Re: Megapixels
- From: "Monty Bonner" <mdbonn21@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 11:41:52 -0800
"CircuitConcepts" <CircuitConcepts.1y0mt4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
in message news:CircuitConcepts.1y0mt4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I'm sure many megapixel questions bounce around, why wouldn't they?
>
> I'm currently shooting on an N75 with my array of lenses (all Nikon mind
> you), blah blah. But I do a large array of things while shooting: sports,
> photojournalism, modeling, art etc.
>
> My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can
> work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's
> not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.
>
> Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
>
> I'm wanting to bump up to a digital body for my next purchase. There's
> really only one other lens I could have use for (a zoom with f2.8,
> something from 70-200), but I can get a body for less than that (those
> lenses run roughly for $900 on from bnh).
>
> Well, I digress. My confusion is megapixels. I get them, I probably know
> more than the average person, but I was having a conversation about them
> with another.
>
> They're square functions he told me, well yes, 1 million per square inch.
> He said that wasn't what he meant, he was implying that since they are
> that some numbers are the same. Implying that there's no need for a
> 6megapixel when you can get a 3.1 or so and do just as fine. I beieve he
> said 3megapixels are the same as 6 or some other odd number. I have a
> small thought that he may have heard part of this, and had to fill in the
> rest for himself. But can somebody clarify about megapixel values being
> the same from number to number?
>
>
> --
> CircuitConcepts
Hello - sorry to be long winded!
What I believe you are trying to ask is are more mega-pixels better. It's a
subjective answer sort of, here is why.
On the camera lets say the D70s, the LCD is only 2 inches square about.
It's very hard to see any detail of the picture using a small screen like
that, the histogram is a much better description of how the picture looks,
but you need "to see the picture" to really know what needs to be fixed or
if you even like the picture anyway. The LCD is going to let you see some
of that detail, but a monitor is much better so you can see the finer detail
of the shot.
What screen you view the picture on is of more importance, and I certainly
am not an expert concerning photography, however I have been in the computer
industry for 20 some odd years so I sort of know that business. Monitors
RGB, are the cheapest and most reliable, however the technology is old but
proven, flat panel is best. Sony used to have the best RGB (for picture
quality) monitor a couple of years back, but stopped production of it. NEC
now has the best 21+ inch RGB display in glass (tube type). The higher
resolution the monitor can handle along with the refresh rate and horizontal
Hertz rate are indications of what it's capable of, the bigger numbers are
better.
Samsung makes a lot of the OEM LCD screens currently being used by many end
manufacturers, they do a very good job on the LCD manufacturing, so it's a
matter of the specifications of the end product. Lower refresh numbers are
important, i.e.8ns and below is quite fast. However, a glass front panel is
a plus for ease of cleaning and it sharpens the picture a little I think,
which makes what you see clearer. The downside is glare behind or above you
reflecting off the glass surface. Something to consider. See
www.newegg.com for various LCDs and Monitors if you need a good source in
the USA. I currently have a Rosewill R912E and it is a great LCD at 8NS
refresh rate and came with no dead pixels. There are other brands out
there, however, hear again, Sony looks good on the surface, but personally I
have had a VCR and a Big Screen TV of their brand go out and needed either
replacement or repair. I currently have a 21 Inch Sony monitor on another
computer and I think it's having a problem, and these problems seem to occur
right when the warranty is going out. Their quality in my opinion is not as
good as it used to be, and getting service I have heard is difficult. I
don't recommend them because I have not been happy with the product.
Panasonic on the other hand is tops. My friend is still using the VCR she
purchased over ten years ago, and I am using mine still which is close to 5
years old. So look at that brand of Computer displays to see if you like
them.
A good video card is necessary as well, it's a toss up which is better on
the high end ATI or NVIDIA, but I like NVIDIA.
