True?

[Boutte]

It's not only printing size but crop as well... Sometimes I just can't get close enough to my subject (or zoom far enough), being able to crop the image and still have it look great in print is nice.

Most of the time it doesn't matter much... but when you need it, it's nice having it there.

I think this aspect gets disregarded too often when discussing MPs. Every year i go to a costume ball on the weekend before Mardis Gras. The lighting conditions aren't ideal and as the party goes on my vision suffers too. Even with my 7MP P&S I've been able to salvage some good pics from the background.

 

[Phranquey]

Yep, I'm looking at file size (MB). It's my understandin gthat the way JPEG compresses the file size is essentially by discarding pixel information.

What it's doing is not discarding pixels, but the extra RAW sensor data for each pixel after the compression... the MP size is still the same. My files on JPEG FINE are an average of 4.5 to 5 MB, but if you multiply photo size of 4288x2848, you still get 12.2 MP.

 

[UUilliam]

Nikon d40 is a 6mp
it can print fabulous shots at 8x10" (common size) i suspect it could be enlarged about 30 - 40 % while retaining image quality

 

[redtippmann]

My D2H has a 4mp sensor and when I tell that to my friends they say " ha mines better, it has 10mp's" I just laugh inside But I just use that for journalism. If I'm doing portraits or other things that I know I'll print, I use my D50 with a 6.1mp sensor.

But really I dont worry at all how many mp's a camera size has. I actually prefer a smaller count because they transfer faster and I can get allot of good quality photos out of a 4GB card.

 

[KmH]

What it's doing is not discarding pixels, but the extra RAW sensor data for each pixel after the compression... the MP size is still the same. My files on JPEG FINE are an average of 4.5 to 5 MB, but if you multiply photo size of 4288x2848, you still get 12.2 MP.

What is the "extra RAW sensor data"?

 

[skieur]

I was just reading a review on Canon XT, XTi and XSi....

The guy said " try to keep in mind, that more megapixels does not necessarily make a better camera. Especially once your over 5MP. "

True? your opinions?

Thx

It is not the only thing, but it is one of the things that makes a better camera. If everything else in the picture quality area is equal, then megapixels can make the difference. To put it simply with more megapixels there is more to work with in cropping and photo-editing to produce a higher quality, sharper image.

skieur

 

[shannonegg]

I agree that megapixels do matter when you can't get close enough to your subject. My camera has 10 Mp and just barely does the job when I'm shooting sports.

 

[IgsEMT]

Here's a link from one of my labs regarding what you can print based on file dimensions.
Mpix.com - Help

Joe

 

[Village Idiot]

What it's doing is not discarding pixels, but the extra RAW sensor data for each pixel after the compression... the MP size is still the same. My files on JPEG FINE are an average of 4.5 to 5 MB, but if you multiply photo size of 4288x2848, you still get 12.2 MP.

What is the "extra RAW sensor data"?

RAW data encompasses more than just the dynamic range you see with your eyes.

Ever here of shooting to the right? It's when you meter a scene slightly over exposed when shooting RAW. Why do that? Because in post when adjusting the exposure of the RAW file, you can bring it down and some of those ares that may appear to be slightly over exposed or blow out will reveal a perfect exposure, giving you a greater overall dynamic range in your final shot.

If you would have shot in JPEG, you would have lost what ever appears to be blown out.

Plus there's the file medium. RAW is the uncompressed original data that the sensor transfers to the memory card. JPEG adds compression based on what quality you choose in the camera and it also adds any contrast, sharpnening, and saturation settings in your camera to the photo copied to the memory card.

Also, iirc, RAW is completely lossless file type. You can save a RAW file one thousand times and it won't degrade in quality. If you save a JPEG file over and over again, after so many times, the compression from the file type will start to cause artifacts and image degridation.

I'm not saying that it's wrong to shoot JPEG as there are advantages to using that file type. You use what you need.

 

[Village Idiot]

I agree that megapixels do matter when you can't get close enough to your subject. My camera has 10 Mp and just barely does the job when I'm shooting sports.

You need a longer lens and not more mega pickles. :er:

 

[Misfitlimp]

correction. I just looked in my owners manual and shooting in certain JPEG formats like fine or something like that cuts your megapixels in half. If i read if correctly.

 

[redtippmann]

I agree that megapixels do matter when you can't get close enough to your subject. My camera has 10 Mp and just barely does the job when I'm shooting sports.

You need a longer lens and not more mega pickles. :er:

:thumbup:

 

[Village Idiot]

correction. I just looked in my owners manual and shooting in certain JPEG formats like fine or something like that cuts your megapixels in half. If i read if correctly.

But it's not cutting the amount of pixels because it's a JPEG, it's just giving you a smaller image. That's because of the processing it's doing in the camera.

Say your photo is 3000px x 2000px with the highest size JPEG. If you use the lower JPEG setting, you might be shooting at 1500px x 1000px and you'll have a physically smaller image.

Changing file types does not alter the resolution of the image. Going from RAW, to TIFF, to JPEG with a 21mp image will still have you a 21MP image when it's finished.