Megapixel Question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Crow T Robot, Nov 28, 2006.

  1. Crow T Robot

    Crow T Robot Guest

    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?

    --
    *********************End Transmission********************************
    Send all complaints, requests and/or thanks to

    ICQ #34907449

    Website - http://www.sithicus.org
    Website - http://www.stardestroyer.org - All Star Wars / Star Trek
    Railroad Picture Archives.net - http://crow_t_robot.rrpicturearchives.net/


    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
    nothing."
    -Edmund Burke

    "Try not, do or do not there is no try"
    - Yoda(Empire Strikes Back)
    Crow T Robot, Nov 28, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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?


    This is a strange question indeed. Not sure at what level to answer such
    a question. You do know that the more pixels, the greater amount of
    information, or detail in the image, right? Seems obvious that 10 would
    be more than 6. What are you asking?

    Gary Eickmeier
    Gary Eickmeier, Nov 28, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Crow T Robot

    sally Guest

    In article <x4Mah.33888$>,
    Crow T Robot <> 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.
    sally, Nov 28, 2006
    #3
  4. Crow T Robot

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:15:09 GMT, "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?


    Because you're asking about very specific MP numbers (6.2/10.2 vs
    6/10), it seems you already have cameras picked out.
    Which ones?
    Sensors don't come by themselves, they are wrapped in cameras.
    Different cameras have different features. Despite what David Pogue
    tries to say, it's impossible to compare just megapixels; you must
    compare cameras.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
    Bill Funk, Nov 28, 2006
    #4
  5. Crow T Robot

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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?


    You get more pixels with a 10MP camera.. But not as much as it would
    seem.

    For instance, the Canon G7 is a 10.2 MP camera. It produces images that
    are 3648 X 2736

    The Canon A700 is a 6.2 Megapixel Camera. It produces images that
    are 2816 X 2112.

    So... The 10.2 MP camera gives you images that are 832 pixels wider
    and 624 Pixels higher than the 6.2 MP camera.
    Jim Townsend, Nov 28, 2006
    #5
  6. Crow T Robot

    bmoag Guest

    The eternal, universal answer: it all depends on what you want to do with
    those megapixels.
    Also your aesthetic ability, your understanding of digital image processing
    and printing are major factors: 3mps in the right hands are better than
    10mps in the wrong hands.
    bmoag, Nov 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Crow T Robot

    jeremy Guest

    "Crow T Robot" <> wrote in message
    news:x4Mah.33888$...
    >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?
    >



    There is obviously SOME degree of difference, but it may be so slight as to
    go unnoticed. The following piece hardly represents the last word on the
    subject, but I found it to be thought provoking:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
    jeremy, Nov 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Crow T Robot

    Pete D Guest

    "jeremy" <> wrote in message
    news:wlQah.7336$Kw2.7102@trndny05...
    > "Crow T Robot" <> wrote in message
    > news:x4Mah.33888$...
    >>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?
    >>

    >
    >
    > There is obviously SOME degree of difference, but it may be so slight as
    > to go unnoticed. The following piece hardly represents the last word on
    > the subject, but I found it to be thought provoking:
    >
    > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
    >

    Until you read the last paragraph where he shoots himself in the foot.
    Pete D, Nov 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Crow T Robot

    SimonLW Guest

    "Crow T Robot" <> wrote in message
    news:x4Mah.33888$...
    >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?
    >
    > --
    > *********************End Transmission********************************
    > Send all complaints, requests and/or thanks to
    >
    > ICQ #34907449
    >
    > Website - http://www.sithicus.org
    > Website - http://www.stardestroyer.org - All Star Wars / Star Trek
    > Railroad Picture Archives.net - http://crow_t_robot.rrpicturearchives.net/
    >
    >
    > "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
    > nothing."
    > -Edmund Burke
    >
    > "Try not, do or do not there is no try"
    > - Yoda(Empire Strikes Back)
    >
    >

    Yes, there are about 40% more pixels. This does not equate to 40% more
    resolution, it is more like 27% ideally, but other optical issues lower this
    number. It takes about 25% increase in resolution to make a noticeable
    improvement in every day shooting. Considering your lens can handle the
    extra resolution, the 10MP camera is the way to go if you plan to make
    larger sized prints, say 11x14 or more.

    OTOH, if we're talking about point and shoot cameras, I'm not so sure 10MP
    is the best due to noise issues. Noise reduction wipes out low contrast
    detail that a lower res camera might retain. A 4 to 6 MP camera with a good
    sized sensor (1/1.8") is the way to go here. The 10MP point and shoot camera
    a pure marketing gimmickry.

    -S
    SimonLW, Nov 28, 2006
    #9
  10. sally <> wrote:
    > In article <x4Mah.33888$>,
    > Crow T Robot <> 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. I have
    seen old AI lenses do fine on a D200 and the kit 18-70 lens does well. Detail
    is still lost due to sensor limitations and not noticably from a lens
    limitation (meaning resolving power).

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 28, 2006
    #10
  11. Crow T Robot

    jeremy Guest

    "Pete D" <> 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.
    jeremy, Nov 28, 2006
    #11
  12. jeremy <> 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
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 28, 2006
    #12
  13. Crow T Robot

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Thomas T. Veldhouse <> wrote:
    >sally <> wrote:
    >> Crow T Robot <> 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
    Ray Fischer, Nov 28, 2006
    #13
  14. Crow T Robot

    jeremy Guest

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <> 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.
    jeremy, Nov 28, 2006
    #14
  15. Ray Fischer <> wrote:
    > Thomas T. Veldhouse <> wrote:
    >>sally <> wrote:
    >>> Crow T Robot <> 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
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Nov 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Crow T Robot

    Pete D Guest

    "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <> wrote in message
    news:qaYah.2996$...
    > jeremy <> 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?
    Pete D, Nov 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Crow T Robot

    Pete D Guest

    "jeremy" <> wrote in message
    news:fe_ah.10928$gJ1.5356@trndny09...
    > "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <> 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.
    Pete D, Nov 28, 2006
    #17
  18. Crow T Robot

    jeremy Guest

    "Pete D" <> 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.
    jeremy, Nov 28, 2006
    #18
  19. Crow T Robot

    Scott W Guest

    jeremy wrote:
    > "Pete D" <> 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
    Scott W, Nov 28, 2006
    #19
  20. Crow T Robot

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Pete D <> 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
    Ray Fischer, Nov 29, 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. Mike Livingstone

    Megapixel question

    Mike Livingstone, Dec 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    463
  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:
    4,089
    Dave Haynie
    Jun 17, 2004
  3. Mark

    5 Megapixel VS. 4 Megapixel camera

    Mark, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    597
    Paul H.
    Mar 9, 2005
  4. Vik Rubenfeld

    URL for 4 megapixel vs. 7 megapixel Comparison Shots?

    Vik Rubenfeld, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    403
    Vik Rubenfeld
    Sep 26, 2005
  5. Tony Cooper

    Megapixel question

    Tony Cooper, Apr 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    517
    Prometheus
    Apr 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page