Now back to cameras. The advantage of the digital camera over the film
camera is you see what you take immediately, which is good, and if the
picture needs adjustment you can do that on a PC using a variety of software
packages, even on the camera using the Histogram and LCD. One feature I
know the Nikon has is you can tell the camera to take a number (you select
the number) shots and it will lower or raise the f-stop and shutter speed
appropriately so you can see the difference immediately. The Nikon D70s;
D200(just announced); D2H and the D2X are all great cameras for the
professional or semi professional. For the work I read you seem to do, the
D50 is not one you should consider. The D70s is a 6 MP camera, the D200 is
a 10.4 MP; the D2H is 4.1 and the D2X is 12.4MP. The pixel size within the
CCD may be the same, however, the end results from each camera will be
different because of the "more is better" analogy. The more information you
can store on the CCD, the more information that can be manipulated to
enhance the final product which is the picture. How the camera stores the
picture information and gets to the final product is of some concern,
because different types of memory is easier to work, more reliable, and more
common place, i.e. easier to replace or purchase more if you are in the
field. One rule of thumb is always by more camera than you use currently,
because you have room to grow. That is balanced with the rule - the better
it is/bigger it is, the more it costs, so your budget needs to balance out
that for you. I would recommend the D200 or D2X, if your budget will stand
the strain based on what I read about the type of Photographer you are. I
personally have the D70s and still learning how it operates and how to take
good pictures, as so far I am not satisfied with what I have taken, but that
is because I don't know how to use it correctly yet. It takes great
pictures if I leave it in Auto, but I like more control, so don't use that
mode.
Will a 4x6 picture taken with the D70s look different than one taken with
the D200 or D2X, if all other things are the same, i.e. lens, monitor for
viewing, time of day, f-stop, shutter speed, subject,etc. I believe they
will be close enough that the many persons cannot tell the difference. The
difference then becomes the other features the D200 and D2X have that you
will use to your advantage and if the current lenses you have will fit those
bodies.
You have some research to accomplish between the different models, and first
I would make sure the lenses you currently have will fit either of those
bodies and the auto-focus and TTL metering will work with them, second see
which features of each model will be something you need or will use, and
then balance those against your budget. You will come up with the answer.
A word of caution, many here are Canon users, which is a good thing, they
will suggest a model made that you should consider, you are not asking about
specific cameras (although I have led the discussion that way because I am
more familiar with that model line and the size of the CCD's) just about
mega pixels, keep that in mind. This should not evolve into a "which one is
better debate" this is about the final product and how you like the end
result. So, in my opinion, more mega-pixels are better, but that is because
you actually have more data to play around with if it needs to be played
with at all. Also bigger prints can be made with a larger CCD than a small
one. Currently in a DSLR I think 6MP is the smallest size I would consider
and I would have gone to the D200 had I known it was coming out this soon.
I did hold and feel both the Canon and the Nikon bodies, I felt the Nikon
was easier to hold, plus I have a friend who has one and we can share lenses
when we go and shoot pictures when we are camping. She likes the film
camera she has, I like the digital for the speed and you see what you get
now feature. I used to have film, and it's still "richer in color and
depth" I think than digital, but that is a subjective, because of the
developing process and every lab is different.
I won't bring up Full Frame CCD's because I don't understand what the
brew-ha-ha is all about. I also won't get into the printing part of it,
because I won't recommend HP for anything especially printers because the
inks and paper is way more expensive than everybody else. That leaves Canon
and Epson, here reviews are pretty much even on them, the inks-refills seem
to be a tad cheaper for the Epson, but here again, that is also subjective,
print out is good for this in one, and good for that in another, so it's
again, what is important for your end result, not mine or anyone else's.
Hope this helps.
Monty
.
- References:
- Megapixels
- From: CircuitConcepts
- Megapixels
- Prev by Date: pictures downloading
- Next by Date: Photo Business cards, not inkjet, thick paper, who does them?
- Previous by thread: Re: Megapixels
- Next by thread: Re: Megapixels
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
