Is it worth sacraficing MPX?

[Photographiend]

I am looking at potentially getting a DSLR in a couple months time. The only thing is my budget is going to limit this purchase somewhat. I am currently working with a sub-par camera that has 14.1 MPX and the ones I am looking at are Canon 12 and 10 MPX.

Obviously I am not going to be able to get the same MPX but what I want to know is how vital is it to have them? Will I regret going down to 12 or 10? Or will the images still be Far superior to what I am getting now on account of the quality associated with the brand and the amount of control afforded to the Photographer with an SLR?

I appreciate your advice.

Would help if those of you who have 12 or 10 MPX canons could share some of your images so I can get an idea of what they can do. Also any frustrations you have with them.

Thanks.

 

[cynicaster]

In this day and age when even bargain basement pocket cameras are up over 8MP, frankly, I’m surprised megapixel count still gets talked about as much as it does. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a marketing ploy. It reminds me of audio companies talking about how many watts their speakers have and car companies talking about how much horsepower their engines have—megapixels are just a means of shifting more units to spec-obsessed consumers who don’t know any better and just want to one-up their friends.

Due to other aspects of a product’s design deftly left unmentioned by the marketing schmucks, a speaker with fewer “watts” can sound better (even louder) than one with more, and a car with less horsepower can be faster than one with more. Getting back to megapixels, more megapixels can mean more noise. Is that a good thing?

My point is, unless a higher “spec” of one thing or another on a product universally means “better”, then it’s pretty much meaningless. It only has real value if subjected to a more rigorous investigation that takes ALL factors into account.

Cliff notes version: don’t fret about megapixels.

 

[goodguy]

In this day and age when even bargain basement pocket cameras are up over 8MP, frankly, I’m surprised megapixel count still gets talked about as much as it does. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a marketing ploy. It reminds me of audio companies talking about how many watts their speakers have and car companies talking about how much horsepower their engines have—megapixels are just a means of shifting more units to spec-obsessed consumers who don’t know any better and just want to one-up their friends.

Due to other aspects of a product’s design deftly left unmentioned by the marketing schmucks, a speaker with fewer “watts” can sound better (even louder) than one with more, and a car with less horsepower can be faster than one with more. Getting back to megapixels, more megapixels can mean more noise. Is that a good thing?

My point is, unless a higher “spec” of one thing or another on a product universally means “better”, then it’s pretty much meaningless. It only has real value if subjected to a more rigorous investigation that takes ALL factors into account.

Cliff notes version: don’t fret about megapixels.

I agree with you on the MP but not so much about the horse power.
Speed and accelaration is a factor of many things, weight, horse power, torque, gear ratio and more but if I get a car with either 100bhp or 200bhp be sure I will go for the 200bhp and I will feel the difference.

 

[lonerunner]

In this day and age when even bargain basement pocket cameras are up over 8MP, frankly, I’m surprised megapixel count still gets talked about as much as it does. As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a marketing ploy. It reminds me of audio companies talking about how many watts their speakers have and car companies talking about how much horsepower their engines have—megapixels are just a means of shifting more units to spec-obsessed consumers who don’t know any better and just want to one-up their friends.

Due to other aspects of a product’s design deftly left unmentioned by the marketing schmucks, a speaker with fewer “watts” can sound better (even louder) than one with more, and a car with less horsepower can be faster than one with more. Getting back to megapixels, more megapixels can mean more noise. Is that a good thing?

My point is, unless a higher “spec” of one thing or another on a product universally means “better”, then it’s pretty much meaningless. It only has real value if subjected to a more rigorous investigation that takes ALL factors into account.

Cliff notes version: don’t fret about megapixels.

I agree with you on the MP but not so much about the horse power.
Speed and accelaration is a factor of many things, weight, horse power, torque, gear ratio and more but if I get a car with either 100bhp or 200bhp be sure I will go for the 200bhp and I will feel the difference.

I wouldn't say i agree. I have ford escort with 60hp and 1.6l diesel engine, and my brother have opel corsa with 44hp and 1.2l petrol engine. Which one do you think goes like granny and which one like young stud?

There are numerous factors about cameras too and mp is not the only way to look them. Take a look at the nokia 808 phone which have 41 mp camera but still make crappy images comparing to some dslr with 16mp camera. Point is that lens and camera sensor makes quality images (among other things) so scarifying 2 or 4mp will give you only smaller image resolution. Take a note for what purpose do you need camera, look for deeper specifications in cameras you are interested and read reviews. If camera with 12mp will fit better than 14mp for your purpose, get a 12mp camera.

 

[goodguy]

In MP we both agree but while horse power is most definitly not the only important ingridiant in a car performance (again wieght, torque, gear ratio...etc) it is still a very important parameter in a acar performace.

As for one car vs another, it is not a fair question as I wouldnt be able to answer that.
If a car has 44bhp and weights 200kg less, has a shorter gear ratio and the torque peaks at a much lower RPM then it might drive cyrcles around a 60bhp car.
Its just too complicated to answer this.

Again I would take anyday a 200bhp engine over a 100bhp engine in the same car model.

 

[The_Traveler]

Back on the subject, I agree with cynicaster.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The lower end cams suffer more in the dynamic range and ISO areas than they do in MPX

 

[lonerunner]

In MP we both agree but while horse power is most definitly not the only important ingridiant in a car performance (again wieght, torque, gear ratio...etc) it is still a very important parameter in a acar performace.

As for one car vs another, it is not a fair question as I wouldnt be able to answer that.
If a car has 44bhp and weights 200kg less, has a shorter gear ratio and the torque peaks at a much lower RPM then it might drive cyrcles around a 60bhp car.
Its just too complicated to answer this.

