help settle a discussion

[louisek]

I'm having a debate with my other half who doesn't understand why I bought the nikon

d70s at only 6 megapixels when I could have bought a consumer grade sony 10

megapixels. I keep trying to explain that there are some amazing professional cameras

sold in the thousands which are less than 6 mp, and do a better job etc. I know there are

statistics out there to back this up, and it's all about the glass and the sensors. He doesn't

buy it so I need expert feedback to back me up, if I am right, or point me in the right

direction if I am wrong.

 

He wants to have photograph taken of a piece of furniture he built and have it blown up

poster size. His arguement is that the professional photographer he was in touch with is

out of town but her assistant will take it with his 8 mp camera. He doesn't think it will

work, even though the camera is a professional level camera.

 

thanks for your answers

[hayward]

Ken Rockwell's site explains it better than I can here: http://kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

[markwilkins]

I'm not sure how posting here will settle anything, but here goes:

 

Speaking as someone who makes a full-time living from digital imaging, a lot more goes into a good photograph (particularly a product photograph!!) than resolution. Some important factors are:

 

* Accuracy of color.

 

* Control over direction and intensity of light.

 

* Absence of distortions (such as those that make straight lines appear to bend in a picture)

 

* Wide dynamic range (the difference between the darkest dark and the brightest highlight.)

 

* Precise placement of focus on the subject

 

* Having the ability to blur areas other than the focus plane in order to separate your subject from the environment.

 

Because it gives the photographer control over how warm or cool the light appears, because it can control professional lighting equipment, because it uses optics that are probably better corrected, because the imaging sensor is larger and has better electronics controlling it, and because the autofocus system is fast and provides extensive control to the photographer, all of these areas are won by the D70s over any point and shoot camera.

 

As far as the professional photographer sending her assistant, the biggest issue there isn't the camera but whether the assistant is a skilled photographer. Presumably the photographer has thought about whether the assistant can do the job, I hope. :)

 

As far as how much resolution you need for a poster-sized print of a product, the real question is how it's going to be displayed. An 8"x10" photographic print from a 6 megapixel image looks great when viewed from 12 inches, so that same 6 megapixel image would produce a

40 inch by 50 inch poster that would look great when viewed from five feet, and who's going to want to get much closer to look at a poster that big?

 

-- Mark

[erik_escada1]

Theres a lot more a D70 DSLR can do than a Sony Point and shoot first of all he should be ashamed of comparing a point and shot with a DSLR. Secondly a D70's is a solid SLR that offers you with instant power up, Preview Button through the lens Matrix metering, ability to use your on camera flash as a Master Flash, High ISO settings wothout the Point and shoot noise. DSLR does not make you go into an amateur digital zoom. Cant put a telephoto lens on a Sony point and shoot. My Sony F828 is built like a tank and it does take nice pictures but the D70 is miles ahead. on the New Sony DSC-R1 you would be stuck with a fixed lens of 24-120mm oh and the Quality of the lens lies in the F stop and it's only 2.8 at 24mm after 24mm you will automatically get 4.8

[lex_jenkins]

Lots of great photos are taken with P&S and non-interchangeable zoom digicams. The main reason to get an interchangeable lens dSLR is for access to a system of lenses, flash and accessories. If you anticipate needing that type of equipment it makes sense to start out with the right camera.

 

Few cameras with non-interchangeable lenses have optics equal to those available for SLRs and dSLRs. At their widest end the distortion is usually pretty bad. At the longest end the maximum aperture is usually so slow you'll need flash anytime other than under the noontime sun.

 

While the cheap kit zooms often included with entry level dSLRs aren't all that great, at least you have the option of slapping on a better lens. And while the 18-70 DX Nikkor has quite a bit of distortion at the wide end, it can be fixed with digital editing. And the lens is pretty sharp.

 

There's also an advantage in overall image quality, altho' the gap is closing. A 6 megapixel dSLR with an APS sized sensor will generally have lower noise at higher ISOs than an 8 mp digicam with a sensor the size of a pinky fingernail. At its lowest ISO setting some digicams have very low noise. But if you expect to shoot, say, indoor school sports without flash, theatre performances, etc., you'll need to be able to shoot at ISO 800-1600. That pretty much narrows the field to dSLRs.

 

There are plenty of other pros and cons on each side.

[ShunCheung]

Also try this article by Bob Atkins. It was written a few years back so that the examples are not entirely current, but the concepts have not changed:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/

[vivek iyer]

Louise, The reasons are already mentioned above. If you pay attention to the complaints about the APS-C sized dSLRs here, it would become quite obvious to you why sensor size does matter.

