6 Megapixels vs 8

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David P. Summers, Aug 15, 2005.

  1. I went and looked at the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel XT. The view
    finder ont he Nikon was better. On the Nikon I could tell if the picture
    was in focus easier and it took more care to manually focus with the
    Canon (at first I thought I couldn't focus it all, but it turned out
    part of that was that I needed to adjust the diopter setting). I know
    I'll be manually focuses most of the time, but I will want to check the
    autofocus, if I have time, and there may be few cases were I need to
    manually focus. Now clearly this is subjective, but the trade-off is
    versus the 6 Megapixels for the Nikon vis-a-vis 8 on the Canon. So....

    I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    think having 8 megapixels is?
    David P. Summers, Aug 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David P. Summers

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    David P. Summers <> wrote:

    > I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    > all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    > think having 8 megapixels is?


    Versus 6... only slightly. I'd make the decision on other factors.

    --
    Jeremy |
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David P. Summers

    Brian Baird Guest

    In article <>, says...
    > I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    > all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    > think having 8 megapixels is?


    It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    without comment.

    The other advantage to more pixels is you have a little more freedom in
    cropping. IF you don't frame exactly right, you can still crop and have
    6 million or more usable pixels.

    Of course, 8 megapixel images hog up more space. There are always
    tradeoffs.

    I currently shoot with a 6 megapixel camera. Would I like more
    resolution? Always. But do I need it? Only occasionally.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
    Brian Baird, Aug 15, 2005
    #3
  4. In article <>, Brian Baird
    <> wrote:

    > It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    > is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    > without comment.


    Bullshit!

    My 10D goes to 16x20 easily and, if use a tripod and take care in
    creating the image - to 20x24.

    But, given the choice between 6 & 8 with all other factors being
    equal...I'd go with the 8.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 15, 2005
    #4
  5. David P. Summers

    Brian Baird Guest

    In article <140820052016278512%>,
    says...
    > > It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    > > is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    > > without comment.

    >
    > Bullshit!
    >
    > My 10D goes to 16x20 easily and, if use a tripod and take care in
    > creating the image - to 20x24.


    Depends on the viewing distance, I guess. I don't like the looks of the
    prints I get from MY 10D when they get above 8x10. Sure, I can do some
    upsampling and get creative with the sharpening, but that isn't going to
    work in every instance.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
    Brian Baird, Aug 15, 2005
    #5
  6. David P. Summers

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >David Summers writes ...
    >
    >How significant do most people think having 8 megapixels is?


    I have a 6 Mpix camera (Canon 10D) and an 8 Mpix camera (Canon 1D Mark
    II) and if printed 12x18" or larger it's clear the 8 Mpix image is
    better for images shot with the same lenses. For 8x10's or smaller it
    probably doesn't matter (so long as you don't have to crop).

    How much of this is due to 6 vs 8 Mpix and how much can be attributed
    to a $1,500 consumer camera vs a $4,500 professional camera with a
    generation later software and different pixel pitch is open for debate,
    but all things being equal, for large prints you're better off with the
    added pixels.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Aug 15, 2005
    #6
  7. "Randall Ainsworth" <> wrote:
    > Brian Baird <> wrote:
    >
    >> It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    >> is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    >> without comment.

    >
    > Bullshit!
    >
    > My 10D goes to 16x20 easily and, if use a tripod and take care in
    > creating the image - to 20x24.


    Sheesh, you must be blind. At A4, scanned 645 looks way better than 6MP. The
    difference only gets larger up to 13x19. Beyond which neither is acceptable.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 15, 2005
    #7
  8. David P. Summers

    skroob Guest

    Ive printed 20x30s from my D70 and as long as you arent leaving nose prints
    on the glass you really cant tell.


    "Brian Baird" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, says...
    >> I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    >> all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    >> think having 8 megapixels is?

    >
    > It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    > is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    > without comment.
    >
    > The other advantage to more pixels is you have a little more freedom in
    > cropping. IF you don't frame exactly right, you can still crop and have
    > 6 million or more usable pixels.
    >
    > Of course, 8 megapixel images hog up more space. There are always
    > tradeoffs.
    >
    > I currently shoot with a 6 megapixel camera. Would I like more
    > resolution? Always. But do I need it? Only occasionally.
    > --
    > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
    skroob, Aug 15, 2005
    #8
  9. David P. Summers

    Jim Townsend Guest

    David P. Summers wrote:


    > I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    > all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    > think having 8 megapixels is?


