Resolution concern?

[bisp21]

If resolution is my main concern when taking pics, should I be most focsused on getting a DSLR with a higher number of megapixels?

 

[*Mike*]

Resolution shouldn't be your main concern. So, umm, no it shouldn't be the biggest factor in deciding on a body.

 

[Garbz]

An 8megapixel camera can comfortably print an A4 with exceptional detail. Now as the sizes increase (A3 A2, larger even). You will find yourself standing further and further back from your photo and you will not notice a difference.

Too many consumers especially get caught into the megapixel race thinking more means better. These same people also rarely print photos larger than 6x4, something very easily done at high qualities with a 1-2megapixel camera.

 

[JimmyO]

AThese same people also rarely print photos larger than 6x4, something very easily done at high qualities with a 1-2megapixel camera.

Or worse, they just stay on a computer and take up ridiculous amounts of space on your HD.

Ive printed 8x10's from my D1h (2.7 mp) and you could never tell, so no. That is unless you need to take pictures to put up on billboards...

 

[Alfred D.]

OK. Let's whip out the megapixel printchart again. Here's your answer, bisp:

Those figures pertain to 'true photo quality', which is 300dpi viewed at 15" distance (normal reading distance). If the viewing distance is greater you need less dpi.

 

[reg]

These charts that determine "true photo quality" are made by people with as inflated a head as you.

True photo quality is in the eye of the viewer.

 

[JimmyO]

These charts that determine "true photo quality" are made by people with as inflated a head as you.

True photo quality is in the eye of the viewer.

:thumbup:, but to an extent

None if this matters if you cant take sharp pictures anyways:er:

 

[Rogan]

if i wanted to print an A3 poster
wud a nikon d50 produce images that wud be acceptable to print this size?

 

[bisp21]

OK. Let's whip out the megapixel printchart again. Here's your answer, bisp:

Those figures pertain to 'true photo quality', which is 300dpi viewed at 15" distance (normal reading distance). If the viewing distance is greater you need less dpi.

Thanks everyone and especially Alfred (for the chart)!! This is exactly what I was looking for...

 

[Garbz]

Just bear in mind it assumes all photos are true photo quality where it's defined as viewed from 15"

I guarantee if you print a photo the size of a billboard you won't view it from 15" so you most definitely won't need 300dpi for it to look good.

I love the **At 150dpi printed images will have visible pixels and details will look "fuzzy". Yeah but when I print at 150dpi I am making an A3 print and I'll be 30" away when I look at it hanging on my wall and woah I can't see the pixels anymore.

All print charts should be taken with a grain of salt based on their definition of what is "photo quality"

 

[*Mike*]

I guarantee if you print a photo the size of a billboard you won't view it from 15" so you most definitely won't need 300dpi for it to look good.

Very true. I've run billboards, and shot for them. Lamar Outdoor - one of the US's biggest billboard companies - asks for an 8x10 or the "file equivalent"!

I was told that in a pinch, they'd make do with a 5x7. I never pushed it that far... But, 8x10 at 300dpi looked awesome when we ran ours.

 

[bisp21]

Very true. I've run billboards, and shot for them. Lamar Outdoor - one of the US's biggest billboard companies - asks for an 8x10 or the "file equivalent"!

I was told that in a pinch, they'd make do with a 5x7. I never pushed it that far... But, 8x10 at 300dpi looked awesome when we ran ours.

When you sayd billboards and 8X10 are you referring to the huge billboards and 8 feet by 10 feet?

If so, what type of camera are you using. My goal is to take great landscape pictures and blow them up in to huge printed canvas framed images and also takes some pictures of my daughter that I can blow up pretty big and gallery wrap. I am thinking I want to blow them up to 60 inches and will be using a 300dpi printer for the canvas. What do you think? Will it look ok using a Nikon D80 10.2 megapixel?

 

[reg]

When you sayd billboards and 8X10 are you referring to the huge billboards and 8 feet by 10 feet?

If so, what type of camera are you using. My goal is to take great landscape pictures and blow them up in to huge printed canvas framed images and also takes some pictures of my daughter that I can blow up pretty big and gallery wrap. I am thinking I want to blow them up to 60 inches and will be using a 300dpi printer for the canvas. What do you think? Will it look ok using a Nikon D80 10.2 megapixel?

I'm not him - but Lamar is a billboard company as in the huge 8x10' ones. A few of us in the thread pointed out why the resolution chart is pointless - you don't get 15" away from a billboard, unless you're putting the ad up.

When viewed from the ground, usually while driving by, the photo quality doesn't have to be that fantastic.

The 8x10" that *Mike* says Lamar prefers, at "photo quality" 300dpi, is 8 megapixels. So the D80 should be fine for that size.

Edit: and one more thing to remember is that the photo itself generally isn't the whole billboard. It's usually like 40% pic, 60% text, or a logo, smaller picture, and text, etc. So you're not stretching it as far as it may sound.

 

[*Mike*]

The 8x10" that *Mike* says Lamar prefers, at "photo quality" 300dpi, is 8 megapixels. So the D80 should be fine for that size.

Edit: and one more thing to remember is that the photo itself generally isn't the whole billboard. It's usually like 40% pic, 60% text, or a logo, smaller picture, and text, etc. So you're not stretching it as far as it may sound.

Yep, true and true. Small file, huge print - although granted not full-bleed at that size. It's viewing distance, as everyone has said.

A less dramatic example, I used to shoot with an Oly E-1. I routinely printed 20x30 prints for clients and sold them for top dollar. The E-1 is a 5mp.

My position is that just about any DSLR on the market today will create gorgeous images for just about any purpose (provided the exposure and focus are good to begin with.) For those rare cases where resolution is truly important, then that's what digital backs are for. )

 

[kundalini]

....then that's what digital backs are for. )

I have often wondered what the purpose of a digital back is for. Care for a short explaination? Thanks.

Apologies if this constitues a hi-jack.