Is it worth sacraficing MPX?

[Photographiend]

While I have you guys here... What do you recommend as a lens protector? Preferably something that is not going to get that displaced light effect that some of them are known for.

 

[runnah]

While I have you guys here... What do you recommend as a lens protector? Preferably something that is not going to get that displaced light effect that some of them are known for.

A lens cap.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

While I have you guys here... What do you recommend as a lens protector? Preferably something that is not going to get that displaced light effect that some of them are known for.

nekkid!

 

[cynicaster]

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.

When new standard formats were introduced for television, even the biggest video layperson on Earth could tell the difference, because it was night and day. Sorry, but this might be the worst comparison ever.

Nobody in this thread is saying resolution is irrelevant in an absolute sense. The point is simply that the state of the art has progressed to a level where further incremental increases in resolution no longer yield practical benefits for the vast majority of use cases. As a result, other things such as low-noise performance (dynamic range) have overstepped megapixel count as the primary determining factors of sensor quality.

Law of diminishing returns - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Photographiend]

Okies... No lens protector it is... Here is hoping my klutziness can limit itself to only "not operating camera" periods. Although I did have that heart stopping moment when I took my camera out of the bag the other day and one of the straps lost its hold and came completely off.

Would hate to think of this happening with a better quality camera. Under the current situation I might just write it off as the cosmos telling me it was time for a better one.

Thank you by the way to everyone for all the feedback. Very helpful in making my decision.

 

[gsgary]

4mp 1D with 300mmF2.8L, the lens is more important

 

[Ballistics]

Nobody in this thread is saying resolution is irrelevant in an absolute sense.

You did.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a marketing ploy....

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

And I disagree. Are there number hunters? Sure. But to say MP are just a marketing ploy... doesn't make much sense. If you were in room full of non-photographers maybe that would fly.

The point is simply that the state of the art has progressed to a level where further incremental increases in resolution no longer yield practical benefits for the vast majority of use cases.

With higher MP is usually/most of the time accompanied by more functionality and better performance, with exceptions of course.

 

[gsgary]

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.

The RD1 has a cult following i would love one

 

[hirejn]

MPX won't really matter unless you're making large prints. Ultimately there's a limit to how large you can print, related to MPX, but unless you're consistently going to 20x30 or larger, going from 14 to 12 or 10 won't hurt. My D200 is 10.2 and I make 20x30's.

 

[Canuk]

While I have you guys here... What do you recommend as a lens protector? Preferably something that is not going to get that displaced light effect that some of them are known for.

I would recommend a lens hood, will offer some protection from falls and bumps.
I would also recommend taking a good look at the Canon 50mm f1.4 (more $$ but not totally expensive), instead of the nifty fifty. The old "pay once, cry once" school of thought.

 

[Photographiend]

4mp 1D with 300mmF2.8L, the lens is more important

Freakin' Bad Ass! I :heart:! Totally sold what Camera are you using?

 

[gsgary]

Those were taken with my old Canon 1D (£4200 when new) it was a great camera that can focus as fast as any new camera

 

[Photographiend]

Wows. Quite the camera.

Looked up that lens too was all :shock:...

 

[gsgary]

Wows. Quite the camera.

Looked up that lens too was all :shock:...

It was the original 1D

 

[cynicaster]

Nobody in this thread is saying resolution is irrelevant in an absolute sense.

You did.

As far as I’m concerned, it’s just a marketing ploy....

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

I suppose cherry picking statements to completely remove them from their context makes them easier to argue against. Here is the last thing my post said before the snippet quoted above:

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.

So no, I am demonstrably *not* saying that resolution is irrelevant in an absolute sense; I'm simply saying that even crappy cameras have plenty of megapixels these days, so there are far better things than megapixel count on which to be basing purchasing decisions.

And I disagree. Are there number hunters? Sure. But to say MP are just a marketing ploy... doesn't make much sense.

How does it not make sense? Don't be naive--these camera companies know damn well that thousands and thousands of people every day will still buy camera A over camera B due to nothing more than megapixel count, and they have no problem leveraging misconceptions about megapixels to make those sales. Maybe "ploy" is a bit of a strong word... would you prefer "tactic"? Any way you slice it, it's disingenuous.

If you were in room full of non-photographers maybe that would fly.

I think you have it backwards. In a "room full of non-photographers" the prevailing wisdom would be "HIGHER NUMBER = MOAR BETTER 4 EVA!!" whereas in a room full of photographers, people are generally going to have a more holistic view of what does and does not make for a superior product.

With higher MP is usually/most of the time accompanied by more functionality and better performance, with exceptions of course.

So to paraphrase what you're saying, higher MP cameras are sometimes better and sometimes not....? Hey, I agree!