Do the Megapixels count?

I've been putting off buying a digital for some time, but the recent

prosumer models (Canon G5, Sony DSC V1 and Nikon 5400) have caught my

attention, mainly because of the 5Megapixels. I was pretty much set

that I'd be buying one of the three until I visited a forum.

 

In it, someone asked if he should get the Canon G5, or an EOS D30

going for less than the G5 on eBay.

 

The replies were quite a revelation to me. Almost everyone said that

the 3MP D30 gives far better pictures than any of the three 5MP

prosumer models above. So, if you want quality pics... go for the 3MP

D30!

 

However, the D30's are body only, thus the cost can escalate to $1500

to $2000 above the actual D30 price when you add lenses and

accessories! So if you're going for price... the G5 probably has less

hidden costs.

 

I've been a long time Canon SLR (film) user and already have a

collection of lenses and other accessories. Does that mean I should

be better off getting a second hand 3MP EOS D30?

Of the three, I'd go G5 but check out <a href="http://www.dpreview.com">http://www.dpreview.com/</a>.

 

Your "hidden" costs for D30 may not be that high, depending on the other lenses you already have - what are they.

 

Deciding between 3 and 5 ot 6 Mp, depends on a lot of things like the size of prints you'll want.

 

Deciding between interchangeability of lenses or not also depends on a lot of things including what you photograph and the size of prints you'll want.

Erb

 

The size of the sensor is much, much more important than the number of pixels.

 

My father has a Nikon Coolpix 5700 (5MP) and the images I have made on a D30 & Nikon D1 (2.6MP) are much better + the camera handles like a camera; you can take good pictures at higher ISO ratings & you get the ability to have narrow depth of field.

 

A D1 image interpolated upto A4 or even A3 is better than a digicam because the image is cleaner, each pixel adds much more value.

 

A D30 is cheaper than many of these digicams as well, and will work just like your film cameras (crap autofocus but still infinitely better than any compact digicam)

 

Tapas

What you need to ask yourself is what quality of image do you want? What size prints do you normally do? What do you do with the images you make? DLSR's have larger pixel sizes that equate into better dynamic range and better resolution than with consumer sensors.

 

What I would suggest is that you check out your local dealer. You should be able to take a memory card and do some test shots. Get them printed to the largest size print that you normally do, and see for yourself which camera wold be best.

 

The problem with asking us here is that we have a broad range of expectations of what we as photographers consider is good. It can be said that in actual testing, that DSLR's will give better quality images generally. The same way testing can show that certain lenses are better than others. Yet there are tons of people that are very satisfied with those "lower quality" lenses.

 

Also keep in mind that there are "rumors" that Canon will break the $999 price barrier by Xmas (either with the 10D or a Rebel D). That could add downward pressures to the used D30 prices.

 

Hope this helps.

C.G. Ouimet --- I'm thinking along the lines of a photo exhibit, with large blow-ups. My current collection will be from a stock of 35mm. I'm not worried about that. What I AM worried about is going digital for future exhibits. There's people saying 3MP is good enough (???) and others saying, "Don't kid yourself, you'll need at least 6MP or higher." I'm also a bit confused about the 3MP being loads better than 5MP prosumer.

 

Tapas Maiti --- I don't understand the, "each pixel has more value," statement. Isn't a pixel just ONE pixel, whether it's DSLR or digicam?

 

Chip Lenkiewicz --- News of the 10D dropping below $999 and/or Rebel D are very exciting. That's the problem with going digital. Waiting a few months can make a huge leap of a difference. If I'd bought a D30 a coupla' years back, I'd have paid so much more than a 10D at the end of this year! And what a difference in performance as well!

 

At least with film, new improvements are still brought to people with ten year old cameras (or even much older).

 

BTW my lenses are all Canon autofocus - 50mm(fixed), 35 - 80mm, 28 - 80mm, 75 - 300mm. I guess unless I get a 1Ds, I'll have to shop for some super wide angle lens.

Yes a pixel is a pixel is a pixel ... But pixels are just data and they all have different values in a photograph.

