a living from photography. (Nothing wrong with that of course.)

I know from experience that many of the things he says about products that I have owned are incorrect. Also many of his opinions go against advice from many highly respected pros who are at the top of their field (John Shaw, Art Morris etc.) For example:

Here's Ken on cleaning lenses:

"To clean a lens or filter I prefer to breathe on it to coat the lens with a thin fog of pure disuntiled water. I then wipe it gently with a clean dry soft cotton T-shirt."

I find the above painful to read. Some dirt, such as grease, is not water soluble. And using a T-shirt to clean it will scratch the lens.

Here's Ken on tripods:

"Don't use a tripod if you can help it. Having to carry one is a pain and thus cripples creativity. Only use a tripod for still subjects either at night or when you need long shutter speeds of about 1/60 or slower."

He continues in an almost Monty Pythonesque fashion:

"It's a common misconception among photo teachers and amateurs that tripods are good, although no one really knows why. I guess some people just associate tripods with serious photography."

Clearly John Shaw, Art Morris, Fritz Polking, and many other respected pros could learn something from Ken.

Sorry if I sound rude about KR but I feel that he can seriously mislead the unwary. No doubt some of his information is very good, but much is along the lines of the quotes above.

Leif
exclusive 16 579 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2005 2:33PM
cibachromes still are the best prints possible. there is something about the prints that glows.

also making 12x8 prints from a 3.1Mp camera is easy. a small bit of interpolation sharpened look great.

its not the amount of the pixels you have its the quality that they give.
fez 17 262
26 Aug 2005 5:16PM
yeah....i heard something like that, think it ends w/....
"...the motion of the ocean"....and people say that to compensate usually.

heh, but i guess its true of photography.
Just Jas 19 26.3k 1 England
26 Aug 2005 6:00PM

Quote:does the number of pixels not affect resolution rather than sharpness.


Maybe, but over a given range the two are interdependant.

I would suggest that this interdependant range is the useful working range of the camera/lens combination.
jas
Just Jas 19 26.3k 1 England
26 Aug 2005 6:21PM

Quote:.........there is something about the prints that glows.


Although firmly committed to the DSLR now for the majority of my photography, every time I receive a batch of colour or B&W prints back from the processor I feel a twinge of doubt!

jas
pj.morley 18 947 United Kingdom
26 Aug 2005 7:08PM

Quote:I wonder how many people will buy cameras just because they have more pixels than others.


Yep, count me in. I want the the Canon 5D to replace my 10D Wink
agoreira 17 6.0k Wales
27 Aug 2005 12:37AM
"Yep, count me in. I want the the Canon 5D to replace my 10D Wink"

I might join you! Wink The 20D wasn't a big enough improvement to make me want to ditch the 10D and buy it, but depending on price, the 5D might fit the bill. What I like is the similar size to the 10/20D, it won't involve carrying more weight, or buying a new bag to carry the larger and heavier 1D's.
stevem 17 238 United Kingdom
27 Aug 2005 2:12AM
I upgraded from 3 to 6 Mp & found the difference in image size & quality startling, however the jump from 6 to 8 Mp (D60 - 20D) wasn't enough to warrant parting with cash. Spent it on L glass instead. Like the full frame sensor on the proposed 5D & it's not as bulky as the 1D etc, so I'll be looking at it with interest. It's 12 Mp isn't it?
PaulStone 16 5 United Kingdom
27 Aug 2005 5:18AM
I felt my film scans were quite some way superior to digital and then I got the 8 megapixel 20D which was nearer in quality. Then I got the sigma Sd9 with 3.4 megapixels and felt that to be better than my film scans. Go figure? It isnt all about megapixels. When the 5D comes out it wont mean the 20D suddenly becomes a bad camera because it has less megapixels.It is and will remain a fantastic camera Its alarming people will trip over themselves to part with the cash for the mere mention of megapixels. The only winners are the camera companies that use the terminology to get rich.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.