$200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Techniques and equipment.

Moderator: Moderators

$200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby Kevin Bruff » Dec 11, 2008 7:29 pm

i recently bought a Canon EOS Rebel XS 1000D with 10.1 MP. Im now starting to think about returning it for the XSi but is it worth 200 dollars more for 2 more mega pixels? How much difference is there between 10 and 12 mega pixels? How large of prints can be made of each? im smacking my head over here trying to decide :doh: :shrug:


Kevin
Note to self...It is illegal to stab stupid people. :-)
User avatar
Kevin Bruff
Occasional Poster
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Nov 9, 2007 10:54 am
Location: Leicester/Asheville NC
NSS #: 59277
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Flittermouse Mountain Empire Birmingam
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby Ralph E. Powers » Dec 11, 2008 9:07 pm

Kevin Bruff wrote:i recently bought a Canon EOS Rebel XS 1000D with 10.1 MP. Im now starting to think about returning it for the XSi but is it worth 200 dollars more for 2 more mega pixels? How much difference is there between 10 and 12 mega pixels? How large of prints can be made of each? im smacking my head over here trying to decide :doh: :shrug:


Kevin
the more megapixels the bigger the print because the finer the image... however being so fine it does sacrifice image quality at smaller sizes... I think.
You should do okay with 10 mp's. Unless you're one of those pro-caver photographers that take outstanding photos and such then a 12 would do.
Without the possibility of death, adventure is not possible. ~ Reinhold Messner


http://ralph.rigidtech.com/albums.php
User avatar
Ralph E. Powers
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Sep 10, 2005 5:48 pm
Location: Chattanooga, TN
NSS #: 37616
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby adleedy » Dec 12, 2008 2:01 pm

the 10mp is fine. Megapixels are overated, and unless you plan on printing something extra huge (bigger than 20"x30'') you will not be able to tell the difference between 6megapixels and 12 megapixels, much less 10 and 12.

some good reading about megapixels http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

hope this helps.
Alan D. Leedy

E.R.V.K.E.T Life Member

SAVE CAVE RIVERS http://WWW.8RIVERSSAFEDEVELOPMENT.COM
User avatar
adleedy
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Dec 12, 2006 6:04 pm
Location: charleston, west virginia
Name: alan dwayne leedy
NSS #: 56663
Primary Grotto Affiliation: charleston grotto + ERVKET
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby Kevin Bruff » Dec 12, 2008 5:21 pm

i was doing some reading up on it last night and thinking the same thing, that its not worth it. I was on best buy's web site doing a comparison between the 10 and 12 MP camera and found out that the one I bought went on sale. either 50 dollars off or pay full price and get a free 75mm -300mm f4.5-5.6 zoom lens. I called them up and they said they would give me the lense if I brought my reciept in. :kewl: Well that made my decision pretty dang easy. The lens cost's 250 bux. I went today after work and got my free lens. :banana: :banana_yay: Its basically useless for cave photography but it will be nice for other things.

So 10mp will print a 20 x 30 size poster print and still look good?

:bat sticker:
Kevin
Note to self...It is illegal to stab stupid people. :-)
User avatar
Kevin Bruff
Occasional Poster
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Nov 9, 2007 10:54 am
Location: Leicester/Asheville NC
NSS #: 59277
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Flittermouse Mountain Empire Birmingam
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby adleedy » Dec 12, 2008 5:47 pm

my 6mp nikon will do 20x30 and look good, so I imagine your 10mp will look good at even a slightly bigger image size. :kewl:
Alan D. Leedy

E.R.V.K.E.T Life Member

SAVE CAVE RIVERS http://WWW.8RIVERSSAFEDEVELOPMENT.COM
User avatar
adleedy
NSS Hall Of Fame Poster
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Dec 12, 2006 6:04 pm
Location: charleston, west virginia
Name: alan dwayne leedy
NSS #: 56663
Primary Grotto Affiliation: charleston grotto + ERVKET
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby rcoomer » Dec 14, 2008 10:51 pm

I would say the difference between 10 and 12 as pretty insignificant if all else is the same.