    There's not much difference between 6 and 8 megapixels.

    At a 3:2 ratio, an 8 MP image is about 3504 pixels wide and 2336
    pixels high. A 6 MP image is about 3072 pixels wide and 2048 pixels
    high.

    With 8 megapixels, you only gain 432 pixels in width and
    288 pixels in height.

    If you print an 8 and a 6 MP image 10 inches wide, the 8 MP image
    will print at 350 DPI, the 6 MP image will be 307 DPI.

    The 8 MP image is only 43 DPI better in resolution.. That's not much.
    The difference between 350 and 307 DPI is probably not even noticeable.

    But lets go further.. There's not much difference between 6 and 5
    megapixels. There's not much difference between 5 and 4 megapixels.
    How many do we NEED ?

    It doesn't hurt to have as much as you can.. I would prefer
    to have 8 megapixels.
    Jim Townsend, Aug 15, 2005
    #9
  10. David P. Summers

    Mr. Mark Guest

    > I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    > all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    > think having 8 megapixels is?


    I'd make the decision based on which camera feels best to you.

    --
    Mark

    Photos, Ideas & Opinions
    http://www.marklauter.com
    Mr. Mark, Aug 15, 2005
    #10
  11. David P. Summers

    Neal Guest

    On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:37:18 GMT, "David P. Summers"
    <> wrote:


    at the same image quality, each dimension of your picture can go
    2/(3^.5) times bigger = 2/1.73 = 15% bigger.

    so you can make 8x10, or you can make 9.2x11.5
    Neal, Aug 15, 2005
    #11
  12. David P. Summers

    Toa Guest

    > I'd make the decision based on which camera feels best to you.
    > Mark


    <chuckle>

    Very benevolent of you <g>

    Toa
    Toa, Aug 15, 2005
    #12
  13. David P. Summers

    SteveJ Guest

    Give me the Canon 16MP camera, now that is a difference.


    "Toa" <> wrote in message
    news:1124079842.25c62f9c937409a93be7f01a158aa15e@teranews...
    >> I'd make the decision based on which camera feels best to you.
    >> Mark

    >
    > <chuckle>
    >
    > Very benevolent of you <g>
    >
    > Toa
    >
    SteveJ, Aug 15, 2005
    #13
  14. In article <>, Brian Baird
    <> wrote:

    > Depends on the viewing distance, I guess. I don't like the looks of the
    > prints I get from MY 10D when they get above 8x10. Sure, I can do some
    > upsampling and get creative with the sharpening, but that isn't going to
    > work in every instance.


    Sounds like you need to learn about photography. I've got a 16x20 here
    taken with a consumer-grade Canon lens - handheld - that's sharp as a
    tack...close-up or at a distance.
    Randall Ainsworth, Aug 15, 2005
    #14
  15. David P. Summers

    Brian Baird Guest

    In article <140820052138408514%>,
    says...
    > > Depends on the viewing distance, I guess. I don't like the looks of the
    > > prints I get from MY 10D when they get above 8x10. Sure, I can do some
    > > upsampling and get creative with the sharpening, but that isn't going to
    > > work in every instance.

    >
    > Sounds like you need to learn about photography.


    No, I do just fine with it, thank you.

    > I've got a 16x20 here
    > taken with a consumer-grade Canon lens - handheld - that's sharp as a
    > tack...close-up or at a distance.


    I'm sure with creative upsampling and sharpening you could probably make
    a 16x20 print that satisfies YOU from a 6 megapixel camera. Will it
    satisfy me? Probably not.
    --
    http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
    Brian Baird, Aug 15, 2005
    #15
  16. David P. Summers

    jean Guest

    Even with my reading glasses, I can't see a thing that close OTOH perfect
    vision at10 ft or more ;-)

    Jean

    OH, "if some is good, then more is better"

    "skroob" <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:ruULe.2270$...
    > Ive printed 20x30s from my D70 and as long as you arent leaving nose

    prints
    > on the glass you really cant tell.
    >
    >
    > "Brian Baird" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <>, says...
    > >> I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    > >> all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    > >> think having 8 megapixels is?

