What requirements would force you to go to 11MP from a 6MP DSLR ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Al Dykes, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. Al Dykes

    Al Dykes Guest

    All other things being equal what kinds of work would
    force you to upgrade to the Canon 1Ds, for instance.

    - extreme telephoto, more pixels let you crop out a usable picture.
    - extremely large prints to be examined close-up.
    - fashion magazine cover shots ?

    All of these are sort of obvious, I'm looking for a ideas that
    give me a better idea of when 6MP finallu taps out.

    Thanks


    --
    Al Dykes
    -----------
    Al Dykes, Sep 28, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Al Dykes

    JK Guest

    Al Dykes wrote:

    > All other things being equal what kinds of work would
    > force you to upgrade to the Canon 1Ds, for instance.


    Wedding photography, where people expect medium format quality 8"x10"
    prints. Weddings would be a very typical application, as it is common to
    shoot up to 100 rolls of medium format film at one. At around 100 rolls
    of medium format film plus developing and contact sheets, the cost of
    a high resolution digicam can be recouped in a short period of time.
    It is also now typically less expensive to have 8"x10" or 8"x12" prints
    made from digital than from negatives.

    >
    >
    > - extreme telephoto, more pixels let you crop out a usable picture.
    > - extremely large prints to be examined close-up.
    > - fashion magazine cover shots ?
    >
    > All of these are sort of obvious, I'm looking for a ideas that
    > give me a better idea of when 6MP finallu taps out.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > --
    > Al Dykes
    > -----------
    >
    JK, Sep 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Al Dykes

    Steve Wilbur Guest

    The price for the 11MP camera would have to be about $200.
    Steve Wilbur, Sep 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Al Dykes

    MarkH Guest

    (Al Dykes) wrote in news:bl7g8v$vi$:

    > All other things being equal what kinds of work would
    > force you to upgrade to the Canon 1Ds, for instance.
    >
    > - extreme telephoto, more pixels let you crop out a usable picture.


    Err, no. For extreme telephoto you are better off with a 10D, you have a
    built in crop, you would need better than 16MPix full frame to crop and
    beat the 10D.

    Obviously the 1Ds has the advantage the other way around - with wide angle.



    --
    Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
    See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
    "There are 10 types of people, those that
    understand binary and those that don't"
    MarkH, Sep 29, 2003
    #4
  5. Al Dykes

    Martin Guest

    "Al Dykes" <> wrote in message
    news:bl7g8v$vi$...
    > All other things being equal what kinds of work would
    > force you to upgrade to the Canon 1Ds, for instance.
    >
    > - extreme telephoto, more pixels let you crop out a usable picture.
    > - extremely large prints to be examined close-up.
    > - fashion magazine cover shots ?
    >
    > All of these are sort of obvious, I'm looking for a ideas that
    > give me a better idea of when 6MP finallu taps out.


    I can't claim to know enough about optics to verify it, but I was told by
    someone that I tend to trust that there are very few 35mm format lenses on
    the market with the resolving power to exploit even 6MP let alone 11. He was
    of the opinion that there was little point going over 6MP unless you also
    went to medium format...

    >
    > Thanks
    >
    >
    > --
    > Al Dykes

    Martin
    Martin, Sep 29, 2003
    #5
  6. Al Dykes

    George Kerby Guest

    Re: What requirements would force you to go to 11MP from a 6MPDSLR ?

    On 9/28/03 3:59 PM, in article , "JK"
    <> wrote:

    > Wedding photography, where people expect medium format quality 8"x10"
    > prints. Weddings would be a very typical application, as it is common to
    > shoot up to 100 rolls of medium format film at one. At around 100 rolls
    > of medium format film plus developing and contact sheets, the cost of
    > a high resolution digicam can be recouped in a short period of time.
    > It is also now typically less expensive to have 8"x10" or 8"x12" prints
    > made from digital than from negatives.


    >

    I have NEVER heard of ANYONE shooting 1,200 exposures at a wedding!!!
    Bullshit!
    In addition, I have NEVER given contact sheets to a bride.
    I feel sorry for anyone you may have worked for.


