Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Megapixel Question

Reply
Thread Tools

Megapixel Question

 
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
"Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:456c0851$0$24725$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader->>
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
>>

> Until you read the last paragraph where he shoots himself in the foot.


He does nothing of the kind.

He states a well-accepted maxim: that 300 dpi represents what is considered
film-quality when viewed at fairly close distances.

His major point was that it takes at least a DOUBLING of liner ppi--which
equates to a QUADRUPLING of total number of megapixels--to make a real
difference in viewable resolution at normal viewing distances.

He attacks the myth that an extra megappixel or two makes one camera
"better" than another.

To answer the OP's question, it is doubtful that there would be a
significant difference in quality between the two resolutions that he lists.
If you have any empirical evidence to the contrary, please post it for us to
review and scrutinize.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
jeremy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> To answer the OP's question, it is doubtful that there would be a
> significant difference in quality between the two resolutions that he lists.
> If you have any empirical evidence to the contrary, please post it for us to
> review and scrutinize.
>


Some people would rather spend their time attacking Ken than discussing the
issue. I am glad that you are not one of them.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
Thomas T. Veldhouse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>sally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Crow T Robot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
>>>from the numerical?

>>
>> Lens and sensor physical size are just as important, if not more important,
>> than megapixels.

>
>Most modern (say 1990+) lenses don't seem to have any issue with resolving to
>the detail of a 10.2MP sensor, at least, not from what I have seen.


You're not looking at P&S cameras, are you?

--
Ray Fischer
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:qaYah.2996
>
> Some people would rather spend their time attacking Ken than discussing
> the
> issue. I am glad that you are not one of them.
>


He keeps driving home one point: Stop believing the unfounded claims that
are repeated as though they were gospel, and look at the photos themselves.
I agree with that philosophy.

Bob Monaghan also made that point on his web site. He reported having
conducted tests where subjects were unable to determine which camera/lens
had made which photo.

Rockwell recently compared the new Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZF lenses with Nikkor
normal lenses, and his comparison shots revealed that the highly-reputed
Zeiss lens wasn't appreciably superior to Nikkors. I like it when
longstanding myths are debunked. I also got over my desire to acquire the
ZS 50mm f/1.4 in screw mount. Rockwell concluded that one could see much
more significant results by changing to a larger format than by buying
expensive 35mm lenses to replace ones that one already had.

Essentially, his message has been to "stop the insanity," when every new
advertising claim is introduced. Despite the recent advances especially in
digital, the mere possession of state-of-the-art gear does not assure that
the results will be anything better than mediocre.

If that were the only conclusion that I got from reading Rockwell's site, I
think it would have been well worth it. My attention has shifted from
agonizing over the latest piece of gear to making better photos. Napoleon
Hill once said to use the tools that are currently at your disposal, and
that better tools would appear when one became ready for them. A bit
metaphysical, but there is a grain of truth in that as well.

Of course, the manufacturers and photo magazines would see a downturn in
their revenues, if a majority of photographers thought that way.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
Ray Fischer <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Thomas T. Veldhouse <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>sally <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> Crow T Robot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
>>>>from the numerical?
>>>
>>> Lens and sensor physical size are just as important, if not more important,
>>> than megapixels.

>>
>>Most modern (say 1990+) lenses don't seem to have any issue with resolving to
>>the detail of a 10.2MP sensor, at least, not from what I have seen.

>
> You're not looking at P&S cameras, are you?
>


No, DSLR only.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:qaYah.2996$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> jeremy <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> To answer the OP's question, it is doubtful that there would be a
>> significant difference in quality between the two resolutions that he
>> lists.
>> If you have any empirical evidence to the contrary, please post it for us
>> to
>> review and scrutinize.
>>

>
> Some people would rather spend their time attacking Ken than discussing
> the
> issue. I am glad that you are not one of them.


