Largest megapixel digital cameras available for home market

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca@yahoo.com, Nov 27, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    make good quality 11x17 prints?
     
    , Nov 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Scott W Guest

    wrote:
    > I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    > How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    > read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    > cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    > getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    > prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    > MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    > home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    > make good quality 11x17 prints?

    An 8 MP DSLR will make great looking 8 x 10 prints, a point and shoot 8
    MP can make very good looking 8 x 10 prints.

    An 8 MP DLSR will make an pretty good looking 11 x 17 prints, a 16 to
    17MP DSLR will make great looking 11 x 17 inch prints.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian Lund Guest

    > > MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    > > home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    > > make good quality 11x17 prints?

    > An 8 MP DSLR will make great looking 8 x 10 prints, a point and shoot 8
    > MP can make very good looking 8 x 10 prints.
    >
    > An 8 MP DLSR will make an pretty good looking 11 x 17 prints, a 16 to
    > 17MP DSLR will make great looking 11 x 17 inch prints.


    I have made, what i think is, good looking 50*75 cm prints (ca. 20*30 inch)
    from my 8Mpixel EOS 350D! (XT)
    Of course if you take a close look you can see the lack of detail, but a
    print that large is not meant for close-up study IMO!


    Brian
     
    Brian Lund, Nov 27, 2006
    #3
  4. Noons Guest

    wrote:

    > I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.


    Yes.

    > How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    > read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP.


    And hasselblad and a few others can go all the way up to 30MP and
    beyond.

    > Will higher MP
    > cameras soon come into the home markets?


    I think that's a given. "soon" is relative, though.

    > Is there any advantage of
    > getting higher and higher MP in a camera?


    depends what you want them for. Also: not all
    pixels are created the same. A good dslr of
    8MP will definitely give you better results than
    a P&S 10 or 12MP camera.

    > For home use, would a 8x10
    > prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used?


    I'd say yes. I print up to A3 size, but I'm not a
    typical "home user". Although I'm an amateur.

    > Would an 8
    > MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints?


    yes, absolutely!

    > Why the
    > home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras?


    because some folks want more than "good enough"?
    Also, the home user might also need to crop images.

    > What MP cameras would
    > make good quality 11x17 prints?


    you can print 11X17 from 4MP cameras or even less:
    it all depends on how near the print do you want to
    be when looking at it.

    If you want to be at reasonable, "home viewing"
    distances and still get lots of detail at that size, you might
    want to consider 12-16MP: gives you a margin for crops
    as well.

    If you also plan to extensively crop images, then you
    definitely need that sort of resolution for top quality results.
    It's all very contingent on how you intend to present
    the prints or arrive at them in the first place.
     
    Noons, Nov 27, 2006
    #4
  5. JohnR66 Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    > How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    > read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    > cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    > getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    > prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    > MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    > home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    > make good quality 11x17 prints?
    >

    Hasselblad has the H3 with 22MP or 39MP back
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/photokina/H3-concerns.shtml

    A 4 to 6 megapixel camera should be able make good 8x10s. I've made 8x10s
    from a 2mp camera and increased the resolution to remove the pixelation.
    They looked good, but some softness is noticed. 8x10 is certainly not
    largest practical or commonly used. Many people do 16x20 or larger. 11x14 is
    probably the largest I would go with my 10mp Rebel XTi for something I was
    going to frame.
    The problem with high megapixel point and shoot cameras is that the sensor
    has many tiny sensing cells crammed on a tiny sensor which requires a lot
    from the lens and it takes much more photons of light to stimulate the
    sensor beyond the background noise inherent in the device than a larger
    sensor, so you are left with more noise in the image. The cameras have noise
    removal algorithms, but they tend to impact the captured detail in the
    image. I've been "auditioning" cameras to upgrade my 5mp A610, but many
    "erase" some of the low contrast detail that the A610 retains. In other
    cases, the lens was a letdown or shadow noise was too high. I gave up. I'm
    keeping the A610.

    Many folks are getting their first digital and others are upgrading.
    Manufactures must perpetuate camera sales by introducing new models with
    higher resolution and other bells and whistles like bigger LCD screens. Many
    10mp models have drawn much criticism due to detail robbing noise reduction.
    It will be interesting to see where the digital camera industry directs
    itself over the nest few years as they seemed to have used up their
    megapixels.

