.8 to 8mp experiment

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by hfs2, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. hfs2

    hfs2 Guest

    Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)
    Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)
    Minota F100 (4Mp)
    EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)
    Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)

    I took the same shot with each of these cameras;
    noon, high overcast. The camera setup was done by
    its owner. He was asked to set it to the best
    quaulity jpg. Each was printed at Walmart's
    "one hour" machine at 6x4 (24 cents each - next
    size up was over 3X as expensive).

    Then I showed these prints, left them in the lunch room
    and asked everyone to guess which was which and what they
    liked best. Guess what?
    Printed at this size, 6x4, there aint much more than
    a dimes difference between them (D-500 excepted). The D-500 was
    the worst - and everyone saw it. Surprising, but
    most liked the DX4330 and F100 shots the best.
    I thought the F100 beat it.

    None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.

    I conclude that chasing pixel count in these lower
    regions isn't worth much to a recreational user OR
    the Walmart printer really sucks OR the owners of the
    cameras can't set them up.

    What's a visual decibel? Do we need 10 itimes the pixel count
    to make a real difference?

    If you want copies of the files, post your address. You
    judge.
    hfs2, Nov 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. hfs2

    Marcel Guest

    Hi!

    Your questions are right on if I base my judgement on what I read some time
    ago.

    About 2 months ago, I was looking at photos on Mars taken by NASA
    (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars).
    There was an article which I can't find anymore, saying that the camera was
    very special. If I remember correctly (I'm not a pro), the camera had a mere
    1 million pixels. Where it differed from our cameras was the quality of the
    lense as well as the the CCD which is larger. The upshot of it all was
    "millions of pixels are not all it takes".

    Cheers,

    Marcel


    "hfs2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)
    > Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)
    > Minota F100 (4Mp)
    > EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)
    > Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)
    >
    > I took the same shot with each of these cameras;
    > noon, high overcast. The camera setup was done by
    > its owner. He was asked to set it to the best
    > quaulity jpg. Each was printed at Walmart's
    > "one hour" machine at 6x4 (24 cents each - next
    > size up was over 3X as expensive).
    >
    > Then I showed these prints, left them in the lunch room
    > and asked everyone to guess which was which and what they
    > liked best. Guess what?
    > Printed at this size, 6x4, there aint much more than
    > a dimes difference between them (D-500 excepted). The D-500 was
    > the worst - and everyone saw it. Surprising, but
    > most liked the DX4330 and F100 shots the best.
    > I thought the F100 beat it.
    >
    > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    >
    > I conclude that chasing pixel count in these lower
    > regions isn't worth much to a recreational user OR
    > the Walmart printer really sucks OR the owners of the
    > cameras can't set them up.
    >
    > What's a visual decibel? Do we need 10 itimes the pixel count
    > to make a real difference?
    >
    > If you want copies of the files, post your address. You
    > judge.
    Marcel, Nov 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. hfs2

    Will M Guest

    Although comparing it against film isn't fair. Film sensitometry is such
    that consumer films will tend to produce more contrast and colour saturation
    than a digital camera. The digital camera is designed to record the scene
    as accurately as possible, while a consumer film is more about producing,
    sharp, impact images
    Will M, Nov 12, 2004
    #3
  4. hfs2

    Jim Townsend Guest

    hfs2 wrote:

    > Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)
    > Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)
    > Minota F100 (4Mp)
    > EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)
    > Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)
    >
    > I took the same shot with each of these cameras;
    > noon, high overcast. The camera setup was done by
    > its owner. He was asked to set it to the best
    > quaulity jpg. Each was printed at Walmart's
    > "one hour" machine at 6x4 (24 cents each - next
    > size up was over 3X as expensive).


    > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    >


    You, or WalMart did something wrong..

    I get my Canon 10D images printed on the same photopaper
    that I have my film EOS images printed on. I can't tell
    the difference. If I handed you a few 4x6 photos to thumb
    through and examine critically, you couldn't tell either.

    Do you honestly believe people are lined up to spend
    $1000+ on cameras like the Cannon (sic) 20D when
    the images aren't "anywere near the quality" of film ?