At no time did I attack Ken I merely pointed out that in the last paragraph
he states that you need 7.2 MP for "excellent" prints at A4 size yet all
through the article he is saying that it is not needed and that 3MP will do,
well which is it?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006

"jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fe_ah.10928$gJ1.5356@trndny09...
> "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:qaYah.2996
>>
>> Some people would rather spend their time attacking Ken than discussing
>> the
>> issue. I am glad that you are not one of them.
>>

>
> He keeps driving home one point: Stop believing the unfounded claims that
> are repeated as though they were gospel, and look at the photos
> themselves. I agree with that philosophy.
>
> Bob Monaghan also made that point on his web site. He reported having
> conducted tests where subjects were unable to determine which camera/lens
> had made which photo.
>
> Rockwell recently compared the new Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZF lenses with Nikkor
> normal lenses, and his comparison shots revealed that the highly-reputed
> Zeiss lens wasn't appreciably superior to Nikkors. I like it when
> longstanding myths are debunked. I also got over my desire to acquire the
> ZS 50mm f/1.4 in screw mount. Rockwell concluded that one could see much
> more significant results by changing to a larger format than by buying
> expensive 35mm lenses to replace ones that one already had.
>
> Essentially, his message has been to "stop the insanity," when every new
> advertising claim is introduced. Despite the recent advances especially
> in digital, the mere possession of state-of-the-art gear does not assure
> that the results will be anything better than mediocre.
>
> If that were the only conclusion that I got from reading Rockwell's site,
> I think it would have been well worth it. My attention has shifted from
> agonizing over the latest piece of gear to making better photos. Napoleon
> Hill once said to use the tools that are currently at your disposal, and
> that better tools would appear when one became ready for them. A bit
> metaphysical, but there is a grain of truth in that as well.
>
> Of course, the manufacturers and photo magazines would see a downturn in
> their revenues, if a majority of photographers thought that way.


Very well and good and I am sure you are more than happy using your 2MP
camera, personally I need all the help I can get.


 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
"Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:456c8348$0$24753$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
>
> Very well and good and I am sure you are more than happy using your 2MP
> camera, personally I need all the help I can get.
>


Why the condescending tone? I was responding to a question about how much
of a difference a couple of additional megapixels would make, and you have
turned it into an occasion for insults.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-28-2006
jeremy wrote:
> "Pete D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:456c0851$0$24725$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader->>
> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
> >>

> > Until you read the last paragraph where he shoots himself in the foot.

>
> He does nothing of the kind.
>
> He states a well-accepted maxim: that 300 dpi represents what is considered
> film-quality when viewed at fairly close distances.
>
> His major point was that it takes at least a DOUBLING of liner ppi--which
> equates to a QUADRUPLING of total number of megapixels--to make a real
> difference in viewable resolution at normal viewing distances.
>
> He attacks the myth that an extra megappixel or two makes one camera
> "better" than another.
>
> To answer the OP's question, it is doubtful that there would be a
> significant difference in quality between the two resolutions that he lists.
> If you have any empirical evidence to the contrary, please post it for us to
> review and scrutinize.


And yet you choose to take a lot of extra time to scan you film at the
highest resolution. If you Scanned at something less you would loose
very little detail in the final image but you feel it is worth the
extra time to put into the scan. How is it then that the extra
resolution in a digital camera is worth so little to you?

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006
Pete D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Very well and good and I am sure you are more than happy using your 2MP
>camera, personally I need all the help I can get.


A 50MP camera won't make you a good photographer and won't make your
pictures sharp or interesting.

--
Ray Fischer
(E-Mail Removed)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots? Vik Rubenfeld Digital Photography 2 09-26-2005 08:51 AM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 6 04-01-2005 05:26 PM
Sigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLRSigma Announces SD-30--30 Megapixel,Universal Lens Mount, Digital SLR sigmaphotojapan@yahoo.com Digital Photography 5 04-01-2005 02:08 PM
5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera Mark Digital Photography 13 03-09-2005 04:06 PM
The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color Brian C. Baird Digital Photography 44 06-17-2004 06:12 PM



Advertisments