    John
     
    JohnR66, Nov 27, 2006
    #5
  6. wrote:
    >I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    >How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    >read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    >cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    >getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    >prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    >MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    >home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    >make good quality 11x17 prints?


    Your question is "how many pixels per inch" are needed, and of
    course that depends on who and why.

    300 ppi Best quality, for the most critical work
    200 ppi Good quality, usually sufficient
    150 ppi Mediocre quality, might be acceptable
    100 ppi Poor quality, not likely to be acceptable
    75 ppi Crude

    And those numbers translate to minimum total pixels per image
    values like these (noting that these are pixels *after* the
    image is cropped to match the print form factor, and may be less
    than what the camera produces),

    print size: 4x6" 5x7" 8x10" 8.5x11" 11x14" 13x19"
    square inches: 24 35 80 93.5 154 247

    300 ppi 2.2MP 3.2MP 7.2MP 8.4MP 13.9MP 22.2MP
    200 ppi 1.0 1.4 3.2 3.7 6.2 9.8
    150 ppi 0.5 0.8 1.8 2.1 3.5 5.6
    100 ppi .24 .35 .80 .94 1.5 2.5
    72 ppi .12 .18 .41 .48 .80 1.3

    A few example cameras to see what that means:

    Mamiya ZD 5328x4000 (21.313MP)
    maximum 300 ppi print size: 17.8" x 13.3"
    maximum 200 ppi print size: 26.6" x 20.0"

    Canon EOS 1DS MK2 4992x3328 (16.6MP)
    maximum 300 ppi print size: 16.6" x 11.1"
    maximum 200 ppi print size: 25.0" x 16.6"

    Nikon D2x 4312x2868 (12.367MP)
    maximum 300 ppi print size: 14.4" x 9.6"
    maximum 200 ppi print size: 21.6" x 14.3"

    Sony Alph DSLR-A100 3872x2592 (10.0MP)
    maximum 300 ppi print size: 12.9" x 8.6"
    maximum 200 ppi print size: 19.4" x 13.0"

    Pentax *ist DS2 3008x2008 (6.0MP)
    maximum 300 ppi print size: 10.0" x 6.7"
    maximum 200 ppi print size: 15.0" x 10.0"

    Obvously a 6MP camerea will barely squeek by for quality prints
    at 11"x14" (less than $1k.), while a 10MP camera will produce
    quality prints at 13"x19" ($1-$2K.)

    A 12MP D2x will allow some cropping before making a decent
    13"x19", but for absolute top quality a 14"x11" is pushing it.
    (At $4000+.)

    Even the 16.6MP Canon is not able to make top of the heap
    13"x19" prints, but it will allow some cropping for a top
    quality 14"x11"! (At $6000+.)

    For absolute top quality 13"x19" prints, only the MF format is
    going to do. (At $12000+.)

    (Prices noted are very rough estimates, but the point is clearly
    that you will pay to get better large prints.)

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 27, 2006
    #6
  7. Steve B Guest

    What I want to know is .............

    if I get one of these HUGE mp cameras, can I take pictures as good as film?

    And will one of them stifle or nurture my creativity?

    Steve .................. ;-)

    ducking
    and
    running ......................
     
    Steve B, Nov 27, 2006
    #7
  8. Jeff R. Guest

    "Steve B" <> wrote in message
    news:Imuah.7010$...
    > What I want to know is .............
    >
    > if I get one of these HUGE mp cameras, can I take pictures as good as
    > film?
    >
    > And will one of them stifle or nurture my creativity?
    >
    > Steve .................. ;-)
    >
    > ducking
    > and
    > running ......................


    Only if the sensor is bacon-flavoured.

    --
    Jeff R.
     
    Jeff R., Nov 27, 2006
    #8
  9. Ray Fischer Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > wrote:
    >>I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    >>How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    >>read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    >>cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    >>getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    >>prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    >>MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    >>home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    >>make good quality 11x17 prints?

    >
    >Your question is "how many pixels per inch" are needed, and of
    >course that depends on who and why.
    >
    > 300 ppi Best quality, for the most critical work
    > 200 ppi Good quality, usually sufficient
    > 150 ppi Mediocre quality, might be acceptable
    > 100 ppi Poor quality, not likely to be acceptable
    > 75 ppi Crude


    That list is, at best, a highly subjective opinion. 100ppi is likely
    to be perfectly acceptable to most people for most purposes. The
    notion that 150ppi is needed to be acceptable is just megapixel
    snobbery.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 27, 2006
    #9
  10. Steve B Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:456a7345$0$34491$...
    > Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>>I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    >>>How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    >>>read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    >>>cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    >>>getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    >>>prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    >>>MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    >>>home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    >>>make good quality 11x17 prints?