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Sep 29, 2003
    #6
  7. Al Dykes

    Sloopy Guest

    In article <BB9DA36F.1AE92%>,
    George Kerby <> wrote:

    > On 9/28/03 3:59 PM, in article , "JK"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > Wedding photography, where people expect medium format quality 8"x10"
    > > prints. Weddings would be a very typical application, as it is common to
    > > shoot up to 100 rolls of medium format film at one. At around 100 rolls
    > > of medium format film plus developing and contact sheets, the cost of
    > > a high resolution digicam can be recouped in a short period of time.
    > > It is also now typically less expensive to have 8"x10" or 8"x12" prints
    > > made from digital than from negatives.

    >
    > >

    > I have NEVER heard of ANYONE shooting 1,200 exposures at a wedding!!!


    Let's say the wedding is six hours. That's 200 exposures an hour, or
    over three per minute, every minute, for six hours.

    -Sloopy
    Sloopy, Sep 29, 2003
    #7
  8. Hi Mark

    > Err, no. For extreme telephoto you are better off with a 10D, you have a
    > built in crop, you would need better than 16MPix full frame to crop and
    > beat the 10D.


    There's an assumption in your argument here that one knows
    what the crop will be when shooting.

    Stan
    Stanley Krute, Sep 29, 2003
    #8
  9. Al Dykes

    George Kerby Guest

    Re: What requirements would force you to go to 11MP from a 6MPDSLR ?

    On 9/29/03 9:35 AM, in article , "Sloopy"
    <> wrote:

    > In article <BB9DA36F.1AE92%>,
    > George Kerby <> wrote:
    >
    >> On 9/28/03 3:59 PM, in article , "JK"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wedding photography, where people expect medium format quality 8"x10"
    >>> prints. Weddings would be a very typical application, as it is common to
    >>> shoot up to 100 rolls of medium format film at one. At around 100 rolls
    >>> of medium format film plus developing and contact sheets, the cost of
    >>> a high resolution digicam can be recouped in a short period of time.
    >>> It is also now typically less expensive to have 8"x10" or 8"x12" prints
    >>> made from digital than from negatives.

    >>
    >>>

    >> I have NEVER heard of ANYONE shooting 1,200 exposures at a wedding!!!

    >
    > Let's say the wedding is six hours. That's 200 exposures an hour, or
    > over three per minute, every minute, for six hours.
    >
    > -Sloopy

    Doesn't leave too much time for potty breaks, eh?!?
    :)
    Obviously, (hopefully) the poster meant 100 exposures, but that would be a
    little short. My experience is 10 - 15 rolls of 120 max.


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Sep 29, 2003
    #9
  10. Re: What requirements would force you to go to 11MP from a 6MP DSLR?

    by your logic 35MM film can get by with cheap lenses then! You've got
    your "facts" royally screwed up, my friend. Quality lenses are not
    going to the limiting factor when used with a 6MP sensor. Your trust in
    your source is woefully misplaced. Go pick up a few digital photo
    magazines and read the articles related to digital vs film.

    dave

    Martin wrote:

    > "Al Dykes" <> wrote in message
    > news:bl7g8v$vi$...
    >
    >>All other things being equal what kinds of work would
    >>force you to upgrade to the Canon 1Ds, for instance.
    >>
    >>- extreme telephoto, more pixels let you crop out a usable picture.
    >>- extremely large prints to be examined close-up.
    >>- fashion magazine cover shots ?
    >>
    >>All of these are sort of obvious, I'm looking for a ideas that
    >>give me a better idea of when 6MP finallu taps out.

    >
    >
    > I can't claim to know enough about optics to verify it, but I was told by
    > someone that I tend to trust that there are very few 35mm format lenses on
    > the market with the resolving power to exploit even 6MP let alone 11. He was
    > of the opinion that there was little point going over 6MP unless you also
    > went to medium format...
    >
    >
    >>Thanks
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>Al Dykes

    >
    > Martin
    >
    >
    Bay Area Dave, Sep 29, 2003
    #10
  11. Al Dykes

    G Martin Guest

    On 28 Sep 2003 16:28:15 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

    The primary reason to go with the Canon 1Ds is that it has a
    full-frame sensor - it's the same size as a 35mm negative or
    transparency. That means that, for example, a 20mm wide-angle lens
    will deliver the same field of view as on a 35mm film camera.