 

However sensors are all different. Some are better than others. A sensor in a Digital SLR may be better than one with the same number of pixels in a Point 'n Shoot, better able to convert light into data.

 

The camera's software that converts sensor information into pixels may also be different.

 

And then there's the optics that deliver the light to the sensor ...

 

For photo exhibits (large prints), you'll probably want lots of pixels from a good sensor from a better camera with high quality lenses. Probably not something you'll buy at K-Mart or Costco ...

Long ago the top high end Nikon pro cameras were 1.3 megapixel; and cost many many thousands of dollars. It is better than the made in Korea/China/etc 50 dollar starter 1.3 megapixel digitals today at Walmart. <BR><BR>Having printed alot of different images from customers digital cameras; the more expensive cameras; for a given "same megapixel level"; TEND to be better..The makeup of the sensors is different; on different cameras; plus the lens quality varies too.

I have a G3 which is 4MP and a buddy of mine has a 1D which is also 4MP. He can shoots a lot sports for local newspapers. The 1D responds instantly and handles very well for shooting action.

 

I can't match the performance of the 1D with my G3. It is very difficult to time shots with the G3. It is much easier looking through the lens on the 1D as part of the image is blocked on the G3 when you look through the viewfinder.

 

There are many advantages to a DSLR even if the megapixels are the same.

The d30 is a better camera by far. I can say that after having many MANY shots published with a d30 and after spending 3 months using a g3 (and a year using a g2).

Ed,

 

The sensor in a DSLR is physically larger than the sensor in a point-and-shoot digicam. The lens apertures are larger as well. This allows more light to hit the sensor resulting in more vibrant looking and less "noisy" pictures.

 

A DSLR also gives you the opportunity to use a much higher quality lens -- for an additional cost of course.

Erb,

 

While true prices are dropping at the time right now on digital (price vs. performance); you have to ask what did you gain by buying when you did. If you had paid the piper by when the D30 was introduced, you will have had 2 years of use out of it. Would/should you upgraded to the D60 or 10D? Only if you TRULY needed the newer features. There is a desire among us digital shooters to take and upgrade to the latest in digital offerings as soon at they hit our dealers. Even though we are happy with what our current gear is providing us.

 

So by waiting to the next break through in digital you are denying yourself use and pleasure. IMO the current and near future DSLR's are pretty hard to top. For myself I bought the 10D, and plan on hanging on to it till the full frame DSLR's hit the $1500 price mark over the next 3 to 5 years.

Erb

 

A compact digicam has 5 million pixels on a tiny sensor maybe smaller than your fingernail. A digital slr such as the D30 has 3million pixels on a chip about half the size of a 35mm frame.

 

Each pixel on a D30 is many times the size of a digicam pixel which means it receives more light and has less noise. The pixel also receives light from a better lens (slr lens) consequently the pixel is producing better data. As you use higher ISOs the digital slr gets comparatively better still hence a Canon G2 digicam is okay at asa 50 but becomes really noisy at higher Iso the digital slr is better at iso 400 than the digicam is at 50 but can also work upto iso 1600.

 

Actually its the same principle as film, the size of the sensor/film is more important for quality than anything else.

 

The SLR is the only way to go unless your sole criteria is pocketability.

 

The above of course ignores handling issue where digital slrs are in a different league.

 

Tapas

Thank you all for your insightful responses.

 

I've owned three digital cameras in the past, but never a digital SLR. While I like everything about digital, I've always gone back to film for two reasons. Resolution and battery life.

 

I've put off getting another digital for quite a while now... and I guess I'll never truly be happy unless I can get a true 35mm DSLR. Unfortunately photography is only a hobby and I can't spend the kind of money the 35mm DSLRs cost.

 

I think the bottom line is that I'm probably going to have to wait a while longer. Pity... I came so close to getting a G5. I'm not altogether convinced the D30 can produce pictures good enough to blow up to the sizes I want... anyone got samples? Share a URL?