I've done 2' x 4' prints from 6mp and 8mp. It's more about how you use the camera than the numbers, unless you are talking about 15mp or 21mp, then you will see some real difference. . .
--
Rob Coomer
Fine Art Cave and Nature Photography
http://www.robertcoomer.com
User avatar
rcoomer
Occasional Poster
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Sep 5, 2005 8:15 pm
Location: Cincinnati
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby liketotallyrandom » Oct 1, 2009 3:11 am

It's not as simple as just getting the camera with the most pixels. Two specific examples are the the Canon EOS 40D (10.1 MegaPixels, APS-C) vs. 50D (15.1 MegaPixels, APS-C) and the Canon G10 (14.7 MegaPixels, 1/1.7" sensor) vs. G11 (10 MegaPixels, 1/1.7" sensor). In the case of the G10 vs. G11, Canon actually DECREASED the number of pixels in the newer model (!)

From dpreview.com's review of the Canon 50D:

"It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible, in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution. Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO performance and the need to store, move and process larger amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS50D/page31.asp

(there are image comparisons between the 40D and 50D on another page of that review).

In the case of the G11, Canon improved the image quality by DECREASING the pixel count. This decreases resolution, but increases the overall quality of the images, because it reduces the noise and diffraction issues. Another issue is the lens quality. If the lens attached to a higher megapixel camera cannot resolve the required detail, then the image quality from that camera may actually be worse than the image quality with the same lens on a lower resolution camera.

Studying the pixel DENSITY and design of sensor chip assemblies is also helpful. The size and arrangement of the microlenses on the sensor, as well as the layering architecture of the sensor makes a difference in image quality. For example:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09080601sonycmos.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

I could go on and on, but I'll spare everybody. :big grin: The best way to decide is to actually compare images (using Photoshop or similar) from the cameras in question.
liketotallyrandom
Infrequent Poster
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Aug 16, 2009 5:42 am
NSS #: 40046
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Gonzo Grotto - Ovusnay Ordoay Eirdoway
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby Kevin Bruff » Oct 1, 2009 7:48 am

I appreciate everyones input, at the time I had bought a Rebel XS and was thinking of the XSi but since I have gotten pretty serious with photography and bought the EOS 50-D I would have went for the 5D Mark II but it was so far back ordered that Dell stopped selling it. The 50D shoots faster anyway and thats one thing i was looking for when upgrading. I like the new 7D but it wasnt released when I got my 50D. here is some of my pictures, hope yall enjoy.

www.flickr.com/photos/kevinbruff

Kevin
Note to self...It is illegal to stab stupid people. :-)
User avatar
Kevin Bruff
Occasional Poster
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Nov 9, 2007 10:54 am
Location: Leicester/Asheville NC
NSS #: 59277
Primary Grotto Affiliation: Flittermouse Mountain Empire Birmingam
  

Re: $200 dollars more for 2 more MP's

Postby NZcaver » Oct 6, 2009 12:38 am

liketotallyrandom wrote:It's not as simple as just getting the camera with the most pixels. Two specific examples are the the Canon EOS 40D (10.1 MegaPixels, APS-C) vs. 50D (15.1 MegaPixels, APS-C)...

:exactly: This is one reason I got the 40D earlier this year, after MUCH deliberation. The dpreview site was one of the sources I used to help make my decision and choose the 40D over the 50D. And then came the big lens deliberation. I eventually settled for the 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM, and the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM is the next on the list. This is not for caving!

The best way to decide is to actually compare images (using Photoshop or similar) from the cameras in question.

Yes, comparing images at 100% crop (or greater) - also known as "pixel-peeping" - is one way to do it. Another suggestion is to pick a few nice images and make poster prints for a direct 'physical' comparison. It seems so obvious, but some people (including me) can become obsessed with pixel peeping on screen and forget that a nice big print is a great way to check the quality of an image. You can get 12x16 prints at Sam's Club or Costco etc for just a few bucks each :shhh: and satisfaction is guaranteed (they'll keep reprinting the image until you're happy with the print quality). This is how I do all my proofs now. Just remember to deselect the image sharpening option in the machine at the store - unless you're one of those people who likes to kill images with indiscriminate post-processing. :tonguecheek:

Happy snapping. :camera:
User avatar
NZcaver
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Sep 7, 2005 2:05 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Name: Jansen
NSS #: 50665RL
  


Return to Photography and Videography Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users