MP question.

Nearly all the dSLR cameras on the market are cropped sensors. The
cheapest full frame camera right now is around $2700 (ouch!). Right
now, Canon is statistically the #1 dSLR seller in the world, followed
by Nikon. Sony has entered the market with "Sony Alpha" a few months
ago, with aspirations of leapfrogging Nikon for the #2 spot. If you
want the best selection of lenses, then you have to go with Canon or
Nikon. Of course, they also make the most expensive ones...

If your camera has a crop factor of 1.6x, like most Canon dSLRs, then
the effective focal length you get is 1.6 multiplied by the actual lens
focal length. For example, if you have a 50mm prime lens mounted on a
Canon Digital Rebel, your effective focal length would be 80mm.

This has good and bad points. Vignetting is much, much less of a
problem on a cropped frame (for obvious reasons). Telephoto is also
great on cropped sensors. A 200mm lens on a regular film camera would
have a much longer reach on a Digital Rebel (320mm). Unfortunately,
this has made wide angle very difficult on dSLRs. A 24mm wide angle
lens would effectively be a 38mm, for example. You would need an ultra
wide angle lens to get a decent wide angle shot.

Image Stabilization (I.S.) allows you to take hand-held photos that you
normally couldn't try without going 2 or 3 stops down. If you take a
lot of hand-held photos, then you Image Stabilization should be high on
your priority list. Unfortunately, both Canon and Nikon have I.S.
implemented on the lens, not camera. So you have to pay extra for
Image Stabilization for each and every lens you buy. Canon, for
example, often adds $400-$500 to the price of a lens with image
stabilization. Sony has a different approach --- I.S. is built into
the camera body. In practice, Sony's anti-shake isn't as effective as
Canon's, but at least you get the effect for all your lenses. If
budget is of concern to you and you want Image Stabilization, you
should take a serious look at the Sony Alpha. If you have a good sized
budget, I'd suggest you opt for Canon or Nikon.

With Megapixels, you won't see a practical improvement in image quality
unless you improve by at least 4 megapixels. A 8 MP camera isn't much
different from an 6 MP camera. But a 10 MP camera is in a different
league from 6 MP. It's nearly 2007, and I would strongly advise you
against purchasing a brand new 6 MP camera at this stage of the game.

There are FAQs all over the web, and you should spend time reading 'em.
They'll do a much better job explaining the details. Just make sure
you read FAQs written no earlier than 2005.
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have a question that I hope someone, or persons can answer, an fill
>> me in on the needed information.
>>
>> I am going to make the move to get back into photography, and am going
>> to go ahead and get digital.
>>
>> I am after good sharp photos. And the biggest I would go will be 8x10,
>> and maybe 11X14.
>>
>> I am looking at the new D100D Pentax that has the 6.1 MP sensor. And I
>> am also looking at the new Sony 10 MP sensor.
>>
>> Now myself not being up on MP and photos sizes, and the clarity that
>> it would provide, I have no idea what one would be a good buy for my
>> use.
>>
>> I am partial to the Pentax camera. More lenses availability, and good
>> service from what I can remember. But it is the camera with the lower
>> MP count.
>>
>> The Sony had from what I have heard, better auto focus then the
>> Pentax, and has the higher MP. The one draw back is there the cost for
>> good glass for the Sony/Minolta can be higher than other brands. And
>> the prices for the better flash is kind of high to for the Sony.
>>
>> I know that at some point the Sony will have a advantage with a clear
>> picture, but I am not sure as to what size that would start.
>>
>> Can anyone help?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rob
>
> Unless you intend to do a lot of cropping, anything over 4mp for prints
> of the size you mention is overkill. Think on the 4-5mp range, and go
> for a good DSP and processor in the camera, possibly with image
> stabilization. Don't chase MP numbers.
> A good lens, and camera features will be better places to spend your money.


Ron,

Thank you for the reply.

The cameras as you know are SLR cameras, so the one as I said was 6MP
and the other is 10 MP.