    > >
    > > It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    > > is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    > > without comment.
    > >
    > > The other advantage to more pixels is you have a little more freedom in
    > > cropping. IF you don't frame exactly right, you can still crop and have
    > > 6 million or more usable pixels.
    > >
    > > Of course, 8 megapixel images hog up more space. There are always
    > > tradeoffs.
    > >
    > > I currently shoot with a 6 megapixel camera. Would I like more
    > > resolution? Always. But do I need it? Only occasionally.
    > > --
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

    >
    >
    jean, Aug 15, 2005
    #16
  17. David P. Summers

    [BnH] Guest

    "Brian Baird" <> wrote in message

    > It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    > is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    > without comment.


    Strange. My Nikon D1H with a few ED glass still produces tack sharp images
    of the 2.74mpx output it gives.

    =bob=
    [BnH], Aug 15, 2005
    #17
  18. David P. Summers

    Dan Birchall Guest

    (David P. Summers) wrote:
    > I've not had a lot of experience (looking at pictures from friend is
    > all) with pictures of that resolution. How significant do most people
    > think having 8 megapixels is?


    Well, I'm not most people - only one. :) I didn't buy a DSLR until 8mp
    options became affordable, because I've had the experience of having a
    magazine art director say "I really like that photo; would you happen to
    have it in a size that can print 8x10 @ 300dpi _without_ rezzing up?"

    At the time, I didn't have anything above 3 megapixels, so he wound up
    using one of my shots quarter-page instead of full-page, which established
    a very clear correlation, for me, between megapixels and dollars. :(

    Now, 8x10 @ 300dpi is (obviously) 2400x3000, a 4:5 ratio. SLRs are 3:2
    ratio, which doesn't really match up perfectly to that, and the "short
    side" of a short from my Rebel XT is only 2304 pixels, or 288 dpi. But
    most AD's will consider that "close enough" to 300 dpi, while the 256 dpi
    I'd get from a 2048x3072 6 megapixel camera would probably not make the
    cut. (85% of desired resolution, compared to 96%.)
    the

    As far as what size things _can_ be printed at, I've taken an image and
    fed it to a Fuji Frontier minilab at 300, 250, 200, 180, 150, 100 and 72
    dpi. Everything from 180 to 300 was basically indistinguishable at zero
    distance. Below 180, artifacting started to show up at close distances,
    but most modern DSLRs with 6+ megapixels are printing pretty large by the
    time you get to the lower resolutions - enough so to look good at the
    distance from which a given size of print is typically going to be viewed.

    --
    Dan Birchall - http://danbirchall.multiply.com/ - images, words, technology
    Dan Birchall, Aug 15, 2005
    #18
  19. David P. Summers

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    >> It's going to be most significant if you print over 8x10. 6 megapixels
    >> is going to struggle a little at that size, 8 megapixels can cover it
    >> without comment.

    >
    > Strange. My Nikon D1H with a few ED glass still produces tack sharp images
    > of the 2.74mpx output it gives.


    I've found that most of what lets you make sharp enlargements is how sharp
    the image is to begin with. With a cheap, soft lens, it takes nearly the
    full 8 megapixels of my camera to make a respectable-looking 8x10. On the
    other hand, with a tack-sharp lens, even a 4-megapixel crop looks fantastic,
    and even 3-megapixel images look pretty decent.

    steve
    Steve Wolfe, Aug 15, 2005
    #19
  20. David P. Summers

    Zed Pobre Guest

    Brian Baird <> wrote:
    > I'm sure with creative upsampling and sharpening you could probably make
    > a 16x20 print that satisfies YOU from a 6 megapixel camera. Will it
    > satisfy me? Probably not.


    Out of morbid curiosity, what is the minimum dpi that you consider
    acceptable for print?

    --
    Zed Pobre <> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <>
    PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.
    Zed Pobre, Aug 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. DarkMan

    more megapixels: better resolution?

    DarkMan, Jul 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    790
    ArtKramr
    Aug 1, 2003
  2. David Kassnoff

    More megapixels=digital burnout?

    David Kassnoff, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    439
    Michael Meissner
    Aug 18, 2003
  3. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    341
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    256
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    391
Loading...

Share This Page