    >>
    >>Your question is "how many pixels per inch" are needed, and of
    >>course that depends on who and why.
    >>
    >> 300 ppi Best quality, for the most critical work
    >> 200 ppi Good quality, usually sufficient
    >> 150 ppi Mediocre quality, might be acceptable
    >> 100 ppi Poor quality, not likely to be acceptable
    >> 75 ppi Crude

    >
    > That list is, at best, a highly subjective opinion. 100ppi is likely
    > to be perfectly acceptable to most people for most purposes. The
    > notion that 150ppi is needed to be acceptable is just megapixel
    > snobbery.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer
    >
    >


    And I remember when I bought a 1.3 mp camera several years ago and thought I
    was big kid on the block. I took tons of good pictures with that camera,
    and had lots of fun with it. Too bad I didn't know what I know now, and
    that I wasn't really taking good pictures and having fun.

    Steve
     
    Steve B, Nov 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Ray Fischer Guest

    <> wrote:
    >I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    >How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    >read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP.


    With a price tag in the tens of thousands od dollars.

    > Will higher MP
    >cameras soon come into the home markets?


    Unfortunately, yes.

    > Is there any advantage of
    >getting higher and higher MP in a camera?


    No, in fact there is a drawback with increased noise and poorer color.

    > For home use, would a 8x10
    >prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    >MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints?


    Easily. A 5MP would be enough for decent 8x10 prints.

    > Why the
    >home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras?


    They don't, but it's easier to sell megapixels than quality.

    > What MP cameras would
    >make good quality 11x17 prints?


    8MP. But keep in mind that the biggest limitation is going to be the
    quality of the lens and the skill of the photographer. Few lenses are
    up to the quality needed to make good use of 8MP.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Nov 27, 2006
    #11
  12. bmoag Guest

    " What MP cameras would make good quality 11x17 prints?"

    How many photos deserve to be printed that large?
     
    bmoag, Nov 27, 2006
    #12
  13. "Ray Fischer" <> wrote:
    > Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    >> wrote:
    >>>I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    >>>How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    >>>read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    >>>cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    >>>getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    >>>prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    >>>MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    >>>home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    >>>make good quality 11x17 prints?

    >>
    >>Your question is "how many pixels per inch" are needed, and of
    >>course that depends on who and why.
    >>
    >> 300 ppi Best quality, for the most critical work
    >> 200 ppi Good quality, usually sufficient
    >> 150 ppi Mediocre quality, might be acceptable
    >> 100 ppi Poor quality, not likely to be acceptable
    >> 75 ppi Crude

    >
    > That list is, at best, a highly subjective opinion. 100ppi is likely
    > to be perfectly acceptable to most people for most purposes. The
    > notion that 150ppi is needed to be acceptable is just megapixel
    > snobbery.


    And people who are used to quality prints from medium format film will find
    that, at 8x10, 350 ppi inkjet prints from digital look a lot better than 300
    ppi prints.

    It depends on what you think "photographic quality" means. People who think
    that grainy mush from 35mm is attractive won't need a lot of MP. People who
    want to play in the MF and LF art print world will have other ideas.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Nov 27, 2006
    #13
  14. Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

    >
    > Sony Alph DSLR-A100 3872x2592 (10.0MP)
    > maximum 300 ppi print size: 12.9" x 8.6"
    > maximum 200 ppi print size: 19.4" x 13.0"
    >
    > Pentax *ist DS2 3008x2008 (6.0MP)
    > maximum 300 ppi print size: 10.0" x 6.7"
    > maximum 200 ppi print size: 15.0" x 10.0"

