Camera megapixel ratings - are we being fooled

[whitehead]

From my own experience the main factor in increasing image quality is the piece of glass (lens) you take the shot through not the "MP race". I bought a D2X and have lived to rue the day, financially. My D70 produces prints at "A4" that are EXACTLY the same to my eye.

I agree fully, higher MP does not mean better pics.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Thanks Puffer Fish,
It's good to know that somebody working professionally in the field is happy with DPRreview.

One of the great things about Scubaboard is that you run into to people of such diverse backgrounds and areas of knowledge.
Luke

Thanks (again) - Digital technology is so in it's infancy that there is as much junk out there as there is good stuff, and the noise level (mostly sales hype) makes it very, very difficult to tell the good from the bad. Most people would be shocked at how good a 8 meg picture can actually be, if everything is done correctly. 30 x 40 inch prints that look great at 18" viewing angles are easy. No 35mm color image can do that. Even landscape photography is better with a digital today, but I would doubt the people doing it would understand the technology. There used to be a web site with a 200 gig image of the grand cayon - makes the best 8 x 10 camera look bad. That people are starting to ask show just how far things have come, this thread is proof of that.

Note: except for black and white, the best digital is way better than the best 35mm, but several aspects have to be corrected for that are not common knowledge. Image processing is even more black art today than it should be.

 

[ScubaLuke]

Thanks (again) - Digital technology is so in it's infancy that there is as much junk out there as there is good stuff, and the noise level (mostly sales hype) makes it very, very difficult to tell the good from the bad. Most people would be shocked at how good a 8 meg picture can actually be, if everything is done correctly. 30 x 40 inch prints that look great at 18" viewing angles are easy. No 35mm color image can do that. Even landscape photography is better with a digital today, but I would doubt the people doing it would understand the technology. There used to be a web site with a 200 gig image of the grand cayon - makes the best 8 x 10 camera look bad. That people are starting to ask show just how far things have come, this thread is proof of that.

Note: except for black and white, the best digital is way better than the best 35mm, but several aspects have to be corrected for that are not common knowledge. Image processing is even more black art today than it should be.

I'll agree that the best digital is better than the best film but I'm still not quite willing to completely give up film. Mainly because of cost. In some situations I can get much better pictures from my N90 than I can from my D100 - for example shooting macro with Velvia. But most of the time the D100 does just fine and I'm not willing to shell out the $5k for a D2X just to cover the situations where I need that extra bit of quality.

I'm shooting about 95% digital now - maybe more. I just got a Pentax 6x7 to use for landscape photography. Another advantage of digital is that it's driven down the price of film cameras. I probably won't use it more than 5 or 6 times a year and it would have been way to expensive just a couple of years ago for a camera that I only use occasionaly.

There's also infrared and UV photography which are still better done with film. Unless you get one of the digital SLRs specially modified for infrared.

That said, almost all my UW work will be with digital. I might pull out the Nikonos once or twice more before I completely retire it. The advantages of being able to sit down with my laptop at the end of a dive day and review the day's shooting far outweigh any advantages I might get from using film.
Luke

 

[Puffer Fish]

I'll agree that the best digital is better than the best film but I'm still not quite willing to completely give up film. Mainly because of cost. In some situations I can get much better pictures from my N90 than I can from my D100 - for example shooting macro with Velvia. But most of the time the D100 does just fine and I'm not willing to shell out the $5k for a D2X just to cover the situations where I need that extra bit of quality.

I'm shooting about 95% digital now - maybe more. I just got a Pentax 6x7 to use for landscape photography. Another advantage of digital is that it's driven down the price of film cameras. I probably won't use it more than 5 or 6 times a year and it would have been way to expensive just a couple of years ago for a camera that I only use occasionaly.

There's also infrared and UV photography which are still better done with film. Unless you get one of the digital SLRs specially modified for infrared.

That said, almost all my UW work will be with digital. I might pull out the Nikonos once or twice more before I completely retire it. The advantages of being able to sit down with my laptop at the end of a dive day and review the day's shooting far outweigh any advantages I might get from using film.
Luke

SCUBALUKE- consider the following

1. The sensor size on the D2X is 23.7 x 15.7, or 372 square mm. The number of pixels is 12.8 meg. That is a sensor resolution of 34408 pixels per sq mm, or 185.5 lines per mm. Any lense out there capable of that???

2. With digital technology, we are way past the point where the sensor is the limiting factor, but there are lots of ways to loose resolution, without knowing it.

3. D200 is a far better deal, by the way and has almost the identical sensor size (but only 165 lines per mm)

Want better looking digital images (your camera is not lens limited, but you have to do some work to get the best quality - similar to film, just really, really different).

Suggested handling methods:

1. Shoot in RAW - giant files, but you now actually have the actual data the sensor captured.

2. Use either Adobe or Corel. I have both and there is a giant cost difference between these, but I actually like Corel software better (costs less, but not a concern for me).

3. Learn all of the effects of unsharp mask - they are very difficult to follow, so zoom down to pixel level to see. The best effect varies with source data, so your best would not match my best (fuji land).

4. Learn all of the RGB pixel adjustments - really great in Corel, but very difficult to follow.

5. Get a very high resolution printer, but you have to understand that in the digital world, every change looses data. If your image is in 350 dpi and the printer prints in 233 for example, the machine has to translate (loosing lots of information in the process). This gets really tricky because the printer company will not tell you exactly what they are really printing in, or how their software does the translation. A 8 color printer may actually only be printing with 5 head, 6 head or 7 heads. The actual dpi, if stated at say 2800 could be 560, 466 or 400 and you will have no way of knowing. What is important is to have matching resolution in some ratio 1:1, or 2:1 or 1:2 for example. Anything else requires data to be lost, and it can be a lot.

