Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:13 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Well Agun, I've just sold some photos to a magazine, and they actually asked me to resize all pictures (also the ones from the D90) to 4 Megapixels. For the record: one shot is even going on the cover. So I think the real world does not agree with theory

:lol:

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 1:59 pm 
Read this Agun:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:53 pm 
Bigger resolutions hold more deatail.

It's a fact like 2 is greater than 1.


Besides, in stock photo, the higher the resolution the better.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 3:04 pm 
Youre not getting the point. In a 550d, when viewing say on a computer screen which is 1mp, 17mp is not displayed. You dont need big mp, its just some people are brainwashed by camera salesmen to think that more mp is better. You have fell into the trap.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:59 pm
Posts: 6009
Location: The Netherlands
Agun, mate, I'm sure you're right if you do the math and all but...it's not relevant in practice. Sure 2 is greater than one, but if one is sufficient it doesn't even matter. 20000 is also greater than one, and my point still stands.

You really need to get your camera man, stop being an armchair photographer, and start actually photographing, enjoying it. And I mean that in the nicest possible way :)

(Although I probably can't convince you to buy a 4 megapixel DSLR) :lol:

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 5:28 pm 
If you want lots of megapixels buy a 4x5 film camera and a 4800dpi scanner. This would leave you with 360mp images scanned at full res.
Also film pixels (i know film does not have pixels, but the scanned image does. :wink:) are smarter, film can resolve red, green and blue for each pixel location where as digital interpolates. Not very practical though, a 360mp image is about 1gb. :D


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 7:37 pm 
aguns dream camera:
http://www.panoscan.com/ :D

it can easily produce 500 megapixel images and larger


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 8:11 pm 
How about a 26 gigapixel picture....took using a 5d2 and a 400mm f4L.


http://www.dresden-26-gigapixels.com/dresden26GP


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:02 pm 
Jeez.... where to start.

To print at 300DPI you'll need more than 15 mp to do a 30cm wide print. Why would you print at 300DPI? To get a crisp image that will look more professional. If you are doing a portfolio you'll want 300DPI and decently sized pictures.

Also, the noise on an 16MP sensor is 4 times smaller in size than on a 4MP sensor.

If you downscale 16MP to 4MP I garantee the 16MP will look better. Of course, assuming both cameras are the same in every aspect except for the sensor. Dimensions of sensor being the same.

It's true that more megapixels means more noise, but only if you are comparing technology with the same age. For example, the 7D has a bit less noise than the 50D. Now how could this be if more megapixels means more noise? Because the 7D's is a technological advancement over the 50D.

Noise is not directly related to pixel size. It's relative, amongst many other factors, to the ammount of contamination produced by other pixels.

All I want to say is that 18 MP is notably better than 4MP and worth the upgrade in many cases.

However, if you just want a camera to upload pictures to the internet and display them on screens then yeah, 4MP is more than enough and the Nikon D2H is hard to beat for the price.

If however you want to print your photos, do a portfolio (not an e-portfolio) and/or submit photos to Stockphoto sites then look elsewhere.

And please, instead of saying that i'm wrong because I don't own a camera (ad hominem fallacy), please respond with logical reasoning against what i've just said if you disagree.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:06 am
Posts: 1977
agun... I dont think anyone is saying your facts are wrong.... I think your facts are right 99% of the time... heck... 3/4 the stuff you write about is over my head anyways :oops: ... I think what most are saying is that in the real world all these studio/lab setups and the accompanying stats that come with them go out the window 99% of the time and/or are never practically used by 95% of the photographers out there. Like Citruspers said he was asked to downsize his pics for a publication. I've sold several pics as well with the same request... Heck.. I sold 2 pics to a publication that were shot with an SX3IS and one was printed 3/4 page. You couldnt tell the difference.

In the end if you capture a shot that is unique and one of a kind I promise you the publisher wont care if it is 6mp or 20+ mp. They will make it work. It's about the content.. not the megapixels. At least in my limited dealings to date.

So its not about if you are right or wrong.. its about do they apply to the real world.

_________________
Canon 7D + 50D + EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM + EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM
Pelican // Black Rapid // Think Tank // Manfrotto // Garmin

Reflections On Canadian Wildlife
My Flickr


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 10:55 pm 
wolfsong wrote:
agun... I dont think anyone is saying your facts are wrong.... I think your facts are right 99% of the time... heck... 3/4 the stuff you write about is over my head anyways ... I think what most are saying is that in the real world all these studio/lab setups and the accompanying stats that come with them go out the window 99% of the time and/or are never practically used by 95% of the photographers out there. Like Citruspers said he was asked to downsize his pics for a publication. I've sold several pics as well with the same request... Heck.. I sold 2 pics to a publication that were shot with an SX3IS and one was printed 3/4 page. You couldnt tell the difference.

In the end if you capture a shot that is unique and one of a kind I promise you the publisher wont care if it is 6mp or 20+ mp. They will make it work. It's about the content.. not the megapixels. At least in my limited dealings to date.

So its not about if you are right or wrong.. its about do they apply to the real world.


Amen.

i think we are at the end of this MP size talk here. enough said.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:26 pm 
Wolfsong wrote:
its about do they apply to the real world.

agun wrote:
However, if you just want a camera to upload pictures to the internet and display them on screens then yeah, 4MP is more than enough and the Nikon D2H is hard to beat for the price.

If however you want to print your photos, do a portfolio (not an e-portfolio) and/or submit photos to Stockphoto sites then look elsewhere.

:?

Also:

The fact that Citruspers was asked to downsize his images does not mean every magazine asks you to downsize the images. (fallacy of the lonely fact).

PS: You make too much use of the Biased Sample fallacy.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 07, 2010 11:50 pm 
Heres a point.....its not the camera its the photographer. Ive took pictures on my phone that look better than some of my dslr shots. In the nicest way possible agun , go buy yourself a dslr, the real world awaits you.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:12 am 
I'm just saying that 4MP is lacking in some situations.

-Do I need to own a camera to know that? No.

And now you say it's the photographer, not the camera.

-Have I ever completelly disagreed with that? No. I feel the camera has it's importance too.

-Is it relevant to the discussion? No.



Also: In theory 1+1=2 and in reality 1+1=2. If theory doen't reflect reality then the theory is wrong. If it's wrong then it has a reason to be wrong.

You cannot say "the theory is right but it doesn't reflect reality". Makes absolutelly no sense at all as "the theory is right" implies it accuratelly reflects reality.

I'll assume you aren't dumb and that you meant my theory is wrong. why?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 3:33 pm 
Ok Agun, i dont want to take this any further,
I will agree that more mp holds more detail, but its extra detail thats not needed.
Dont want to start a big argument over megapixles.
Theory is based on reality, it has to be right 99% of the time.


Im going shooting with my 4mp camera now.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group