10 megapixel Help?

"Jacobsen" <pippo.DeleteThis@fdgf.it> wrote in message
news:YSnui.21112$pd1.9833@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
>>
> would be do I really need 10+mp?
>>
> <<<<<
>
> no better 8 MP but good lenses!
>
>>

Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

>Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.
>
>
I don't understand this!

My 7 MP camera has a resolution of

3072 x 2304

so printing at 300 ppi gives

3072 / 300 x 2304 / 300

gives a print size of

10.2 x 7.7 inches


to get 12x18 you would need to printing at about 170 ppi

surly this is not going to give prints of the same quality as printing
at 300 ppi.


--
Nospam
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

In article <rrSas4Dp4iuGFw1e RemoveThis @nospam.demon.co.uk>, Nospam
<nospam RemoveThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.
>>
>>
>I don't understand this!
>
>My 7 MP camera has a resolution of
>
>3072 x 2304
>
>so printing at 300 ppi gives
>
>3072 / 300 x 2304 / 300
>
>gives a print size of
>
>10.2 x 7.7 inches
>
>
>to get 12x18 you would need to printing at about 170 ppi

I think your arithmetic is in error.

3072 / 12 = 256 ppi
2304 / 8 = 288 ppi

3072 / 170 = 18.1 inch
2304 / 170 = 13.6 inch

Simple inspection told me that since 170 ppi is about half 300 ppi 12
inch can not be about twice 10 inch.

>surly this is not going to give prints of the same quality as printing
>at 300 ppi.

You don't really need 300ppi, 200ppi is usable if you are viewing at
about 14 inches.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

"Newsguy" <News DeleteThis @guy.com> wrote in message
news:46ba08bb$0$3704$a82e6bb9@orc.meganetnews.com...
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
> don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
> speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info
> out there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.
>
> I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?

http://www.ephotozine.com/ has a wealth of info that can answer your
questions.
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

>>>Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.


>>>
>>>
>>I don't understand this!
>>
>>My 7 MP camera has a resolution of
>>
>>3072 x 2304
>>
>>so printing at 300 ppi gives
>>
>>3072 / 300 x 2304 / 300
>>
>>gives a print size of
>>
>>10.2 x 7.7 inches

Not 12 x 18

So this is what u get if u print a 7mp image at 300 ppi (approx.. 10 x


the op was actually talking about a 6mp printed to 12 x 18

I am assuming inches here and not cm!

>>
>>to get 12x18 you would need to printing at about 170 ppi
>
>I think your arithmetic is in error.

No its not.

We are talking 12 x 18 not 12 x 8!
>
> 3072 / 12 = 256 ppi
> 2304 / 8 = 288 ppi

But I was talking about 300 ppi not 256 or 288

and a print size of 12 x 18 not 12 x 8

my calculation shows that at a print density of 300 ppi you can only get
10 x 8 approx. from 7 MP

if you print a 7 MP print at 12 x 18 the it's approx. 170 ppi - 192 ppi


3072 / 18 = 170 ppi
2304 / 12 = 192 ppi


which is what u show below
>
> 3072 / 170 = 18.1 inch
> 2304 / 170 = 13.6 inch
>

The original comment was about the 6MP image printing
at a size of 12 x 18

this would be about 170 / 192 ppi

>Simple inspection told me that since 170 ppi is about half 300 ppi 12
>inch can not be about twice 10 inch.
>
>>surly this is not going to give prints of the same quality as printing
>>at 300 ppi.
>
>You don't really need 300ppi, 200ppi is usable if you are viewing at
>about 14 inches.
>

It may be 'usable' but why spend all that money on good quality
equipment to ONLY get 'usable' prints.

Each to their own.

--
Nospam
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

> It may be 'usable' but why spend all that money on good quality equipment
> to ONLY get 'usable' prints.
>
> Each to their own.
>
> --
> Nospam

I have prints on my wall that will pass as close an inspection as you like
and it is from a 6MP D-SLR and they are 12x18 inches, the detail is
excellent.
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

On Aug 8, 2:24 pm, "Newsguy" <N....TakeThisOut@guy.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
> don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
> speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info out
> there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.
>
> I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?
>
> Thanks


Nikon D80 or Pentax K10, ignore a lot of the bells and whistles, just
shoot manual or aperture priority. RAW processing will get the best
out of your camera, not to say jpegs are bad, but to get the best
shoot RAW. This just means learning Photoshop Elements or any
equivalent image editor.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

In article <1186669454.087624.129330.RemoveThis@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
tomm42 <tmonego.RemoveThis@wildblue.net> wrote:

> On Aug 8, 2:24 pm, "Newsguy" <N....RemoveThis@guy.com> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
> > don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
> > speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info out
> > there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.
> >
> > I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?
> >
> > Thanks
>
>
> Nikon D80 or Pentax K10, ignore a lot of the bells and whistles, just
> shoot manual or aperture priority.

why buy the top of the line. A D40x will do all that and more for a lot
less cash leaving some for a long zoom or macro and a circular
polarizing filter.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

Newsguy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
> don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
> speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info out
> there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.
>
> I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?