    I guess the film vs digital topic will never die :)
    Here comes yet another long thread..
    Jim Townsend, Nov 12, 2004
    #4
  5. "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > hfs2 wrote:


    >> Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)

    > Do you honestly believe people are lined up to spend
    > $1000+ on cameras like the Cannon (sic) 20D when
    > the images aren't "anywere near the quality" of film ?


    Maybe that's his problem -- using a Cannon instead of a Canon ? :) :)
    Michael A. Covington, Nov 12, 2004
    #5
  6. hfs2

    bob Guest

    (hfs2) wrote in
    news::

    > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.


    I had 8x10 prints made from my 5Mp camera, and I judged them to be much
    better than any prints I ever had made from ASA 100 film. My conclusion is
    that the photolabs that printed my negatives had crummy equipment (probably
    lenses fogged).

    But I agree with your general conclusion. If all you make are 6x4 prints,
    then the camera doesn't matter a whole lot.

    Bob
    bob, Nov 12, 2004
    #6
  7. hfs2

    com Guest


    > About 2 months ago, I was looking at photos on Mars taken by NASA
    > (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars).
    > There was an article which I can't find anymore, saying that the camera
    > was
    > very special. If I remember correctly (I'm not a pro), the camera had a
    > mere
    > 1 million pixels. Where it differed from our cameras was the quality of
    > the
    > lense as well as the the CCD which is larger. The upshot of it all was
    > "millions of pixels are not all it takes".
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Marcel


    Yes, but those pictures you see from Mars are actually panoramas made up of
    many of those 1 megapixel images. Thus, the one photo you see could
    actually be a 20 megapixel photo equivalent.
    com, Nov 12, 2004
    #7
  8. hfs2

    Charlie Ih Guest

    Thanks for the experiment. It is completely expected from a "theoretical"
    point of view. Neither the printing paper nor the normal eye can
    resolve more than 300 ppi. In fact if you include a 2 Mp picture (267 ppi),
    probably 90% of viewers cannot tell the difference. However, an 8.2 Mp
    picture can be cropped to 1/4 size still producing the same decent
    image while the 3 or 4 Mp cannot. It is alway nice to verify results
    by experiments. Thanks again for the good work.


    In article <>,
    hfs2 <> wrote:
    >Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)
    >Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)
    >Minota F100 (4Mp)
    >EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)
    >Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)
    >
    >I took the same shot with each of these cameras;
    >noon, high overcast. The camera setup was done by
    >its owner. He was asked to set it to the best
    >quaulity jpg. Each was printed at Walmart's
    >"one hour" machine at 6x4 (24 cents each - next
    >size up was over 3X as expensive).
    >
    >Then I showed these prints, left them in the lunch room
    >and asked everyone to guess which was which and what they
    >liked best. Guess what?
    >Printed at this size, 6x4, there aint much more than
    >a dimes difference between them (D-500 excepted). The D-500 was
    >the worst - and everyone saw it. Surprising, but
    >most liked the DX4330 and F100 shots the best.
    >I thought the F100 beat it.
    >
    >None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    >quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    >
    >I conclude that chasing pixel count in these lower
    >regions isn't worth much to a recreational user OR
    >the Walmart printer really sucks OR the owners of the
    >cameras can't set them up.
    >
    >What's a visual decibel? Do we need 10 itimes the pixel count
    >to make a real difference?
    >
    >If you want copies of the files, post your address. You
    >judge.
    Charlie Ih, Nov 12, 2004
    #8
  9. hfs2

    Aerticus Guest

    FWIW & IMHO only

    I have never had quite as good quality prints from any film from any camera
    as I get from my humble Fuji (2MP interpolated to 4MP)

    I have had a few prints made at 15" by 10" and the quality is amazing.

    While I can't speak for the general public, and have no intention to, the
    most common forms (modal forms I suppose in tech speak) are for 2 to 4 MP
    cameras with output to 6 x 4. Somehow I think sales would not be quite as
    high if digital prints on 6 by 4 were worse than film based prints.

