Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

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

Reply
Thread Tools

Megapixel Question

 
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006

"jeremy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:CO%ah.18412$mM1.10102@trndny08...
> "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.
>


LOL.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
D Russell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006
To my mind you only have to look at the professionals, regardless of all the
clever rationalisations, no professional photographer is still shooting
with his old 2MP DSLR.

It's kind of like the old argument about how fast a PC needs to be, I
remember all the discussion on how no one needs to move to a 12MHz machine
when the 8MHz ones can do everything just fine !!!

D

Crow T Robot wrote:

> I have looked the question up on the web and the answers I have found
> there indicate there really is no difference so I figure why not ask for
> opinions.
>
> Is there any difference between 6.2 megapixels and 10.2 megapixels aside
> from the numerical? Is there a difference in picture quality?
> Noticeable? I have read that when cropping pictures more detail is
> preserved from the original?
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006
Pete D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>

>
> LOL.
>
>


That will make it better Pete.

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


 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006

Ray Fischer wrote:
> 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.
>

You could just as well say using good fine grain film would not make
you photos sharp or interesting, and yet would you really want to use
ISO 800 print film? I don't know about you but I used slow film when I
shoot film to allow me to get a fairly sharp image.

If the number of pixels does not matter why not use a cell phone for
all your photos? The number of pixels does matter if you make large
prints and want them to look sharp, or is there something wrong with
wanting sharp prints?

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
jeremy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006
"D Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ekjog1$eg3$(E-Mail Removed)...

> To my mind you only have to look at the professionals, regardless of all
> the
> clever rationalisations, no professional photographer is still shooting
> with his old 2MP DSLR.
>


I shoot primarily film. I have over a dozen 35mm bodies and 18 prime
lenses. I am reluctant to chuck all that and try to reproduce it with
digital equipment. For one thing, the cost would outrageous. For another
thing, I like working with prime lenses, and they are not readily available
for digital cameras. Virtually everything is a zoom. Finally I really
enjoy my classic gear, and there is no compelling reason for me to start out
all over again.

I use my 2.3 mp digicam for snapshots and mundane stuff, such as home
inventory shots. For that purpose, it serves my needs just fine. For me,
the advantages of digital photography lie in the post-shoot digital darkroom
editing, not so much in the image capture stage.

So I am not in any way suggesting that a 2 MP camera would be appropriate
for serious amateur or professional applications. But in my case, my film
scanner has, in a sense, turned my film cameras into digital cameras, and I
have no intention of "upgrading."

There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. "Going digital" does not
necessarily represent the best alternative for every person.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006

Scott W wrote:
>> >

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

> You could just as well say using good fine grain film would not make
> you photos sharp or interesting, and yet would you really want to use
> ISO 800 print film? I don't know about you but I used slow film when I
> shoot film to allow me to get a fairly sharp image.


I often lust after some of the higher megapixel cameras like the
1DsMKII or even the 5D.
The perception is that if I buy one of these I'll automatically get
lots of awesome shots.
To combat this feeling I pretend that I have these cameras out in my
car. Then I ask myself what kinds of great pics will I get with them
that I can't get now? That usually pacifies my lust for a short time.
The truth is that having one of these cameras wouldn't guarantee me
great pics, but it would make every shot I take from now on
incrementally better.

For the shooting I do, a big sharp telephoto like a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4
would probably benefit me the most. And I'll continue to lust after the
85mm f/1.2L II, as well.
For portraits, ya know.
Someday .....

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2006

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9Fgbh.3021$(E-Mail Removed).. .
> Pete D <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>

>>
>> LOL.
>>
>>

>
> That will make it better Pete.
>
> --
> Thomas T. Veldhouse
> Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
>
>


Couldn't make it worse. You did read his originnal post?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Aaron
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2006
And lo, Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
>
> Scott W wrote:
>>> >
>> > A 50MP camera won't make you a good photographer and won't make your
>> > pictures sharp or interesting.
>> >

>> You could just as well say using good fine grain film would not make
>> you photos sharp or interesting, and yet would you really want to use
>> ISO 800 print film? I don't know about you but I used slow film when I
>> shoot film to allow me to get a fairly sharp image.

>
> I often lust after some of the higher megapixel cameras like the
> 1DsMKII or even the 5D.
> The perception is that if I buy one of these I'll automatically get
> lots of awesome shots.
> To combat this feeling I pretend that I have these cameras out in my
> car. Then I ask myself what kinds of great pics will I get with them
> that I can't get now? That usually pacifies my lust for a short time.
> The truth is that having one of these cameras wouldn't guarantee me
> great pics, but it would make every shot I take from now on
> incrementally better.
>
> For the shooting I do, a big sharp telephoto like a 500 f/4 or 600 f/4
> would probably benefit me the most. And I'll continue to lust after the
> 85mm f/1.2L II, as well.
> For portraits, ya know.
> Someday .....


Unfortunately--and I speak from experience--the 5D will not
automatically give you lots of awesome shots. But what it *will* do is
make your 15mm fisheye suddenly look drop-dead gorgeous.

But that's neither here nor there. Let us not also forget the brand
new EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. Talk about lust. Only $1,500!

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Scott W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-12-2006
Aaron wrote:
> Unfortunately--and I speak from experience--the 5D will not
> automatically give you lots of awesome shots. But what it *will* do is
> make your 15mm fisheye suddenly look drop-dead gorgeous.
>
> But that's neither here nor there. Let us not also forget the brand
> new EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. Talk about lust. Only $1,500!


I really don't see how anyone is going to need the f/1.2 lens, its MTF
curves look pretty bad and even at f/8, the 50mm f/1.4 looks much
better.

I can't see that less then 1/2 stop is going to be worth the loss in
sharpness and not even close to the $1500 the thing cost. But I am
sure some will buy it simply because it is the fastest.

Scott

 
Reply With Quote
 
Aaron
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-13-2006
And lo, Scott W <(E-Mail Removed)> emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
> Aaron wrote:
> > Unfortunately--and I speak from experience--the 5D will not
>> automatically give you lots of awesome shots. But what it *will* do is
>> make your 15mm fisheye suddenly look drop-dead gorgeous.
>>
>> But that's neither here nor there. Let us not also forget the brand
>> new EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM. Talk about lust. Only $1,500!

>
> I really don't see how anyone is going to need the f/1.2 lens, its MTF
> curves look pretty bad and even at f/8, the 50mm f/1.4 looks much
> better.
>
> I can't see that less then 1/2 stop is going to be worth the loss in
> sharpness and not even close to the $1500 the thing cost. But I am
> sure some will buy it simply because it is the fastest.
>
> Scott


It's true, the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L have very similar MTF
characteristics[1][2], but as an owner of the 50/1.4, I can attest to
its *pronounced* vignette, and unless you're willing to take your
wonderful full-frame images and crop them to APS-size or attempt some
post-production to reverse the effect, the 50/1.2 might be worth it if
you want a lightweight, sharp, very fast portrait lens.

I used the 50/1.4 happily on my 10D for a few years and took some of
my favorite photos with it, but with the 5D the effect is completely
different.

[1] EF 50mm f/1.4 - http://snipurl.com/14uxx
[2] EF 50mm f/1.2 - http://snipurl.com/14uxy

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com
 
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