I will do some cropping, but not much. Mainly to re frame the subject on
some shots. (have done a lot of people stuff in the past, and will do
more in the future I am sure.)

I had a feeling that even a 6 MP was ok for my sizes, however I was not
to sure about much cropping. But like I said, I was not all that sure
as I am still kind of new to the digital world.

And yes, I am looking at Image stabilization. I like clear photos. I
like to to a lot of B&W, and like them sharp.

I also had a feeling that digital was also like film in this one
area...no matter what MP a camera is, many times people do not have a
quality lens that will allow the sensor to be used to its fullest. So
its also wise to put a bit toward the glass rather then MP's. As the
lenses that you will have will not make either sensor really stand out
if they are cheap as you can get.

Would this sound correct still with digital?


Thanks,

Rob
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

Rob <weneedprozac.TakeThisOut@yahoonojunk.com> wrote:
: Hello all,

: I have a question that I hope someone, or persons can answer, an fill me
: in on the needed information.

: I am going to make the move to get back into photography, and am going
: to go ahead and get digital.

: I am after good sharp photos. And the biggest I would go will be 8x10,
: and maybe 11X14.

Most of us recommend a print density of 300dpi for a sharp image (assuming
the original image is sharp to begin with). So an 8x10 at 300dpi would
require an image with 2400 x 3000 pixels or about 7.2 mp. An 11x14 at
300dpi would be 3300 x 4200 or about 13.8 mp. But depending on the
intended use of the image and how close you expect it to hold up to
inspection, some images have been very satisfactory printed at 120 to 200
dpi.

Personally I have a Pentax ist-ds at 6mp and I have been very pleased with
the sharpness of 8x10 prints and an occasional larger print. One other
thing that may come into play is if you go toward higher mp cameras you
will be able to do more cropping of the image and still get a satisfactory
print.

So there are a lot of factors to balance. The higher the mp of the sensor
the more detail that MAY be collected and thus available for the print.
But you also have to balance the cost of the camera vs your budget. If you
spend all your available money on the camera you won't have any left for
good quality lenses or high quality printers to allow the quality you
shoot to make it all the way to the paper. Also remember that many times
the cost of a printer isn't in the printer but in the ink. If you buy a
printer for $100 but spend $200-300 a month on ink you need to have that
additional cost in your budget. Take it from one who knows, it's very
frustrating when you buy a great camera and take eye-popping photos that
you can't show off because you are "temporarily low on funds" and can't
afford the ink to print the images.

: I am looking at the new D100D Pentax that has the 6.1 MP sensor. And I
: am also looking at the new Sony 10 MP sensor.

: Now myself not being up on MP and photos sizes, and the clarity that it
: would provide, I have no idea what one would be a good buy for my use.

: I am partial to the Pentax camera. More lenses availability, and good
: service from what I can remember. But it is the camera with the lower MP
: count.

Since the availablity of lenses is a concern you may want to research what
lenses you would want and see which brand-compatable lenses you would want
are available. Do remember that due to the less-than-35mm-film-frame sized
sensors the lenses will effectively be 1.5 to 1.6 times longer than the
focal length would indicate. For example if you are wanting to take an
image that would require a 100mm lens on your 35mm film camera, you would
instead use a 63mm lens on a camera with a 1.6 crop factor (sometimes
reffered to as a focal length multiplier, erroneously). So when looking at
possible lenses you will want to include some very wide angle lenses that
you didn't need with film.

So go to places like B&H (bhphotovideo.com) and search out lenses that you
would want in your kit. Then see which brand and make of camera has the
lenses you want available (and the price of them). This should not be the
only factor in your camera decision any more than pure mp counts, but it
should be one of the factors you look at.

: The Sony had from what I have heard, better auto focus then the Pentax,
: and has the higher MP. The one draw back is there the cost for good
: glass for the Sony/Minolta can be higher than other brands. And the
: prices for the better flash is kind of high to for the Sony.

: I know that at some point the Sony will have a advantage with a clear
: picture, but I am not sure as to what size that would start.