I bought a G5 about a month ago. My previous "serious" photographic experience was with a manual Nikon SLR, B&W film, using my own darkroom, in the late 70's and early 80's. When I moved and could no longer have a darkroom, I didn't do much photography other than snapshots with a point-and-shoot 35mm.

 

I have really been enjoying digital with the G5, but there are two major issues compared to a SLR: picture-taking speed and low-light performance. Together, these limit the range of photo opportunities. I'm using the G5 to develop my whole digital workflow, but I think you're right in waiting for a DSLR.

 

You mentioned battery life as an issue with digital. For the G5 at least, this is one problem I haven't experienced. The battery seems to last forever.

Go get a G3 and be done with it. You say photography is a hobby yet you're unsure if the D30 will take the pictures you want. (Tell us what you are looking for in picture subject and sizes??)

 

Is your hobby thinking about the pictures you would have taken if you had a certain camera? If the G3 or D30 won't do it (and we don't really know that because you haven't really discussed that), then waiting 6 to 8 months to satisfy a rumor isn't likely to do it either. Why? Because there will still be folks who profess that the 10D and the like really don't match up to the 12 meg resolution of the full size sensors or mega-scanned film, etc., etc. Will you then need the "right" lens to do wide angles because your current collection isn't right?

 

Go get a G3 and have a good time. All of them use batteries and if "resolution" is still that important, move up in film format.

"Go get a G3 and be done with it?"

 

I'm quite perplexed by some of your statements. Yes, photography is a hobby, in that I do not derive income from it. It's more an interest. A hobby.

 

Well, at the start I wasn't sure on the D30 performance... but I HAVE of late decided to wait a little longer. Obviously that I prefer film would indicate I expect somewhat higher resolution than most digital prosumers offer today. Thus I don't quite understand the G3 comment. If you're asking about print size... anything between 3-6ft wide, for an exhibition.

 

As for subject matter, I shoot almost anything. Hey, it's a hobby. However the majority of shots are city shots, since I live in one.

 

On battery life... that's one of the features which caught my attention to the G5. I think it's the best I've heard of so far, although even longer life is welcome. I once trekked through a rainforest for 3 weeks. I shot nearly 20 rolls of film. Still plenty of battery left in my SLR when I walked out of the jungle. That's something I could never expect a digital to do. At least not yet. :)

Erb,

 

<p>You wrote</p>

<blockquote>

<em>On battery life... that's one of the features which caught my attention to the G5. I think it's the best I've heard of so far, although even longer life is welcome. I once trekked through a rainforest for 3 weeks. I shot nearly 20 rolls of film. Still plenty of battery left in my SLR when I walked out of the jungle. That's something I could never expect a digital to do. At least not yet. :)</em>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Digital is not there yet but it's close. DSLR tend to be less battery hungry than the point-and-shoots. I can get approx 600 shots per battery charge with my D60. Not quite 20 rolls of film but close.</p>

6 feet wide? With a 3 meg camera, that's only 72 pixels per inch. How did you get there with your film gear?

Seriously, there is a huge amount of difference between getting good 8x10s and getting something 3 feet wide, let alone 6 feet wide. The G5 doesn't add much over the G3 which can do fine 8x10s. That will get your foot in the door on the digital side, is not going to lose money too fast (it's already off the leading edge), and is a substantially good camera in it's own right. If you are seriously considering huge prints, then the D30 is probably an expensive speed bump. It will cost you, continue to lose value, and you will still need to move up from there. So if you moved up, the D30 would be redundant, a G3 would still be suitable for alternative carry, etc.

 

Keep in mind that regardless of the quality of the pixels or the original file, 3 megs is still only 3 megs. The running argument, as you've seen is whether 3 megs will or won't do an 8x10 inch picture, not whether it will do something larger. Most folks look at the pictures and don't count the pixels and accept 8x10s from 3 megs.

Think of it this way: The picture quality is related to the total amount of ACTUAL image information stored in the picture. Our minds do a lot to fill in the gaps. So if a g5 only records maybe 4-bits of real info per pixel on average then the d30 is equivalent to 6 megapixels of a sensor of the same quality of the g5. That would be the logic anyway