6million or 8million - does it matter?

OBrien · Apr 5, 2005

Ive been asking myself the same questions many others have recently, judging from a quick trawl of the Forum whether to get a Nikon D70 or the Canon 300/350d. Having tried all three in two different shops, Ive decided that the D70 is the best choice for me. My overriding criteria is image quality, and having spoken to the guys in the shops, both of them said that the 18-70mm Nikon DX lens is vastly superior to the Canon 18-55mm provided on the cameras. One of them said that buying the D70 at 930 includes a lens worth 300, while the Canon for 799 has a lens worth 50. Also, I just liked the feel of the D70 a little more, which helped slightly to sway my decision

But - but - I have a little niggle in the back of my mind. D70 has 6m pixels to the 350D/Rebel XTs 8m. Does that in any way close the gap between them in terms of image quality? I would like to be able to print 16x20. Is there any significant difference in quality between a 6m and 8m pixel shot with the same lens.

So when I saw the Canon 20d body-only brand new boxed on ebay going for 930 it has made me stop and think. While Ive settled the D70/Rebel question, would a body-only 20D be a better bet. I could then add a decent quality lens or two. It would cost extra. But would it be worth it?

I dont want to start a Nikon/Canon argument here, I suppose the crux of the issue is how important is an extra 2m pixels? AIRICs work on here reassures me on the D70s image quality, (not that I could produce work like that), but Im viewing small pictures on a small monitor, so dont know how that translates.

Thanks all.

Digital Matt · Apr 5, 2005

Megapixels only affect print size, not image quality. The size of the sensor is what matters there, and both the D70 and 350D have similarly sized sensors. Which one gives better image quality? They are both similar. I'm biased to Canon, and in my experience, I think Canon gives better noise performance. That's just in my experience. As far as lenses are concerned maybe the d70 kit lens is better than the 350 D kit lens, but if you are really out for image quality, you wouldn't use either. Take a memory card to the shop with you, and shoot some high res jpegs from each camera, and come home and compare.

Btw, if you saw a 20D on Ebay for the same price as a D70, it's probably not reliable

Bob_McBob · Apr 5, 2005

To me, the difference in sensor resolution is not as important as the difference in features. I'm sure you've compared them, held the cameras, etc. If you feel the D70 has features you want/need over a Canon equivalent, then it's the right camera for you. The potential reproduction size difference between the two sensors is not as great as it seems.

Big Mike · Apr 5, 2005

You are not the first person to be considering these cameras with image quality in mind...I've heard this question and all the opinions a few times before. With that in mind, here is my two cents...

Image quality is a toss up...the 20D may be a little better than either the D70 or original Digital Rebel but not by much. The image quality from any of these cameras is excellent and to those whom that the slight difference matters...tecnique and $1000 lenses will matter more than the brand on the camera.

As Bob said, the difference is features. The older Rebel was lacking but it can be hacked. The D70 has more features, as does the 20D. The new Rebel also has more features than the older model. Last month's Popular Photography had a comparison of DSLRs under $2500...pick up a copy. The Canon 20D came out the best of the bunch and I think the D70 was a close second.

OBrien · Apr 5, 2005

Digital Matt said:
Megapixels only affect print size, not image quality. The size of the sensor is what matters there, and both the D70 and 350D have similarly sized sensors. Which one gives better image quality? They are both similar. I'm biased to Canon, and in my experience, I think Canon gives better noise performance. That's just in my experience. As far as lenses are concerned maybe the d70 kit lens is better than the 350 D kit lens, but if you are really out for image quality, you wouldn't use either. Take a memory card to the shop with you, and shoot some high res jpegs from each camera, and come home and compare.

Btw, if you saw a 20D on Ebay for the same price as a D70, it's probably not reliable

Thanks Matt, I hadn't realised the distinction - I'm still stuck in a film frame of mind, I have been equating pixels to grain, and assumed more pixels, less stretch in larger prints, similar to the difference between blowing up 100 and 1600iso shots.

I'm a bit wary of Ebay all right, but we tend to pay high prices for electronic goods here in Ireland due to high taxes and margins, so there are bargains to be had by buying overseas. This retailer is Canada-based, PROWINNER2000. Has high satisfaction ratings and it is body-only, so it's possible. If anyone has any knowledge of the seller I'd be glad to hear about it.

Bob/Mike - thanks for the responses.

Digital Matt · Apr 5, 2005

OBrien said:
Thanks Matt, I hadn't realised the distinction - I'm still stuck in a film frame of mind, I have been equating pixels to grain, and assumed more pixels, less stretch in larger prints, similar to the difference between blowing up 100 and 1600iso shots.

Well, yes, the more pixels, the less stretch in larger prints, but to me, image quality is not how large of a print you can get. Image quality is the quality of the image on the negative. If you want to shoot for a billboard, you don't use 35mm. Doesn't mean 35mm doesn't offer outstanding image quality.

Grain though, or "noise" is affected by the size of the sensor, and the noise reduction processes being run on the image.

The overall image quality will be a combination of sensor, glass, and your technique.

mentos_007 · Apr 5, 2005

well OBrien... I had the same problem and I had a chance to play about an hour with d70 and canon 20d. And then I saw the shots and I'm slightly more optimistic for nikon

But I still need some advice

tr0gd0o0r · Apr 5, 2005

I'm gonna go way up the thread here and say to you concerns about a 6mp sensor at 16x20, i printed a 20x30 from my pentax istD and it look great (better than a lot of 8x10s i've gotten printed. So that image size should be fine for making a print of that size.

mentos_007 · Apr 5, 2005

you're talking about centimeters or inches or what?

OBrien · Apr 5, 2005

tr0gd0o0r said:
I'm gonna go way up the thread here and say to you concerns about a 6mp sensor at 16x20, i printed a 20x30 from my pentax istD and it look great (better than a lot of 8x10s i've gotten printed. So that image size should be fine for making a print of that size.

Excellent - that's good to hear! (He's talking inches Mentos).Thanks.

mentos_007 · Apr 5, 2005

holy crap! so it IS a huge print!!! I thought youw ere speaking about cm

ksmattfish · Apr 5, 2005

Go to this page and you can see examples from the 6mp 10D and 8mp 20D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page22.asp

The only subject matter where I can even spot the difference (and it's slight) is the close-up examples with printed lettering and graphics. If you prefer the D70 then go for it, and don't worry that it's only 6mp.

EDIT: A few pages later is a 20D vs D70 comparison

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page25.asp

tr0gd0o0r · Apr 5, 2005

I was talking inches

mentos_007 · Apr 8, 2005

and OBrien? did you decide which one you are going for??

OBrien · Apr 11, 2005

Yes Mentos, I'm now the proud owner of a D70! Haven't had the chance to shoot much with it yet, but I'm already in love with it. Such a difference from the Dimage Z3. I'll post some results in the Photo/Critique forums as I capture anything worthwhile. And thanks everyone for all the input above.