As with many other things, which camera is best for you is highly
personal and none of us can give you a hard and fast answer (and beware of
those who do). The best any of us can do is give you suggested factors to
look at and some personal experiences as they relate to our own needs and
desires. You will have to pick and choose which suggestions and opinions
fit with your style.

Good luck.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

Randy Berbaum <rberbaum.RemoveThis@bluestem.prairienet.org> writes:
> Most of us recommend a print density of 300dpi for a sharp image

Has anyone compared an actual 300 dpi print with a 200 dpi print of
the same image made on the same printer?
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

Randy Berbaum wrote:
> Rob <weneedprozac DeleteThis @yahoonojunk.com> wrote:
> : Hello all,
>
> : I have a question that I hope someone, or persons can answer, an fill me
> : in on the needed information.
>
> : I am going to make the move to get back into photography, and am going
> : to go ahead and get digital.
>
> : I am after good sharp photos. And the biggest I would go will be 8x10,
> : and maybe 11X14.
>
> Most of us recommend a print density of 300dpi for a sharp image (assuming
> the original image is sharp to begin with). So an 8x10 at 300dpi would
> require an image with 2400 x 3000 pixels or about 7.2 mp. An 11x14 at
> 300dpi would be 3300 x 4200 or about 13.8 mp. But depending on the
> intended use of the image and how close you expect it to hold up to
> inspection, some images have been very satisfactory printed at 120 to 200
> dpi.
>
> Personally I have a Pentax ist-ds at 6mp and I have been very pleased with
> the sharpness of 8x10 prints and an occasional larger print. One other
> thing that may come into play is if you go toward higher mp cameras you
> will be able to do more cropping of the image and still get a satisfactory
> print.
>
> So there are a lot of factors to balance. The higher the mp of the sensor
> the more detail that MAY be collected and thus available for the print.
> But you also have to balance the cost of the camera vs your budget. If you
> spend all your available money on the camera you won't have any left for
> good quality lenses or high quality printers to allow the quality you
> shoot to make it all the way to the paper. Also remember that many times
> the cost of a printer isn't in the printer but in the ink. If you buy a
> printer for $100 but spend $200-300 a month on ink you need to have that
> additional cost in your budget. Take it from one who knows, it's very
> frustrating when you buy a great camera and take eye-popping photos that
> you can't show off because you are "temporarily low on funds" and can't
> afford the ink to print the images.
>
> : I am looking at the new D100D Pentax that has the 6.1 MP sensor. And I
> : am also looking at the new Sony 10 MP sensor.
>
> : Now myself not being up on MP and photos sizes, and the clarity that it
> : would provide, I have no idea what one would be a good buy for my use.
>
> : I am partial to the Pentax camera. More lenses availability, and good
> : service from what I can remember. But it is the camera with the lower MP
> : count.
>
> Since the availablity of lenses is a concern you may want to research what
> lenses you would want and see which brand-compatable lenses you would want
> are available. Do remember that due to the less-than-35mm-film-frame sized
> sensors the lenses will effectively be 1.5 to 1.6 times longer than the
> focal length would indicate. For example if you are wanting to take an
> image that would require a 100mm lens on your 35mm film camera, you would
> instead use a 63mm lens on a camera with a 1.6 crop factor (sometimes
> reffered to as a focal length multiplier, erroneously). So when looking at
> possible lenses you will want to include some very wide angle lenses that
> you didn't need with film.
>
> So go to places like B&H (bhphotovideo.com) and search out lenses that you
> would want in your kit. Then see which brand and make of camera has the
> lenses you want available (and the price of them). This should not be the
> only factor in your camera decision any more than pure mp counts, but it
> should be one of the factors you look at.
>
> : The Sony had from what I have heard, better auto focus then the Pentax,
> : and has the higher MP. The one draw back is there the cost for good
> : glass for the Sony/Minolta can be higher than other brands. And the
> : prices for the better flash is kind of high to for the Sony.
>
> : I know that at some point the Sony will have a advantage with a clear
> : picture, but I am not sure as to what size that would start.
>
> As with many other things, which camera is best for you is highly
> personal and none of us can give you a hard and fast answer (and beware of
> those who do). The best any of us can do is give you suggested factors to
> look at and some personal experiences as they relate to our own needs and
> desires. You will have to pick and choose which suggestions and opinions
> fit with your style.
>
> Good luck.
>
> Randy
>
> ==========
> Randy Berbaum
> Champaign, IL
>

Randy,

Thanks for the good info.


