Effect of megapixels on print size

[Bokeh]

What is the effect of megapixel count on the maximum size print one can make from a picture?

I'm trying to decide between a used EOS-1D and a new 20d, and I'm concerned with the small pixel count on the 1D. I have a rebel now which of course is 6.3 Thanks

 

[mavrik]

It depends on the sensor. I've heard that you can get just as good of pix from the 1D as from the 20D, but I'm not convinced. If it were me, I'd either get the 1D MK II or the 20D. Not the 1D itself.

M

 

[Digital Matt]

Megapixels directly affect print size. If you want a high res 16x20 print, it's 4800 x 6000 pixels at 300dpi. An 8 mp camera won't have to stretch as far to get those dimensions.

However, if a 6.3mp jpg has less noise and is sharper than an 8mp one, it will look better at a bigger size.

A lot of it will be specific to what you are shooting, but in general, more megapixels make larger prints easier.

 

[Bokeh]

Megapixels directly affect print size. If you want a high res 16x20 print, it's 4800 x 6000 pixels at 300dpi. An 8 mp camera won't have to stretch as far to get those dimensions.

However, if a 6.3mp jpg has less noise and is sharper than an 8mp one, it will look better at a bigger size.

A lot of it will be specific to what you are shooting, but in general, more megapixels make larger prints easier.

Matt,

That was my understanding as well. I wish I could afford an mkII but alas even on an IT salary that is out of reach Looks like the 20d is my best bet. I have read it's pretty good for sports, but not what most of the pros use. One step at a time I guess, thanks

 

[Digital Matt]

Matt,

That was my understanding as well. I wish I could afford an mkII but alas even on an IT salary that is out of reach Looks like the 20d is my best bet. I have read it's pretty good for sports, but not what most of the pros use. One step at a time I guess, thanks

Ryan,

I suspect that pros do use a 20D, and the only reason that they wouldn't is because they already have a 1D, or 1D MKII. I'd still be willing to be that a lot of them bought one as backup.

 

[DocFrankenstein]

How big are you gonna print?

I've done 13*19 prints from the rebel.

 

[Bokeh]

How big are you gonna print?

I've done 13*19 prints from the rebel.

How did they look?

 

[Digital Matt]

I've printed 20x30s that look amazing.

 

[jadin]

However, if a 6.3mp jpg has less noise and is sharper than an 8mp one, it will look better at a bigger size.

That's only true if the sensor sizes are the same dimensions but different pixel counts. If the actual sensor of the 8mp is larger, than it can be just as clear and noise free as the 6.3mp one.

You can look up actual sensor sizes for your camera at dpreview.com. The bigger the pixel the better.

 

[Corry]

My boyfriend printed a 20x30 from his rebel that looked awesome too. It's of Chicago from the Sears Tower...really awesome stuff.

 

[Jeff Canes]

The only real avenge of the 1D MKII 8mp or 1D 4mp (old model) is speed, they both shot at 8fps, on the 1D MKII the bursts is 40 frames, good for sports or models on the runway. D20 is basically just slower and about 2000 dollars less. The older 1D is still a good option for sport reporting, because the 4mp is fine for newspapers

Now 1Ds MKII is hold differ story 16.7mp, 4fps, burst 36 frames

Personally I would like a 1D MKII for shooting baseball.

 

[Digital Matt]

However, if a 6.3mp jpg has less noise and is sharper than an 8mp one, it will look better at a bigger size.

That's only true if the sensor sizes are the same dimensions but different pixel counts. If the actual sensor of the 8mp is larger, than it can be just as clear and noise free as the 6.3mp one.

You can look up actual sensor sizes for your camera at dpreview.com. The bigger the pixel the better.

I'm talking on a picture to picture basis. An 8mp shot at ISO 800 and 4 seconds will not look as good at 20x30 as a 6mp shot at 1/200 and ISO 100. Or if the the 6.3mp is just a sharper image. 90% of getting good large prints is having a tack sharp (tripod sharp) image that is very clean.

 

[jadin]

I don't understand why you'd even compare the two like that. It's apples to oranges.

I could also say an 8mp 1/200s at ISO 100 will look better than a 6.3mp 4s at ISO 800. But it doesn't prove that the 8mp camera is cleaner or sharper. I don't get what you're trying to prove. Are you trying to justify your 6.3mp purchase?!?

 

[Big Mike]

I think he's trying to say that mega pixel count does not matter as much as picture sharpness. You can get better prints with a clean & sharp photo from a 6 MP camera than you can with not so sharp photos from an 8 MP camera.

The point is...using a tripod and other techniques for optimal sharpness can outweigh MP count when you are making large prints.

 

[jadin]

But implying that the 8mp camera will by default do worse, is quite simply not true. Given equal setups (same tripod, same lens, things like that) megapixel count has no bearing whatsoever on how clear a photo will be. Sensor size on the other hand does.