6. If the image size and the printer image size does not match, then recalculate the image into one that does and look at the effect before printing.

7. When you get done, if you want a small image file, save as jpeg, but do the detail inspection between the two to see how much information was throw away.

If each step is done as good as it can be, you should get images slightly better than the best color print film can produce, without any sort of grain. I typically see a 200 to 400% image improvement overy just taking a jpeg and printing it.

 

[andymaher]

Concerning the Corel vs Adobe... proce matters A LOT to me :-(
Has anyone used Gimp 2? Its main advantage is price (free) and platform (works great in Windows, but also in Linux.) Opinions?
Thanks in advance...

 

[RonFrank]

I have been playing with the resolution settings on my D-70 and have found that I can rarely hold the camera steady enough to tell the difference between 3008x2000 and 2240x1488 anyway.

The number of pixels is important, but not all important.

If you want more real world resolution, try a tripod before buying a new camera.

Have you tried using a higher shutter speed? What RU shooting? 50mm, 100mm, 200mm?

The longer the lens, the higher the shutter needs to be for shooting. In film the inverse of the focal length was a good minium. So if using a 100mm lens 1/100 was the SLOWEST one should handhold. Of course this is also based on the individual.

Many believe that when using digital the multiplier should be taken into account. This makes no sense to me, but the different medium (sensor vs. film) and how they capture light does seem to make handholding a bit more difficult for whatever reason.

So many now say the inverse * the mulitiplier so for a 100mm lens 1/150 would be the slowers recommended handheld shutter speed. Some even suggest doubling it, so 1/200 for a 100mm lens.

 

[RonFrank]

From my own experience the main factor in increasing image quality is the piece of glass (lens) you take the shot through not the "MP race". I bought a D2X and have lived to rue the day, financially. My D70 produces prints at "A4" that are EXACTLY the same to my eye.

I agree fully, higher MP does not mean better pics.

Try printing at 16x20 or better. The D2x REALLY shines with larger prints. If you have any doubts, there are about 1000 examples to be found on the internet.

Don't kid yourself, MPIX makes a HUGE difference all other things being equal. And the D2x is hardly equal to the D70.

That said, the right tool for the job. What did you expect the D2x to do that the D70 was NOT doing? Also while I don't own a D2x, higher end camera's generally have a much steeper learning curve. I seriously doubt you are getting all you can out of this camera.

 

[Xanthro]

Damn Puffer Fish you available for hire to teach classes? (If you don't already)

 

[RonFrank]

The megapixel race is ongoing. Are we being fooled by "point and shoot camera" manufacturers as respects their Megapixel ratings?

No, not really. However optics must be optimized to take advantage of a sensor. Shoving a new sensor in an old optic design is not going to take advantage of that sensor potential.

DP review is rather good at pointing this out in reviews.

I came to the conclusion it was not a worthwhile upgrade for the purpose of getting better results when cropping photos.

You have come to the wrong conclusion for the wrong reasons. You are looking at just a sensor, and assuming that mpix is NOT everything based on a relatively narrow set of criteria. All things being equal, a 9mpix camera will outresolve a 4 mpix camera by more than 50%. That is a WHOLE heck of a lot more to work with, and a LOT more detail will be captured.

As you correctly indicated MPIX is NOT everything. There are a LOT of other important factors. However MPIX is the ONLY way to capture more detail, and produce higer rez prints given that the camera is capable of doing a sensor justice.

If you doubt this, read some reviews on DPReview of some HIGH end cameras. Here is a quote:

"The EOS 5D carries some 56% more pixels than the EOS 20D and it really shows, it's capable of extracting far more detail from the scene than the EOS 20D (which to be fair still does a very impressive job)."

Don't you guys kid yourselves. Sure there is a heck of a LOT more to a camera than MPIX, HOWEVER in a GOOD camera, MPIX is HUGE.

You did say PnS, however the same logic applies, even if I don't generally study PnS camera's all that much now I own one.

TI think the number of pixels in the JPEG tells a large part of the story. The sensor, processor and all the rest of the components play their parts in contributing to the quality of the photo and they all vary from camera to camera and manufacturer to manufacturer.

Gilligan, I've look at your work, and you have a good eye. IMO you are an individual who should SERIOUSLY consider a DSLR. You photograpy will improve, because you are currently limiting yourself with equipment.

The sensor size in a DSLR alone is a reason to upgrade, not to mention the sub millisecond shutter delay, and the razor fast and accurate focus.

Another thought is that if you are considering an PnS that does not support RAW, you are seriously limiting your images. As you point out the camera processing makes a huge difference. Well, with RAW you can eliminate that processing, and control it yourself.

 

[Puffer Fish]

Concerning the Corel vs Adobe... proce matters A LOT to me :-(
Has anyone used Gimp 2? Its main advantage is price (free) and platform (works great in Windows, but also in Linux.) Opinions?
Thanks in advance...

It is the issue of being able to work in raw (when needed) and having complete control of the data - will look at Gimp 2 this weekend.

Adobe CS has several strange attributes that make working with at a really steep learning curve, but up until the recent up grade/purchase by corel, they were pretty much the only game in town. Now, Corel, for even high end work, is easier and can be purchased for under $100 (PM me if you would like to know how).

If you look at a raw file, it represents basically 3X the information in what most would consider a standard file - 18 meg = 6 meg. If you look at most JPEG's, they vary, but you are usually looking at 2 or 3 meg for a 6 meg file 2 meg versus 18 meg. A lot of stuff had to go away for that to happen. Film never had that issue.