    The interesting thing about this, is that just the other day I took a
    few photos with the Pentax K100D (not much different to a DS2) and the
    Sony Alpha A100. Both were tripod mounted, both were set to F8 and both
    were using the standard kit lens as supplied to the australian market
    (Sony 18-70 on the Sony, Sigma 18-55 on the Pentax), at various focal
    lengths. I printed the shots at 8x12". When I looked closely, I could
    see that near the centre of the frame the Sony had caught more detail
    (just), yet overall the Pentax was the clear winner. When I showed the
    shots around staff members as a blind trial, only 1 out of the 15 or so
    people I showed preferred the Sony, the rest picked the Pentax as the
    favourite, and commented about how much sharper it looked.
    Now, I didn't spend much time on this, but how can a 6MP camera be
    clearly sharper than a 10MP camera? I put it down 1 (or more) of 3
    factors: lens quality, noise suppression techniques, and differences in
    their JPG conversion. I set both to the middle setting of sharpness, but
    they still probably process the shot very differently. Probably the only
    real way of telling exactly what is lens and what comes from other
    factors would be to shoot in RAW and use the same program (photoshop?)
    to convert.
    The fact that the Sony was sharper in the centre of the frame, but lost
    it very quickly as you moved out, tells me that the Sigma lens romps all
    over it for sharpness. I wish I could have spent a bit more time with
    both cameras to measure differences at different F stops etc. But one
    thing is clear - it doesn't matter a hoot how many megapixels you have,
    if the lens isn't up to par, you won't get a good sharp shot.
     
    Graham Fountain, Nov 27, 2006
    #14
  15. Graham Fountain <> wrote:
    >Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    >
    >> Sony Alph DSLR-A100 3872x2592 (10.0MP)
    >> maximum 300 ppi print size: 12.9" x 8.6"
    >> maximum 200 ppi print size: 19.4" x 13.0"
    >> Pentax *ist DS2 3008x2008 (6.0MP)
    >> maximum 300 ppi print size: 10.0" x 6.7"
    >> maximum 200 ppi print size: 15.0" x 10.0"

    >The interesting thing about this, is that just the other day I
    >took a few photos with the Pentax K100D (not much different to a
    >DS2) and the Sony Alpha A100. Both were tripod mounted, both

    ....
    > I wish I could have
    >spent a bit more time with both cameras to measure differences
    >at different F stops etc. But one thing is clear - it doesn't
    >matter a hoot how many megapixels you have, if the lens isn't up
    >to par, you won't get a good sharp shot.


    A very nice tale that tells a lot: Megapixel counts *never*
    make a photograph! It is just one of many possible *limiting*
    factors that can unmake a photograph.

    And, it needs to be emphasized, that how many pixels/inch is
    required is as I said, an opinion that "depends on who and why."
    While that particular chart is based on the idea that 200 ppi is
    a minimum, it is always true that *some* people will not find
    half that too objectionable... and others will insist on twice
    that.

    People see, and get pleasure, from *different* things in a
    photograph!

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Nov 27, 2006
    #15
  16. wrote:
    > I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    > How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    > read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    > cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    > getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    > prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    > MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    > home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    > make good quality 11x17 prints?
    >

    There is 8 megapixel and there is 8 megapixel, a dSLR with 8 megapixels
    out performs any 8 megapixel point and shoot. A Canon Rebel XT dSLR will
    simply produce a better quality image than a Panasonic FZ-30 Point & Shoot.

    Pentax is claiming 30 megapixels in their yet to be released 645 based
    camera. Hasselblad is up to 39 megapixels, for a mere $ 31,994.95 (B&H
    Photo)
     
    Not Disclosed, Nov 27, 2006
    #16
  17. tomm42 Guest

    On Nov 26, 9:02 pm, wrote:
    > I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    > How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    > read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    > cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    > getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    > prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    > MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    > home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    > make good quality 11x17 prints?


    I too found Floyd's list a little restrictive, but in the end it all
    depends on your system, the lenses you use have a lot more to do with
    the final image than the camera. Also what your tolerance levels of
    lack of detail are. Any DSLR and a lot of the P&S cameras can make a
    good 8x10. There are a lot of qualifications but I think most people
    felt 8mp essentially equaled film in DSLRs, P&S camera because of the
    smaller chip makes the arguement even more debatable. In many ways 8+mp
    cameras are pushing past most 6x6 cameras, I even saw a 6mp Kodak
    DCS760 beat out a Mamiya 645 while shooting a major league sports team.