    The 6mp DSLRs, like the Canon 10D, have smaller sensors, and crop the
    image so that there is typically a 1.6x multiplier of the focal
    length. As a result, the same 20mm lens on a 6mp DSLR will deliver an
    effective focal length of 32mm. For photographers who like to work
    with wide angle optics, this is a serious drawback.

    The extra megapixels are an added bonus.


    >All other things being equal what kinds of work would
    >force you to upgrade to the Canon 1Ds, for instance.
    >
    >- extreme telephoto, more pixels let you crop out a usable picture.
    >- extremely large prints to be examined close-up.
    >- fashion magazine cover shots ?
    >
    >All of these are sort of obvious, I'm looking for a ideas that
    >give me a better idea of when 6MP finallu taps out.
    >
    >Thanks


    -G
    www.g-pix.com
    G Martin, Sep 30, 2003
    #11
  12. Al Dykes

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Alfred Molon, Sep 30, 2003
    #12
  13. Al Dykes

    Guest

    In message <3f783713$0$65577$>,
    "Martin" <> wrote:

    >I can't claim to know enough about optics to verify it, but I was told by
    >someone that I tend to trust that there are very few 35mm format lenses on
    >the market with the resolving power to exploit even 6MP let alone 11. He was
    >of the opinion that there was little point going over 6MP unless you also
    >went to medium format...


    This is true, in my experience; only the highest quality lenses, or
    medium quality ones stopped way down, can saturate the 10D sensor with
    sharp detail.

    However, an over-sampled image is not the worst thing in the world. You
    can call it a waste of pixels, but these images are really better for
    rotating, scaling, perspective correction, etc, than if you had the same
    amount of detail in a smaller bitmap.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Oct 2, 2003
    #13
  14. << This is true, in my experience; only the highest quality lenses, or
    medium quality ones stopped way down, can saturate the 10D sensor with
    sharp detail. >>

    John & Martin-

    My old Minolta film scanner produces an 8 megapixel image from a 35mm negative
    or slide. When I look closely at the resulting image, I can see blurry grain
    on ISO 400 film, I can tell that some of my lenses aren't as sharp as others,
    and I can see that 8 megapixels is not enough. An extreme enlargement of the
    original film will produce a better image than a same-scale print from the
    scanned image, depending on how good the lens is and how grainy the film is.

    Going to medium format in a film camera is equivalent to having a larger sensor
    in a digital camera. I realize that the current crop of digital cameras are
    close to the point of diminishing returns, but I want just a little bit more!

    I want a sensor at least the size of the common 35mm frame. Any smaller and
    the cost of lenses will be higher in order to produce the optical quality
    needed. I think there may be some kind of diffraction effect that limits
    resolution of lenses designed for smaller sensors. (I wonder what happened to
    Kodak's film-disk camera?)

    I want at least 10 Megapixels. Experts may not agree on exactly how much is
    equivalent to 35mm film, but I believe it will turn out to be in the 10 to 12
    Megapixel range, if not a little higher.

    I want a system that has an abundant supply of good optics. There are several
    lines of outstanding optics used on 35mm cameras already in existence. This is
    one important reason I believe the industry will eventually settle in on the
    35mm film format as the best choice or compromise for the digital sensor.

    Actually, I don't have to wait. There are already cameras out there that meet
    these specifications. The Canon 1Ds comes to mind, as well as some made by
    Kodak using Nikon components. The only catch is their cost. So my last
    requirement is for the cost to come down to something I can afford. In the
    mean time, I'll have to take what I can get and make the best of it!

    Fred
    Fred McKenzie, Oct 3, 2003
    #14
    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. Georgette Preddy

    The 11MP monochrome, 2.7MP color, $8000 Canon 1Ds

    Georgette Preddy, May 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    653
    Charles Schuler
    May 29, 2004
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,151
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,388
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,749
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    882
    Bert Hyman
    Dec 31, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page