Again I would take anyday a 200bhp engine over a 100bhp engine in the same car model.

Well, the Corsa with less power wins, but to not go to the car subject, let's get back to cameras. It's same thing with camera, more doesn't mean better. Question to the op. What camera do you use now, what you plan to buy, what's your budget and what are you shooting. This are just some things that can help you determine what camera to buy.

 

[Ilovemycam]

I am looking at potentially getting a DSLR in a couple months time. The only thing is my budget is going to limit this purchase somewhat. I am currently working with a sub-par camera that has 14.1 MPX and the ones I am looking at are Canon 12 and 10 MPX.

Obviously I am not going to be able to get the same MPX but what I want to know is how vital is it to have them? Will I regret going down to 12 or 10? Or will the images still be Far superior to what I am getting now on account of the quality associated with the brand and the amount of control afforded to the Photographer with an SLR?

I appreciate your advice.

Would help if those of you who have 12 or 10 MPX canons could share some of your images so I can get an idea of what they can do. Also any frustrations you have with them.

Thanks.

You want big prints, buy big mp. Nothing wrong with 10 or 12 mp, I still shoot 6mp RD1s when I'm in the mood for a rangefinder. If I hit the lotto, will buy a FF Leica. But for now, the 6mp RD1 is fine.

Here is one from the 6mp RD1s with a Zeiss 21mm...

I was out testing the cam one day and met this lady wandering around the dump site. Asked her to sit in the old tub full of gunk and she was happy to be a model that day.

I cropped this about 10% and made a real nice 13 x 19. Could have even made a 16 x 20. If you go much bigger than 16 x 20, I suggest you get more mp.

This is just a 171 kb image. The original is a lot bigger file, detail and color is much, much better. In original, you can count the pores in her leg. Her gold metal toe nails look like real gold in the hi res image.

There are other things at play besides sharpness. Sure we all want big guns mp. I got 2 645d's if I want big mp's. But I've been out shooting with the 645d and a little 12mp m43 and the 12mp m43 was the winner over the 40 mp 645d when it came down to the keeper. Yes, 645d is great for giant prints, but that day it didn't deliver like my m43 did.

There is a saying...it is not the camera...it is the photog. It is gospel!

Too bad I can't post other photogs work here. One of the sharpest photos I've ever seen was taken with a Pentax 6mp cam. It would blow your mind to see what a crappy 6mp could do.

Post some of your work and then I can tell you if the mp is holding you back.

 

[amolitor]

The horsepower analogy isn't bad.

The point is that image quality is about the overall system, and the context in which you're using it. Megapixels are just a piece of the overall system. More of them is nice, sure, but so is more of lots of things.

If you're gonna get a DSLR and you're on a budget, a) buy used and b) buy into a system that has lenses you'll be happy with. You'll be buying a new body some day, and you'll be happier if the lenses you bought in the meantime will still make you happy.

 

[runnah]

I wouldn't say i agree. I have ford escort with 60hp and 1.6l diesel engine, and my brother have opel corsa with 44hp and 1.2l petrol engine. Which one do you think goes like granny and which one like young stud?

Is this a trick question?

P.s. you feel torque not hp.

 

[Derrel]

Adorama's website has BRAND-NEW, USA-warrantied Nikon D90 cameras for $599 today. Pretty good deal.

 

[SCraig]

Well, I disagree with everyone that says resolution is nothing to be concerned about. If it makes no difference then let's all just go back to 640 x 480 resolution monitors and forget about HDTV. Why should high-resolution be considered important in those respects yet of no consequence in a digital camera? It is important. Perhaps not enough to choose one camera body over another, but important all the same. I think my first digital camera was 2 megapixels resolution. There is no WAY I'd go back to that again!

In my opinion it depends greatly on what you are shooting. If you plan to use the entire frame then it doesn't make a lot of difference however if you regularly have to heavily crop an image to get the part that you want then it most assuredly makes a difference. If I heavily crop a shot of a bird because I couldn't get any closer before it flew I find it very important to have a lot of pixels left over after cropping to work with. To me resolution is quite important.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Well, I disagree with everyone that says resolution is nothing to be concerned about. If it makes no difference then let's all just go back to 640 x 480 resolution monitors and forget about HDTV. Why should high-resolution be considered important in those respects yet of no consequence in a digital camera? It is important. Perhaps not enough to choose one camera body over another, but important all the same. I think my first digital camera was 2 megapixels resolution. There is no WAY I'd go back to that again!

In my opinion it depends greatly on what you are shooting. If you plan to use the entire frame then it doesn't make a lot of difference however if you regularly have to heavily crop an image to get the part that you want then it most assuredly makes a difference. If I heavily crop a shot of a bird because I couldn't get any closer before it flew I find it very important to have a lot of pixels left over after cropping to work with. To me resolution is quite important.

I never dsaid it doesn't matter, 'mo is always better. But I said dynamic range and iso performance suffer more in proportion

My D800 needs 'MO REZ

 

[Photographiend]

My issue ATM is getting the precision focus. The cam I have doesn't hit the focus to my liking. Using a cheap Fujifilm FinePix I picked up for $150 brand new. It has 14 MP but every pic comes out soft at best if it hits the focus at all.

Here is one I took this past weekend. (I know the background is bunching... the down side to using bed linens as back drops... Muslin will have to come later)



I guess I don't personally have a preference for Nikon or Canon. They both seem to take acceptable photographs. I already have a lens picked out that I would like to get to start building a little hobby hut filled with camera equipment.

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens: CANON: Camera & Photo

Right now I am focused on People photography. I figure if I can save the cost of school portraits and professional family portraits every year my hobby can fund itself.