    Printing gets incrementally better with each jump of 60ppi. This also
    has to do with the print's distance to the viewer. When i was large
    format printing and I knew the print would be in the back of a trade
    show booth, if is was big, say 36 x 48 I would print at 180ppi. If the
    print was going to be displayed on a wall at say 16 x 20 I would use
    300ppi, if it was 11 x 14 or smaller 360ppi. I have read about a
    photoartist in New York who does 4x5 drumscanned B&W negs and prints
    them at 1440ppi at 16x20 on a big Epson printer, you have to have a lot
    of computer horse power to do that!
    I would also say that digital files print large better than 35mm film,
    even scanned film. Where I have seen very acceptable 16 x 20s from 6mp
    cameras, I have to look hard to find decent looking 16 x 20s from 35mm
    film. Most film shooters I know, myself included would go to a mf
    camera if the final product would be a 16x20.
    Just the observations of a large format printer.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Nov 27, 2006
    #17
  18. On 27 Nov 2006 06:24:23 -0800, "tomm42" <> wrote:


    > I have read about a
    >photoartist in New York who does 4x5 drumscanned B&W negs and prints
    >them at 1440ppi at 16x20 on a big Epson printer, you have to have a lot
    >of computer horse power to do that!



    Pfft. Most any current PC or Mac will handle it. A gig of RAM
    was around $70 last time I checked.

    My scans of LF or MF film routinely yield 100 megapixel files --
    ie., 300+ Mbyte TIFs, which I can print at up to 24x30" or whatever.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Raphael Bustin, Nov 27, 2006
    #18
  19. Scott W Guest

    Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
    > A very nice tale that tells a lot: Megapixel counts *never*
    > make a photograph! It is just one of many possible *limiting*
    > factors that can unmake a photograph.

    Yup, many things besides detail captured go in to how sharp a
    photograph looks. I have two photos I took at Bryce one with a whole
    lot of resolution but poor lighting the other with ok resolution but
    much better lighting. Even though the one with poor lighting has a
    huge amount of resolution is does not look nearly as sharp as the one
    with good lighting. The good lighting simply gives the photo more
    contrast and this makes it look much sharper.


    > And, it needs to be emphasized, that how many pixels/inch is
    > required is as I said, an opinion that "depends on who and why."
    > While that particular chart is based on the idea that 200 ppi is
    > a minimum, it is always true that *some* people will not find
    > half that too objectionable... and others will insist on twice
    > that.
    >
    > People see, and get pleasure, from *different* things in a
    > photograph!


    This is also true. My parents for the longest time were using a Nikon
    800, 1600 x 1200 pixels, and would make a lot of 8 x 10 prints using
    it. This works out to 150 ppi and to my eye the prints were painful to
    look at but they loved them. I had a Nikon 995, 2048 x 1536 pixels,
    and I think it made great 4 x 6 inch prints but the 8 x 10 inch prints
    from it were notably softer then the 4 x 6 inch prints. The difference
    between the 192 ppi that I could get using the 995 and the 300 ppi I
    could get with my Sony F828 made a huge difference in how sharp the 9 x
    10 prints looked, at least to me.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 27, 2006
    #19
  20. J. Clarke Guest

    On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:50:31 -0500, Not Disclosed wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> I noticed that Canon, Sony and others start to produce 10 MP cameras.
    >> How many MP is a digital medium format camera in the market now? I
    >> read about Mamiya ZD and it indicated about 22 MP. Will higher MP
    >> cameras soon come into the home markets? Is there any advantage of
    >> getting higher and higher MP in a camera? For home use, would a 8x10
    >> prints be the largest that is practical and commonly used? Would an 8
    >> MP camera be good enough to produce good quality 8 x10 prints? Why the
    >> home user then be in needs of larger MP cameras? What MP cameras would
    >> make good quality 11x17 prints?
    >>

    > There is 8 megapixel and there is 8 megapixel, a dSLR with 8 megapixels
    > out performs any 8 megapixel point and shoot. A Canon Rebel XT dSLR will
    > simply produce a better quality image than a Panasonic FZ-30 Point &
    > Shoo


    You've compared side-by-side double-blind with the kit lens?

    > Pentax is claiming 30 megapixels in their yet to be released 645 based
    > camera. Hasselblad is up to 39 megapixels, for a mere $ 31,994.95 (B&H
    > Photo)


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 27, 2006
    #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. Nicole Carbonara
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    959
    Nicole Carbonara
    Jul 11, 2003
  2. Brian C. Baird

    The Human Eye: 120 Megapixel Monochrome, 6 Megapixel Color

    Brian C. Baird, Jun 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    4,116
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 17, 2004
  3. Mark

    5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera

    Mark, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    627
    Paul H.
    Mar 9, 2005
  4. Somebody

    Worlds Largest Photo and Worlds Largest Camera...

    Somebody, Aug 9, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    648
    John Turco
    Aug 16, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,005
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page