    Also, on a 6 by 4 the size of the media limits (IMHO) perception to the main
    event happening in the image. Fine details fade at that size whether it be
    digital or film based. However at 15 by 10 the intricacies of wider details
    start to have presence.

    Digital image output tends to be optimised for a particular medium (print or
    screen) and the strength (IMHO) of 8MP is the quality of data captured.

    Conclusion?
    Try the same exercise again this time print onto 15 x 10 OR 18 by 12 OR
    both. Then do the coffee table comparison again

    If you do that last bit please keep us posted...

    Is it important?
    Try this:
    1 - define a 50% crop on the original image, then a 25% then a 10%. (same
    areas on the original image in each case with the percentage based on 6 x 4
    print rather than pixel count.

    2 - print each of these on to 6 by 4

    3 - do the coffee table test again

    4 - list results here

    Aerticus
    Aerticus, Nov 12, 2004
    #9
  10. hfs2

    Mike Guest

    It's not surprising that with a small print the lower pixel count could look
    sharper, w/o doing anything with the image before printing. (Depending on
    what the wal-mart printer/software acually does.)

    Printing mostly 8x10 and 11x17 prints on my Canon 9100, I get better results
    with my 5MP (resampled 600 ppi Mitchell) digitals than I do with film. (At
    least with today's consumer developing and printing - maybe if they were
    printed with more care...) And it's certainly orders of magnitude quicker
    and less messy...

    And I'm not even bothering with RAW, color profiles, or spending inordinate
    amounts of time removing noise or sharpening (though I plan to do someof
    this in the future) - usually just an auto exposure correct, and a click of
    the color-cast wand in the right place.

    mike

    "Charlie Ih" <> wrote in message
    news:cn2p14$hmi$...
    > Thanks for the experiment. It is completely expected from a "theoretical"
    > point of view. Neither the printing paper nor the normal eye can
    > resolve more than 300 ppi. In fact if you include a 2 Mp picture (267
    > ppi),
    > probably 90% of viewers cannot tell the difference. However, an 8.2 Mp
    > picture can be cropped to 1/4 size still producing the same decent
    > image while the 3 or 4 Mp cannot. It is alway nice to verify results
    > by experiments. Thanks again for the good work.
    >
    >
    > In article <>,
    > hfs2 <> wrote:
    >>Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)
    >>Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)
    >>Minota F100 (4Mp)
    >>EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)
    >>Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)
    >>
    >>I took the same shot with each of these cameras;
    >>noon, high overcast. The camera setup was done by
    >>its owner. He was asked to set it to the best
    >>quaulity jpg. Each was printed at Walmart's
    >>"one hour" machine at 6x4 (24 cents each - next
    >>size up was over 3X as expensive).
    >>
    >>Then I showed these prints, left them in the lunch room
    >>and asked everyone to guess which was which and what they
    >>liked best. Guess what?
    >>Printed at this size, 6x4, there aint much more than
    >>a dimes difference between them (D-500 excepted). The D-500 was
    >>the worst - and everyone saw it. Surprising, but
    >>most liked the DX4330 and F100 shots the best.
    >>I thought the F100 beat it.
    >>
    >>None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    >>quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    >>
    >>I conclude that chasing pixel count in these lower
    >>regions isn't worth much to a recreational user OR
    >>the Walmart printer really sucks OR the owners of the
    >>cameras can't set them up.
    >>
    >>What's a visual decibel? Do we need 10 itimes the pixel count
    >>to make a real difference?
    >>
    >>If you want copies of the files, post your address. You
    >>judge.

    >
    >
    Mike, Nov 12, 2004
    #10
  11. hfs2

    eNo Guest

    "hfs2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>
    > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    >
    > I conclude that chasing pixel count in these lower
    > regions isn't worth much to a recreational user OR
    > the Walmart printer really sucks OR the owners of the
    > cameras can't set them up.



    Hmm. That's not exactly my experience.

    1) I can definitely tell a difference between my Oly 2.1MP and both of my
    Sony 5MP in a 6x4 print. The Oly has the "video" look; the Sony doesn't.

