Is this bad advice or am I just being pesimistic?

[masquerad101]

Ok so Ive been reading through the Ken Rockwell D3200 users guide and to be quite honest I feel a little frustraited with it. The first thing I notice is the image size paragraph. Ken (God bless him) Recomends that we choose an image size of small
(6MP or 3,008 x 2000 pixles). I dont understand because the first thing that attracted me to the D3200 is the huge 24 Megapixels! Ken says and I quote

"No one needs 24 Megapixels, or even the MEDIUM setting of 13.5 MP.I make plenty of 20 x 30" (50 x 75 cm) prints from 6MP cameras, and they look great. Set down to 6MP, the D3200 makes even sharper images than native 6 MP cameras, and I've seen great 40 x 60" (1 x 1.5 meter) prints made from the 6MP D40.
By setting the smaller resolution, everything about transferring, storing, backing-up, selecting and editing your images runs much, much faster than if you leave the camera at its defaults.
At the default of LARGE NORMAL you get 6 MB files, while at SMALL BASIC, I get pictures which look identical with only 700 kB of data."

So then The question I ask is " Why would you or what is the point of buying a 24 Megapixel camera If it works better at 6 Megapixels?
Ok so the rest of the guide is very informative and helpfull but now I feel cheeted and I'm wondering should I have went with the Canon 600D or 650D?

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Don't read ken Rockwell and you'll be fine. There is benefits of larger files and more MP

 

[tecboy]

Rockwell is just saying that, because he doesn't crop his photos, and he only uses jpeg and not raw file format for all his photos.

 

[masquerad101]

Rockwell is just saying that, because he doesn't crop his photos, and he only uses jpeg and not raw for all his photos.

Nice. So if I dont crop and only shoot jpeg then 6mp should be fine

Problem is I love to crop my photos and I only shoot raw.

 

[tecboy]

Actually, if you watch his youtube videos, these are quite funny.

 

[tecboy]

If I remember reading somewhere, he said 2mp is enough.

 

[manicmike]

Reading Ken Rockwell for photography advice is like listening to Paula Deen for health food advice.

 

[tecboy]

Where do Babies Come From?

 

[cgipson1]

I agree.... Rockwell is very popular with those new to photography, because he is good at keeping his website high in the search rankings. But as far as content and advice goes, I wouldn't listen to him. Some of the stuff he writes is indeed comical!

 

[dbvirago]

The fact is there are times when 6MP is enough. But you can always downsize. Why would you restrict yourself in camera? (Of course, this sets off the jpeg vs raw argument)

 

[masquerad101]

Love this forum

 

[SCraig]

The fact is there are times when 6MP is enough. But you can always downsize. Why would you restrict yourself in camera? (Of course, this sets off the jpeg vs raw argument)

Yeah, but that was, what, 2005 or so?

 

[tecboy]

Opps, my mistake. 3mp is good enough according to this article. The Megapixel Myth

 

[dbvirago]

The fact is there are times when 6MP is enough. But you can always downsize. Why would you restrict yourself in camera? (Of course, this sets off the jpeg vs raw argument)

Yeah, but that was, what, 2005 or so?

Depends on what you are going to do with it. 6MP was enough for a 5 x 7 print in 2005 and it's enough for a 5 x 7 now. For people who only print 4x6 and 5x7 prints for family or show on a computer, 6MP is plenty.

Having said that, there is no reason to shoot that small if your camera has better capabilities.

 

[SCraig]

Depends on what you are going to do with it. 6MP was enough for a 5 x 7 print in 2005 and it's enough for a 5 x 7 now. For people who only print 4x6 and 5x7 prints for family or show on a computer, 6MP is plenty.

Having said that, there is no reason to shoot that small if your camera has better capabilities.

There was a time when I thought a digital camera that shot 1024 x 768 was plenty to. Heck, I seldom print anything at all and reduce my web images to 800 x 533 so virtually anything should be good for me. But it isn't.

6mp was/is perhaps good enough *IF* you work with the entire frame. When you start cropping the situation begins to change dramatically. Shoot a small target at a long distance and cropping is a way of life. I shoot birds and sometimes crop off 75% of a frame. If I did that with a 6mp camera I'd be down to 1.5mp images, and that doesn't work for me. I prefer all the resolution I can get, and if I can pack it into the area of an APS-C sensor it's even better.