D100 image capabilities against a D200 and etc.

So you're comparing a noisy old sensor with a new one to arrive at this "conclusion"?

"No. This is flat out wrong and incorrect."

 

 

Nice explanation Eric, it gives so much information and proves how wrong I am. It's such an intelligent vision transformed into an answer.

 

Look, if you do not believe me, why don't you (instead of posting your opinion and not knowledge) take a 4x6 negative, make a 5x6 print and then use 35mm film and make a 5x6 print.

"Eric ~ , dec 24, 2005; 11:32 a.m.

So you're comparing a noisy old sensor with a new one to arrive at this "conclusion"?"

 

I wanted to see how much better image resolution had the D100 compared to the D200. If you read my thread, you may understand.

Guys, could you please stop the flames?

Resolution, in this case, has nothing to do with printing. You're comparing a noisy D100 sensor with a new D200 file and coming up with conclusions that no one else has, about achieving more detail in a 4x6 print. You're wrong. You're confusing it with noise and may notice more noise in one over the other, but that's not the same thing nor a fair experiment. May as well use D2h or last decades D1. I could give you a 200 iso 4x6 print from a D2x and a D200 and hell why not, a D70, and you wouldn't be able to tell. All cameras have to 'throw away' so much 12 bit info that exceed the limitations of 8 bit 300dpi printing in order to do so, that saying you can notice difference in detail is ridiculous.

please MAKE a print and compare

I have actually made prints to compare my D100 vs. D2X, but those would have been 8x10 prints and I cropped out part of the frame and made them 4x6. There is a huge difference between the two and my wife, who knows a thing or two about photography herself, could easily tell them apart. However, it is hard to say exactly what contributes to the difference. The D2X's technology being 3 years newer probably has a lot to do with it, besides pixel count.

The topic is noticeable detail in small output (4x6 prints) between cameras that have a significant difference in mp, right? Do you think you could notice a difference here, on this monitor in this very thread, between a D70 and D2x if I posted two 800x400 pixel examples from each camera under the same conditions at the same iso? You're monitor should out perform a 4x6 print, and to say you can notice between a 1200x1800 machine print and a 800x400 monitor display, is, well, just silly.

Shun, I don't deny that. Using half the image and comparing 6 to 12MP, you're comparing 250 PPI vs 360 PPI (see my post above), which I think can be noticed.

 

Robert, see Calderon's post at 12/24 12:59am.

 

Guys, to back up what I originally posted with Science: IF the printer could even print 600 (and again, I think that's pushing it), the human eye can resolve approximately 1/4000th of the eye-to-subject distance. 1/500th of an inch * 4000 = 8 inches. If you're viewing at 8" or more, no amount if extra resolution above 500 PPI is visible to the average human eye. Even if you decide to look at the 4x6 print from 5" away, you're asking people to discern the difference that is just at the edge of human perception when people on this forum look at 100% crops and see a difference but generally agree it's not an overwhelming one. FWIW. There are reasons to want a D200 over a D70/D100. Detail in 4x6" prints isn't it. ;-P

More resolution in and of it self only benefits enlargements, and crops. If you are printing a smaller photo but using the whole image, then it is the printer resoluion that limits details (i.e. a 4x6 from a Canon 2d MKII (16mp) looks no better than one from my 10D (6mp)). I have seen this from professional printers. You pretty much have to go to a 8x10 or maybe even 11x14 or larger to get to a point where the print shows more resolution than the image (@ 300dpi). Of course when you go really large many printers only show 155dpi.

 

That being said there are other benefits with newer sensors (dynamic range, shadow and highlight detail, moire, noise, etc, etc) that generally make the newer cameras better than the old.

"people on this forum look at 100% crops and see a difference but generally agree it's not

an overwhelming one. "

 

I guess that's what I take issue with: your use of the word "overwhelming". The way I see it,

digital imaging technology is sufficiently advanced at this point that we're really not going

to see an "overwhelming" difference between these cameras. The differences between

them is going to be limited to a fairly narrow range of qualities. You're not going to see

images that are "overwhelmingly" sharper than others, "overwhelmingly" more accurate in

terms of color, showing an "overwhelming" ability to render shadow detail etc. I think it

would be more accurate to talk about significant and insignificant differences and to my

eye there is a significant difference between the D100 and D200 sample images shown in

this thread.

but upto an 8 x 10" print there is no persevable difference.

 

Rudi