    2) My 5 MP 6x4 prints stand very nicely next to what a comparable
    snap-and-shoot Cannon sure-shot gets me on film, 100 or 200 ASA.

    3) I am surprised the EOS Rebel didn't fare better in your test. Perhaps the
    subject matter wasn't the best. I am blown away with drooling envy every
    time I see a well-composed shot from the Rebel.

    4) Generally, I agree that more and more pixels is a rather flat diminishing
    returns curve for 6x4 prints, what I usually get. If you want to get bigger
    prints, however, that's another ball game altogether. But for everyday
    shooting of the sort us Joe Blows do, I wouldn't recommend going much higher
    that 5MP, especially with the added expense and inconvenience of larger
    photo files (e.g., "okay, let's now wait 7-8 minutes per card while I
    offload each of my 512MB cards to my PC").

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo
    "If you can't go fast, go long."
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo, Nov 12, 2004
    #11
  12. hfs2

    eNo Guest

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > hfs2 wrote:
    >
    > > Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)
    > > Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)
    > > Minota F100 (4Mp)
    > > EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)
    > > Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)
    > >
    > > I took the same shot with each of these cameras;
    > > noon, high overcast. The camera setup was done by
    > > its owner. He was asked to set it to the best
    > > quaulity jpg. Each was printed at Walmart's
    > > "one hour" machine at 6x4 (24 cents each - next
    > > size up was over 3X as expensive).

    >
    > > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    > >

    >
    > You, or WalMart did something wrong..
    >
    > I get my Canon 10D images printed on the same photopaper
    > that I have my film EOS images printed on. I can't tell
    > the difference. If I handed you a few 4x6 photos to thumb
    > through and examine critically, you couldn't tell either.


    Yeah. Those 10D and digi-Rebel shots I see around are stunning, IMO.

    > Do you honestly believe people are lined up to spend
    > $1000+ on cameras like the Cannon (sic) 20D when
    > the images aren't "anywere near the quality" of film ?


    Are you saying that people's willingness to fork over the $$$ is a
    guaranteed indicator of quality? Yes, people might be willing to fork over
    large amounts of their not-so-disposable income for products that don't
    quite measure up. Case in point: why would anyone buy a Hummer when they can
    buy a much better vehicle for the same amount of money?

    > I guess the film vs digital topic will never die :)
    > Here comes yet another long thread..


    And I loooove it!

    --
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo
    "If you can't go fast, go long."
    ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
    eNo, Nov 12, 2004
    #12
  13. hfs2

    Jim Townsend Guest

    eNo wrote:

    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message


    >> Do you honestly believe people are lined up to spend
    >> $1000+ on cameras like the Cannon (sic) 20D when
    >> the images aren't "anywere near the quality" of film ?

    >
    > Are you saying that people's willingness to fork over the $$$ is a
    > guaranteed indicator of quality?


    I'm not saying money guarantees quality, but you can't ignore the
    fact that of the many hundreds of thousands of D30/D60/Drebel/10D/20D
    owners, (who forked out a good chunk of cash for their cameras), *very*
    few have ever complained their images were inferior to film. Especially
    at 4x6 where the 20D prints at 584 DPI.

    To quote the original poster again....

    <> wrote:

    > > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    Jim Townsend, Nov 12, 2004
    #13
  14. hfs2

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <Xns959F6877E49E8j123w123x123@216.77.188.18>, bob says...

    > But I agree with your general conclusion. If all you make are 6x4 prints,
    > then the camera doesn't matter a whole lot.


