Gordon,
Remember that the images you are looking at in the Challenge are a maximum of 800 pixels wide. I don’t think the resolution of an 8MP camera is any advantage for images viewed on a monitor.
The fine detail also depends a lot on the optics of the camera…and how well it’s focused and how steadilly it’s held, of course.
I took some wonderfully detailed closeup shots of roses in my back yard several years ago with my first digital camera, a 2MP Nikon Coolpix point-and-shoot. Carefully focused and exposed, and then judicious use of the USM.
The high resolution has two advantages: First, as you said, it’s needed for large prints. Second, it allows you more leeway in cropping, while still maintaining sufficient resolution.
As for camera recommendations, I am lusting for a Canon EOS 20D. Bert
Hi Gordon
It seems it’s marketing unspeakables pushing higher res just to make a shifty dollar, much better detail they say!, how can this be so when the px density is about the same for low and high. Iv’e always felt uneasy about these claims, as Bert says a 2Mp pic can be first class. (Even if its enlarged to A4), of course 2Mpx is now for phones and I see even these are up to 7Mpx. The big res print only looks clearer on account of It’s just bigger, if one cannot see the px at native 2mpx why interpolate down to see less of what you could not see before? in any case how many homes have an A3 printer at the moment? so what’s the point of an 7/8Mpx camera if all you get is A4, It’s forgotten a poster is expensive.
In my case I’ve gone up to 4Mpx and I find I’ts a pain tweaking on account of not much is visible at 100%, I suppose the next step is an expensive monitor and graphics card to keep up with monster files
Regards
Malcolm
Callum
The point behind hi-rez cameras is not necessarily to make big prints – actually big prints tend be be viewed from further away, so you don’t need that many pixels. Although I do have a A3 printer and make bigger prints sometimes, the big frustration that makes me want a higher-rez camera [I have 5mpx] is when I want to crop out just a part of an image and get a decent size print. Sometimes you just can’t get/zoom close enough to the subject. Other times, the image element is not apparent at shooting time.
More pixels can be better, but really, the difference between 6 and 8 megapixels is borderline trivial. It sounds like a lot, but it’s really only a 33% difference.
Crop a 6 megapixel photo to 50% of its size and do the same to an identical 8 megapixel image. Now you have a 3 megapixel and a 4 megapixel image. Print both at 8×10. Is there a big difference? Not really. As Bert and Malcolm said, the optics are probably more important.
You have to double the pixel count to really get large benefits.
There are many factors that affect the overall quality of pictures. Number of pixels is just one of them. Lens quality (as has been mentioned) is another. Sensor size is also very important. A 4mp Canon 1D with a sensor size of 28.7 x 19.1 mm (as an example) will produce results that a 4mp digican with an 8.8 x 6.6 mm sensor could never hope to do. In fact, a few pros prefer their older 4mp Canon 1D to the 8mp 1D mark II! For web-size viewing, good post-processing (including appropriate sharpening) can really enhance a picture.
As to cameras, better quality "potential" will be achieved with one of the current DSLR’s, 4mp or greater, sensor size in the 22 x 15 mm range or larger, good-quality lens, shooting RAW. This is not to say that a 5-8mp digicam can’t produce stunning results they absolutely can but there is a clear technical dividing line between this class and the DSLRs.
but there is a clear technical dividing line between this class and the DSLRs
True, but there is a middle-ground too. I am thinking of some of the EVF cameras, like Olympus or [my favourite] the Sony F717.
Colin, the "prosumer" cameras have an awful lot to offer in a single package. I had seriously considered one of them before opting for the Digital Rebel. It was the EVF that I couldn’t get used to. Now that I have a DSLR, I also appreciate the sensor size, and a few other capabilities. Drawbacks include spending much more than I’d originally planned in order to get the lenses I wanted, and much more weight to cover the same range of focal lengths.
John makes a very good point about sensor size. My Oly E-20 is a 5 megapixel camera, but those 5 million pixels are packed into a very small sensor. The result: Noise at anything above the lowest ISO setting…which I always use. Also purple fringing, but I don’t know if that’s related to sensor size.
John
Your point about sensor size is, of course, very valid.
It was the EVF that I couldn’t get used to
Interestingly, this is something I really like compared with an SLR [or DSLR]. 2 reasons: First, I like getting the exposure preview – it avoids gross problems. Second, for some kinds of pictures, not having your head right behind the lens is useful – close to the ground macro work, for instance.
for some kinds of pictures, not having your head right behind the lens is useful – close to the ground macro work, for instance.
Wouldn’t that be problematic for focusing, Colin? Even the highest-resolution EVF is nowhere near the detail of what you see looking through the viewfinder of a DSLR. Add to that the fact that macro shots in particular have a tiny depth of field, and most people I know don’t use autofocus on macro shots because there’s no way the camera can know exactly what you’re trying to focus on. Using an EVF for macro shots sounds like a recipe for many slightly out of focus images.
One of the reasons I bought the Pentax *ist DS as my first DSLR was the fact that its viewfinder is much larger than that of the Canon or Nikon cameras in the same price range. Looking through Canons or Nikons gave me tunnel vision at the camera store. 🙂 I don’t know how people focus with those tiny viewfinders.
Colin: Second, for some kinds of pictures, not having your head right behind the lens is useful – close to the ground macro work, for instance.
The Sony was particularly attractive for this. I’ve ended up purchasing a right-angle finder for the DRebel which keeps my chin out of the mud for the most part. I wish it did 45° as well, though.
As for the exposure preview I assmume you mean a "live" histogram? that would be nice. I always have my LCD display the histogram after the shot, but for action/candids you’ve already missed "the moment" at that point. Still, it’s better than nothing.
Bert, this article suggests that purple-fringing is caused by a combination of factors:
<
http://www.pictureline.com/newsletter/2004/july/purplefringe .html>
Thanks, John. I had never researched the causes of purple fringing. It’s not severe in my camera…I usually only see it on high-contrast edges under extreme magnification.
From the discussion, it sounds like a new, expensive DSLR is no guarantee that you won’t have it. Bert
The Sony was particularly attractive for this. I’ve ended up purchasing a right-angle finder for the DRebel which keeps my chin out of the mud
When I bought the camera, I didn’t even know that it would "bend in the middle", but now I use that a lot. Photography at arm’s length is different, but effective.
As for the exposure preview I assmume you mean a "live" histogram?
There is that, but I had in mind just the view in the EVF, which is bright or dark. Nothing clever, but light years better than a TTL optical view, when you are shooting "blind".
Well said Lou.
Leaving aside CCD size and glass quality probably the most usefull by far is a moderate res dirty great zoom and stablised, in short, a cam (nearly) for all seasons, I can’t see any attraction in carting a small suitcase full of lens about. After all most of us are just snappers.
Maybe the next gen big zoom IS cameras will be pocket size – roll on!! Cheers
Malcolm
