Megapixels and Prints

[mcoppadge]

I'm looking at buying a digital camera (my own, being that the one I use now belongs to my dad). I'm looking at the Nikon [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BY52NK/sr=1-4/qid=1133305951/ref=sr_1_4/104-6834664-8966365?%5Fencoding=UTF8"]D200[/ame], which isn't out yet. I like that one mostly because it has 10.2 megapixels, which is enough to create larger-sized prints. However, the D200 is expensive, maybe more than I can afford. I am looking also at the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BWE4TK/sr=1-4/qid=1133305755/ref=sr_1_4/104-6834664-8966365?%5Fencoding=UTF8"]D50[/ame], whose megapixel count is 6.1. Is 6.1 enough to make decently large prints and still maintain 100% quality? If you have any examples of photos that would be helpful, that would be great. Or if you have one of the above cameras, I'd appreciate hearing some feedback about it.

 

[Picksure]

I use photo lab for my pics. They have a chart for minimun print resolution.

click here to view.

I have done a 11x14, and it came out a beauty with my 4mp camera. Hope this helps.

 

[Marctwo]

Don't even think about megapixels - it's really not an issue. Just think about the features, the handling, the feel... what's important to you?

 

[mcoppadge]

what's important to you?

Megapixels.

I think I'm decent enough that I'm not going to need tons of whistles and bells on my camera. I just need something that's going to give me a quality image. I do agree that all that other stuff is important, too. But I've looked at those cameras and I love them (or rather, I've looked at the D50 and D70 since the D200 isn't out yet). It feels great. It's sturdy and heavy (not too heavy, but it doesn't feel like you're holding a toy either). I've only had limited time to look at the thing, but it's got good featuers as well.

 

[Digital Matt]

Megapixels don't determine the quality of the image. The size and quality of the sensor, and the quality of glass you put in front of it are the two main factors.

Megapixels do affect print size yes, but there are so many factors that go into determining what is an acceptable size for a particular photo. The first and foremost is just personal taste. What do you consider, "100% quality"? I have 20x30" prints from a 6.3mp camera that I love.

Did you use a tripod and/or mirror lock, or shoot handheld? Were you focused dead on? What aperture did you shoot at, and does it fall into the range of the sharpest part of the lens? Were you forced to shoot at a high ISO? All factors in determining how big you'll want to enlarge.

On top of that, is your post processing routine, and how you get the most from the image you've captured.

The best thing you can do is buy a camera you can afford, and feels comfortable, and budget enough cash for nice glass. You'll get nice enlargements off of any modern day DSLR. Megapixels are a myth.

 

[Wally]

Megapixels don't determine the quality of the image. The size and quality of the sensor, and the quality of glass you put in front of it are the two main factors.

Megapixels do affect print size yes, but there are so many factors that go into determining what is an acceptable size for a particular photo. The first and foremost is just personal taste. What do you consider, "100% quality"? I have 20x30" prints from a 6.3mp camera that I love.

Did you use a tripod and/or mirror lock, or shoot handheld? Were you focused dead on? What aperture did you shoot at, and does it fall into the range of the sharpest part of the lens? Were you forced to shoot at a high ISO? All factors in determining how big you'll want to enlarge.

On top of that, is your post processing routine, and how you get the most from the image you've captured.

The best thing you can do is buy a camera you can afford, and feels comfortable, and budget enough cash for nice glass. You'll get nice enlargements off of any modern day DSLR. Megapixels are a myth.

I couldn't agree more!! I have both a Canon 20D and a Canon 300D, the 300D was around $700 cheaper than the 20D and in everyday use there is no real difference between the two. The 20D has 2 more megapixles but it really does not matter. I have great 20x30 prints that I shot with a 4mp camera.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have skipped the 20D (which I got first) and just gotten a 300D and spent the extra $700 on better glass.

 

[mcoppadge]

Glass being a good lens?

 

[Digital Matt]

Yes, glass meaning lens.

 

[AIRIC]

I have two D-70s and just recently had some 20x30 prints made. They looked great. I think post prcessing has a lot to do with the final image but glass is the most important.

Eric

 

[mcoppadge]

So I'm getting the idea that a good lens is pretty important.

AIRIC, you said that you have two D70s. Are there any lenses you would recommend for a D50 or D70?

 

[DocFrankenstein]

AIRIC, you said that you have two D70s. Are there any lenses you would recommend for a D50 or D70?

Tell us how much you want to spend
What you want to shoot
Under what conditions

I'd recommend the cheap kit lens for starters, so you can experiment and then decide for yourself what you need. You can sell it later if you want and you'd only lose like 10-20 bucks which is nothing.

 

[snownow]

Tell us how much you want to spend
What you want to shoot
Under what conditions

I'd recommend the cheap kit lens for starters, so you can experiment and then decide for yourself what you need. You can sell it later if you want and you'd only lose like 10-20 bucks which is nothing.

Agreed, then i would also reccomend getting a nice small lens. I went for big lenses first 300mm and larger, and now feel that it was a mistake. I friend just sold me a fast 50mm, and 28mm lens (fast being large Aperture). Both of these you can get used for around $100 on ebay, if you want to try one out. I use them all the time now, for varied light and conditions.

Its seems in the price your looking for the d70 and the 300d would be great cameras, just depending on what side of the fence you want to sit (nikon or cannon)

I agree with matt 200%, it really does depend on sensor quality and size. My boss has a high end "ol.... never mind on the brand" and i think my d70 and my coworkers 300d take much better quality photos. All because of the quality of the sensor.. my 2cents

 

[mcoppadge]

I am looking at two different lenses. The first is a Nikon 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G Nikkor Zoom lens. To be totally honest, I have no clue what the two things in bold mean, so if anybody knows, please inform me. The second lens I am looking at, but probably will not purchase until later is a Nikon 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED Autofocus Nikkor Zoom Lens. Again, bolded? No clue. I lack camera technical education.

 

[mcoppadge]

Tell us how much you want to spend
What you want to shoot
Under what conditions

I'm thinking somewhere between $500-$1500. It's a big interval, yes. I plan to shoot mostly landscape and cityscape shots, although I may do a little "abstract" photography (whatever that looks like) and maybe portraits. Portraits will probably not happen enough for me to worry about it. Conditions would be normal outdoor conditions.

 

[photoboy15]

Its big money but if you want to shoot city/landscapes look at the canon tilt shift lens. If you really want to shoot that go large format. It does take away digital unless you have the real big bucks.

2cents.