You hit on a topic that I was going to ask about sometime, but I will it
on it now sense you brought it up, and I think I might under stand now.

First off, let suppose that the camera that I am referring to now has a
2.0 crop factor as you put it.

I do some street photography, and would use like anywhere from a 28mm to
50mm.

On the camera I spoke of above, I would need to a have a lens (in 35 mm)
of about 24 to 28 to get in the neighborhood of a 50mm? Am I getting this?

Our if I wanted to get in the 28-35 range, I would need like a 14-18 mm
range in 35 mm camera focal range?

I hope I have this right. Its been kind of bugging me. I think that this
is right, but I am not sure.

Thanks,

Rob
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Randy Berbaum <rberbaum DeleteThis @bluestem.prairienet.org> writes:
> > Most of us recommend a print density of 300dpi for a sharp image
>
> Has anyone compared an actual 300 dpi print with a 200 dpi print of
> the same image made on the same printer?

Sure have. When I was doing large format printing I used to use 240ppi
for very large prints and 300 or 360ppi for under 11x14. There is
definitely a difference between 200ppi and 300ppi, its noticeable, both
HP and Epson printers like the ppi to be divisable by 60 so there is
even a noticeable difference between 200 and 240ppi. Less of a
difference between 240 and 300 but 300 is still better. These were
commercial clients I was dealing with and some were very picky, others
weren't. For 8x10s on a small inkjet printer you should be using
360ppi, some newer printers are optimized for 720ppi. Files just get
bigger and bigger.

Tom
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Randy Berbaum <rberbaum RemoveThis @bluestem.prairienet.org> writes:
>> Most of us recommend a print density of 300dpi for a sharp image
>
> Has anyone compared an actual 300 dpi print with a 200 dpi print of
> the same image made on the same printer?
Yes - I have and you can see a difference. But at over 10 x 8 it is
(IMO - and I have nearly perfect vision) fairly irrelevant - you need to
be viewing at perhaps 35cm or so in good light to see any difference -
that's probably closer than normal viewing distance for a 10x8
The usual argument of 10mp vs 6 or 8 mp relating to print size and PPI
is seriously flawed - the theoretical 29% difference in linear
resolution between 6 and 10 is realised only if a photographer with 100
perfect technique existed (not possible) and lens with impossibly good
optics existed (not possible). If you have good technique and very good
lenses, then sure there is a difference, but not so that you can print
30% larger and maintain the same level of per pixel sharpness.
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

"Rob" <weneedprozac.TakeThisOut@yahooNOJUNK.com> wrote in message
news:44FFE013.3000604@yahooNOJUNK.com...
[ . . . ]
>
> First off, let suppose that the camera that I am referring to now has a
> 2.0 crop factor as you put it.

The term "crop factor" is a misnomer, since nothing is being cropped.
Unfortunately it's become a very popular misnomer. The camera's sensor is
smaller than a full 35mm frame, so its angle of view is narrower, making any
lens used on it the equivalent of a longer lens on a 35. The most
descriptive term would be "focal length multiplier," since that's actually
what is being done with the so-called "crop factor" number.

The multiplier varies somewhat between different makes of camera, because of
small differences in sensor size. For Nikons and Minoltas (now Sony) the
multiplier is about 1.5, while for most Canons it's about 1.6.


>
> I do some street photography, and would use like anywhere from a 28mm to
> 50mm.
>
> On the camera I spoke of above, I would need to a have a lens (in 35 mm)
> of about 24 to 28 to get in the neighborhood of a 50mm? Am I getting this?

Fairly close. On a Nikon or Minolta digital SLR, a 28mm lens would be the
equivalent of a 42mm lens on a 35.