At the risk of starting a flamewar, what are your reasons
for wanting a SLR (as opposed to a "bridge" or "compact"
for example)

BugBear
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

In article <jgXo+VH97ouGFw0l@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Nospam
<nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>to get 12x18 you would need to printing at about 170 ppi
>>
>>I think your arithmetic is in error.
>
>No its not.
>
>We are talking 12 x 18 not 12 x 8!

Meia culpa! I was not being attentive enough.

>>You don't really need 300ppi, 200ppi is usable if you are viewing at
>>about 14 inches.
>
>It may be 'usable' but why spend all that money on good quality
>equipment to ONLY get 'usable' prints.

It is usable because the viewer can not get close enough to see that it
is only 200ppi, do you think that billboard posters are printed at
300ppi and taken using cameras commensurate with that implied number of
pixels? No! I like to get the best from my photographs, but sometimes I
have to crop the image because I could not get a tight enough
composition. Sometimes I feel that a larger, lower resolution print will
have more impact on the viewer, even if it does not look good close up;
how many of the great masters painted at the equivalent of 300ppi?

>Each to their own.

Indeed yes.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

>It is usable because the viewer can not get close enough to see that it
>is only 200ppi, do you think that billboard posters are printed at
>300ppi

That is a fair comment and true.

I guess its like having a 42 inch TV in a small room displaying standard
quality vision. It looks bad until u move further back.

>and taken using cameras commensurate with that implied number of
>pixels? No! I like to get the best from my photographs, but sometimes I
>have to crop the image because I could not get a tight enough

Yes I crop too, so that does have an effect on quality.

I have just had some prints made at 200 and 300 and the difference in
some of them is noticeable but in other prints u need a magnifying glass
to tell the difference.

Again I think that depends upon the image.

I believe that a black square on a white background prints great at
100pi yet a more complex print needs 300ppi.

I am just getting into all this so I am at the beginning of the learning
curve.

I have just started to look at a replacement for my Canon T90 SLR and I
looked at all the specs and found a canon at 17MP, great I thought. I
then I found out I would need a re-mortgage to buy the body never mind
the quality lenses it would need.

it would be different if I was a 'good' photographer not just an average
one!

I just aim to print at 300 ppi so I don't have to worry if its a simple
image that would work at a lower resolution or a complex image that
actually needs 300 ppi.

Its a complex field!


--
Nospam
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

In article <GnNRfPJT4MvGFwYv DeleteThis @nospam.demon.co.uk>, Nospam
<nospam DeleteThis @nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I believe that a black square on a white background prints great at
>100pi yet a more complex print needs 300ppi.

Sorry, but only the really great modernist painters can make the "black
square on a white background".

>I am just getting into all this so I am at the beginning of the
>learning curve.

Keep reading, and asking; but be cautious of misinformation.

>I have just started to look at a replacement for my Canon T90 SLR and I
>looked at all the specs and found a canon at 17MP, great I thought. I
>then I found out I would need a re-mortgage to buy the body never mind
>the quality lenses it would need.

Not forgetting the truck to carry it all.

>it would be different if I was a 'good' photographer not just an
>average one!

A "good" photographer would understand that composition is more
important than simple resolution; it isn't quite 'black-and-white', but
you a well exposed good composition on 110 will be more interesting than
a poor composition on 5x4 cut film.

>I just aim to print at 300 ppi so I don't have to worry if its a simple
>image that would work at a lower resolution or a complex image that
>actually needs 300 ppi.

A commendable objective.

>Its a complex field!

Never a truer word.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help? 

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 19:28:40 +1000, "Pete D" <Doug.TakeThisOut@is.a.moron.com>
wrote:

>
>
>> It may be 'usable' but why spend all that money on good quality equipment
>> to ONLY get 'usable' prints.
>>
>> Each to their own.
>>
>> --
>> Nospam
>
>I have prints on my wall that will pass as close an inspection as you like
>and it is from a 6MP D-SLR and they are 12x18 inches, the detail is
>excellent.
>


Resolution numbers and print sizes aside, one thing to consider is
that the megapixels really isn't as big a factor as the salesmen might
tell you. A 6MP dslr like the Nikon D40 or D70 can give you far
better pictures than even the best 10+ MP point and shoot camera. The
size of the pixels is just as important as the number of them, as is
the image processing circuitry of the camera.


Steve
 >> Stay informed about: 10 megapixel Help?