    My wife even refuses to make prints larger than 10x15 cm, because they
    won't fit into her photo album. She also says that 10x15 cm is enough
    size.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://myolympus.org/5060/
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/
    Alfred Molon, Nov 12, 2004
    #14
  15. hfs2

    Marcel Guest

    I guess you're right, but the same article concluded that the difference was
    in the lense and the larger CCD
    Marcel


    "com" <> wrote in message
    news:4194e397$0$31227$...
    >
    > > About 2 months ago, I was looking at photos on Mars taken by NASA
    > > (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/targetFamily/Mars).
    > > There was an article which I can't find anymore, saying that the camera
    > > was
    > > very special. If I remember correctly (I'm not a pro), the camera had a
    > > mere
    > > 1 million pixels. Where it differed from our cameras was the quality of
    > > the
    > > lense as well as the the CCD which is larger. The upshot of it all was
    > > "millions of pixels are not all it takes".
    > >
    > > Cheers,
    > >
    > > Marcel

    >
    > Yes, but those pictures you see from Mars are actually panoramas made up

    of
    > many of those 1 megapixel images. Thus, the one photo you see could
    > actually be a 20 megapixel photo equivalent.
    Marcel, Nov 12, 2004
    #15
  16. "hfs2" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.


    Hmm. Instead of expecting us to take your word for this, why don't you do
    the test again, but this time include a "good 6x4 200 asa film shot" as
    well?
    Tony Whitaker, Nov 12, 2004
    #16
  17. hfs2

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Charlie Ih" <> wrote in message news:cn2p14$hmi$...
    > Thanks for the experiment. It is completely expected from a "theoretical"
    > point of view. Neither the printing paper nor the normal eye can
    > resolve more than 300 ppi. In fact if you include a 2 Mp picture (267 ppi),
    > probably 90% of viewers cannot tell the difference. However, an 8.2 Mp
    > picture can be cropped to 1/4 size still producing the same decent
    > image while the 3 or 4 Mp cannot. It is alway nice to verify results
    > by experiments. Thanks again for the good work.


    I think this is exactly right.

    6x300 x 4x300 = 2.16 MP.

    In fact, if you print 150 ppi on a good quality printer, it will
    still look pretty good to people. They would notice the
    difference if they looked closely, but might not notice if
    they take a casual look.

    6x150 x 4x150 = .54 MP.

    At anything below 300 ppi, I think it is possible to see
    a difference if you look closely. But sometimes you
    have to look very closely at fine line detail in the image
    to see it. Some images without a lot of fine line detail
    print very well at low resolutions.

    Assuming at least 200 ppi, the most significant factor in
    people's perception of quality might be the vividness of
    the color rather than the resolution.

    Notice I said "vividness" not "accuracy". For the casual
    observer, eye-popping color makes a good impression,
    even if it's over-enhanced.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Nov 12, 2004
    #17
  18. hfs2

    hfs2 Guest

    "eNo" <> wrote in message news:<9p9ld.4$>...
    > "hfs2" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > <snip>
    > > None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    > > quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    > >
    > > I conclude that chasing pixel count in these lower
    > > regions isn't worth much to a recreational user OR
    > > the Walmart printer really sucks OR the owners of the
    > > cameras can't set them up.

    >
    >
    > Hmm. That's not exactly my experience.
    >
    > 1) I can definitely tell a difference between my Oly 2.1MP and both of my
    > Sony 5MP in a 6x4 print. The Oly has the "video" look; the Sony doesn't.
    >
    > 2) My 5 MP 6x4 prints stand very nicely next to what a comparable
    > snap-and-shoot Cannon sure-shot gets me on film, 100 or 200 ASA.
    >
    > 3) I am surprised the EOS Rebel didn't fare better in your test. Perhaps the
    > subject matter wasn't the best. I am blown away with drooling envy every
    > time I see a well-composed shot from the Rebel.


    I really could not tell the
    difference between the EOS and the D20 prints at 6x4.
    I always look at the eyes and teeth when trying to see if the print
    is digital or not. Both those camera's prints held the
    eyes and teeth together quite well. No "jumping" off the white
    of either the tooth or eye. You know what I mean? They were
    very good prints.

    And remember too, this was a test with a sampling of one.
    Not very scientific!


