Re: Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off

Dave Cohen wrote:

DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"ray" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:pan.2007.08.29.19.26.46.591476@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:46:49 -0500, DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

"ray" <ray@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.08.29.15.10.03.555168@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:48:49 -0500, DBLEXPOSURE wrote:

I can hear the, "All you need is 6MP" comments coming in the wind...


IMHO - Once we passed 4mp, for the vast majority of shots the equipment
is
not the limiting factor.

Yep. It is definitly the monkey behind the view finder.

But what if the monkey want to display in a large way? He dosen't need
the
pixels?

Ah - so you are suggesting that mucho mega-pixels are for monkeys?

Not at all, Mr. No One, started the monkey reference. I like mucho
MegaPixels. I think it is a shame if the, "Monkey" behind the viewfinder
makes a great composition but can only print, tiny-weenie because of a lack
of pixels. Not to say that all great images need to be printed large, but
it is nice to have the option.

Don't really want to get into the argument over resolution/print size
again, but I really think that requirement has been overstated. 100 dpi
output seems to me to be very near 'photographic quality'.


My thinking about why it is such over-debated and contested issue is because it is image dependant and subjective in the eye of the viewer/artist. To put it another way, If the subject/composition has little detail to start with, you can probably get away with allot less print dpi than you would with a subject/composition which has a great deal of detail.

My favorite analogy to use is the smooth-white-wall scenario, I don't need any pixels at all to reproduce the image. Just a blank sheet of smooth-white paper.

Now if I am going to do a macro of a tarantula at 48X72 I'm gonna need some pixels if I want to make out every hail on the spider in tac sharp detail.

There really can be no debate, 8MP Vs. 20MP, almost the three times the print area at the same print resolution, You can't debate the math.

Is it worth it? That is where the individual has to make up his own mind.

I'll do it, someday, and I hope it will mean larger prints and more $$ coming in. It will have to be justified.


My calculator tells me going from 8mp to 20mp is more like 1.58 gain in print area.
Dave Cohen


I believe you need to square that number.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off
    ... It is definitly the monkey behind the view finder. ... of pixels. ... If the subject/composition has ... print area at the same print resolution, ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off
    ... It is definitly the monkey behind the view finder. ... of pixels. ... with a subject/composition which has a great deal of detail. ... print area at the same print resolution, ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off
    ... It is definitly the monkey behind the view finder. ... of pixels. ... To put it another way, If the subject/composition has little detail to start with, you can probably get away with allot less print dpi than you would with a subject/composition which has a great deal of detail. ... There really can be no debate, 8MP Vs. 20MP, almost the three times the print area at the same print resolution, You can't debate the math. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off
    ... It is definitly the monkey behind the view finder. ... of pixels. ... with a subject/composition which has a great deal of detail. ... There really can be no debate, 8MP Vs. 20MP, almost the three times the ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: Nikon Vs. Canon, the gloves are off
    ... It is definitly the monkey behind the view finder. ... of pixels. ... with a subject/composition which has a great deal of detail. ... There really can be no debate, 8MP Vs. 20MP, almost the three times the ...
    (alt.photography)