>
> Our if I wanted to get in the 28-35 range, I would need like a 14-18 mm
> range in 35 mm camera focal range?

On a Nikon or Minolta/Sony, 18mm is the equivalent of a 27mm lens on a 35.
The multiplier is 1.5 for whatever lens you're using.


>
> I hope I have this right. Its been kind of bugging me. I think that this
> is right, but I am not sure.

You've got the right idea, though I don't think there's a camera with the
2.0 multiplier you mention.

Neil
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 09:57:29 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

> First off, let suppose that the camera that I am referring to now has a
> 2.0 crop factor as you put it.
> . . .
>
>> I hope I have this right. Its been kind of bugging me. I think that this
>> is right, but I am not sure.
>
> You've got the right idea, though I don't think there's a camera with the
> 2.0 multiplier you mention.

Cameras that use the 4/3 system, such as Olympus DSLRs, have what
I'll diplomatically call a 2.0 multicroplier factor.
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

Rob wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I have a question that I hope someone, or persons can answer, an fill
>>> me in on the needed information.
>>>
>>> I am going to make the move to get back into photography, and am
>>> going to go ahead and get digital.
>>>
>>> I am after good sharp photos. And the biggest I would go will be
>>> 8x10, and maybe 11X14.
>>>
>>> I am looking at the new D100D Pentax that has the 6.1 MP sensor. And
>>> I am also looking at the new Sony 10 MP sensor.
>>>
>>> Now myself not being up on MP and photos sizes, and the clarity that
>>> it would provide, I have no idea what one would be a good buy for my
>>> use.
>>>
>>> I am partial to the Pentax camera. More lenses availability, and good
>>> service from what I can remember. But it is the camera with the lower
>>> MP count.
>>>
>>> The Sony had from what I have heard, better auto focus then the
>>> Pentax, and has the higher MP. The one draw back is there the cost
>>> for good glass for the Sony/Minolta can be higher than other brands.
>>> And the prices for the better flash is kind of high to for the Sony.
>>>
>>> I know that at some point the Sony will have a advantage with a clear
>>> picture, but I am not sure as to what size that would start.
>>>
>>> Can anyone help?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> Unless you intend to do a lot of cropping, anything over 4mp for
>> prints of the size you mention is overkill. Think on the 4-5mp range,
>> and go for a good DSP and processor in the camera, possibly with image
>> stabilization. Don't chase MP numbers.
>> A good lens, and camera features will be better places to spend your
>> money.
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> The cameras as you know are SLR cameras, so the one as I said was 6MP
> and the other is 10 MP.
>
> I will do some cropping, but not much. Mainly to re frame the subject on
> some shots. (have done a lot of people stuff in the past, and will do
> more in the future I am sure.)
>
> I had a feeling that even a 6 MP was ok for my sizes, however I was not
> to sure about much cropping. But like I said, I was not all that sure
> as I am still kind of new to the digital world.
>
> And yes, I am looking at Image stabilization. I like clear photos. I
> like to to a lot of B&W, and like them sharp.
>
> I also had a feeling that digital was also like film in this one
> area...no matter what MP a camera is, many times people do not have a
> quality lens that will allow the sensor to be used to its fullest. So
> its also wise to put a bit toward the glass rather then MP's. As the
> lenses that you will have will not make either sensor really stand out
> if they are cheap as you can get.
>
> Would this sound correct still with digital?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
Yes. A good lens is the first thing the light goes through, so having
the best of everything behind that is also important, but a lousy lens
can negate the best sensor, and electronics in the world.
The other consideration, which has been widely, and deeply discussed
here is that the more pixels you have on a given size sensor, the lower
the signal to noise ratio. In may cases, you will get a better picture
with the same lens from a 6mp sensor than a 10mp one. I am sure that in
the future, the technology will improve to make 20mp or higher sensors
with good signal to noise ratio. This translates to higher ISO numbers
with lower 'noise'. Noise in a digital picture looks very much like
grain in a film picture.
 >> Stay informed about: MP question. 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: MP question.