    > 4) Generally, I agree that more and more pixels is a rather flat diminishing
    > returns curve for 6x4 prints, what I usually get. If you want to get bigger
    > prints, however, that's another ball game altogether. But for everyday
    > shooting of the sort us Joe Blows do, I wouldn't recommend going much higher
    > that 5MP, especially with the added expense and inconvenience of larger
    > photo files (e.g., "okay, let's now wait 7-8 minutes per card while I
    > offload each of my 512MB cards to my PC").
    hfs2, Nov 13, 2004
    #18
  19. hfs2

    MarkH Guest

    Jim Townsend <> wrote in news:10p9k5i9kib4n80
    @news.supernews.com:

    > hfs2 wrote:
    >
    >> Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)
    >> Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)
    >> Minota F100 (4Mp)
    >> EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)
    >> Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)
    >>
    >> I took the same shot with each of these cameras;
    >> noon, high overcast. The camera setup was done by
    >> its owner. He was asked to set it to the best
    >> quaulity jpg. Each was printed at Walmart's
    >> "one hour" machine at 6x4 (24 cents each - next
    >> size up was over 3X as expensive).

    >
    >> None of these pictures were anywhere near the
    >> quality of a good 6x4 200 asa film shot.
    >>

    >
    > You, or WalMart did something wrong..
    >
    > I get my Canon 10D images printed on the same photopaper
    > that I have my film EOS images printed on. I can't tell
    > the difference. If I handed you a few 4x6 photos to thumb
    > through and examine critically, you couldn't tell either.


    4x6?

    I've seen a picture from a Canon D30 printed at 8 x 12 that was
    stunning! I looked as close as I could without leaving a nose print on
    it, it was sharp! Contrast, brightness, colour and sharpness were all a
    good match for a good image from any 35mm SLR.

    Any good sharp picture from my 10D will easily print 8x12 with enough
    quality to bring praise from anyone that views it. It's hard to say
    that side by side a good shot from a film camera couldn't look just as
    good. But regardless of how good a job other camera do, my 10D produces
    pictures that are good enough.

    If you look at this pic:
    http://www.gigatech.co.nz/RallySprint04/IMG_1909.htm
    It's easy to see that it is not particularly sharp, I have taken
    thousands of sharper pictures that I don't like as much. Sometimes
    people get more hung up on the picture quality more than the qualities
    that make a good picture!



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Nov 13, 2004
    #19
  20. hfs2

    MarkH Guest

    (hfs2) wrote in
    news::

    > Olympus D-500L (.85Mp)


    Old camera, too outdated, newer cameras will produce much better pics.

    > Kodak DX4330 (3.1Mp)


    Nothing wrong with images from a camera, at 6x4 you wouldn't need anything
    better.

    > Minota F100 (4Mp)


    Nothing wrong with images from a camera, at 6x4 you wouldn't need anything
    better.

    > EOS Rebel (6.3Mp)


    Nothing wrong with images from a camera, at 6x4 you wouldn't need anything
    better.

    > Cannon 20D (8.2Mp)


    Nothing wrong with images from a camera, at 6x4 you wouldn't need anything
    better.



    The Canon 20D is a better camera for fast action, due to faster AF, faster
    shot to shot time, faster handling generally. The 20D and 300D will also
    show their big advantage in sensor size if you need higher ISO. Higher res
    allows for more cropping and/or printing larger.

    For those that only print 6x4 then any 3MPix or better camera will do a
    good job for general photography in good light. It's easy to make some
    tests where the shortcomings of the P&S cameras would be apparent and the
    20D with a 580EX would be around 10x as good, but that doesn't mean you
    can't get good pics out of a reasonable P&S camera.


    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 12-Nov-04)
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Nov 13, 2004
    #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. Jason Smith

    Sony 8MP Camera (model DSC-F828)

    Jason Smith, Nov 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    475
    David J. Littleboy
    Nov 24, 2003
  2. VT

    8Mp Digicams?

    VT, Jan 10, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    426
  3. bmoag

    Nikon announces 8mp camera

    bmoag, Jan 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    322
    bmoag
    Jan 28, 2004
  4. john

    Is the 8MP digital camera just a gimmick?

    john, Feb 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    351
  5. Alfred Molon

    8MP vs. 5MP

    Alfred Molon, Feb 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    895
    Mark Herring
    Feb 16, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page