[dave wyman]

- DSLRs allow the use of a full range of optics - the digicam has only one lens.

 

- When you depress the release on a DSLR, the shutter works instantly.

 

- High ISOs are possible with a DSLR, not a digicam.

 

But all of the above has nothing to do with you question. You wanted to know why a digicam, with 10 megapixles, would not work better than a DSLR with "only" six megapixels.

 

Here's why:

 

1) The difference between 6 and 10 megapixels is actually minor (see the kenrockwell.com link, mentioned earlier in this thread).

 

However,

 

2) If the Sony camera has the same size sensor as the DSLR, then maybe your husband is right - you could have saved some money if the only goal is to make posters from fotographs of phurniture.

 

3) If the camera is yours, and you didn't purchase it for your hubby, and you have other uses for the camera than furniture, then tell him to get off your case and go clean the house or make dinner for the kids.

[leslie_cheung]

If there is good lighting, I don't why a small sensor digicam can't a decent photo of the furniture in your case. Acourse large sensor dslrs are better at most other situations.

 

Here are 5 main reasons dslr are better:

 

interchangable lenses

 

better AF

 

dof control

 

high iso noise control

 

powerful flash

 

 

NONE of the above is really needed in your case.

[Karim Ghantous]

What I don't understand is how a <em>guy</em> cannot grasp such a basic technical issue! :-)

[mawz]

It really depends which 10MP Sony you're talking about. The DSC-R1 is capable of matching the D200 for visual quality, but it uses a DSLR-sized sensor and a top-grade Carl Zeiss 24-120mm f2.8-4 equivalent lens. Apart from the EVF finder and electronic shutter, it really is closer to a DSLR than a P&S.

 

The larger sensors in DSLR's provide better high-ISO performance, less noise overall, and the lenses distinctly outperform the bitty little slow things in most P&S's (well, except for 18-55's)

[ecarter]

Louise, you're dead right in this debate. More megapixels does not equal better image quality, and there are significant advantages to a DSLR compared to most consumer p&s cameras, even those with higher megapixel counts.

 

Probably the biggest advantage is the ability to use different lenses - this gives you more options regarding quality and field of view. While a lot of P&S cameras have very good lenses, they tend to be wide range, do-it-all lenses. These are also available

 

The next advantage DSLR's like your D70S have is the sensor size - larger sensors and photo-sensitive sites on the sensor mean lower noise (and the capability to shoot higher ISO - most consumer P&S cameras max out around ISO 400). The sensor size also means that controlling the depth of field in the photograph is much easier and more precise. In order to get the correct field of view (wide angle versus telephoto) most P&S cameras need to use very short focal length lenses which translates to a wide depth of field (range from the camera where objects appear in focus). With a larger sensor, the lenses used for the same field of view have a longer focal length which allows the photographer to control depth of field better - IE, the photographer can cause a single object to stand out by "blurring" the background.

 

Finally, the "viewfinder" on most P&S cameras is an LCD screen, where a DSLR camera has an optical viewfinder - I find it much easier to work with a true optical viewfinder.

 

As far as poster-sized prints are concerned, how sharp a print appears at a given size depends more on the viewing distance from the print rather than megapixels (though having more megapixels can help). I regularly do Super B size prints (13"x19") from my D70 and these prints are quite sharp from a few feet away - I've seen excellent poster size prints from the D70 larger than that, and I've known billboards printed from the same camera - because those are viewed from hundreds of feet away, they appear sharp.

 

This doesn't mean that P&S cameras cannot do the job - I've seen great work done with them. They're two different approaches and each has strengths and weaknesses - but more megapixels does not mean better at all - it's something hyped up by companies to help sell cameras past its real importance.

[ecarter]

Oh, didn't see it, but Adam is right. Sony does have a 10 MP camera with a APS sized sensor similar to a DSLR's. I don't know if this camera is the one your husband is thinking of, but it doesn't suffer the small sensor woes that most digital P&S cameras do.

[photo5]

I compared my D70 to a Canon Pro1 8mp "consumer" camera, and the Pro1 wins hands down. Why? The D70 has 22% less pixels to render an image than the Pro1. Also, I never found my D70, even when shooting RAW, to produce very clean images. They always looked a little soft and detail was lacking. A digital camera is a digital camera, no matter if it is a Nikon dSLR or a Sony fixed lens job. The final result is the thing to be measured.

 

I sold my D70 a few months after I bought it. I just didn't think it was worth the money for the image it produced, and the size. I have seen a lot of D70 captures that just don't look that great either. A true pro camera should shoot a 50mb file right out of the camera, and the D70 only shoots a 17mb file. So we have some waiting to do yet. The Canon 1DS MKII comes close to perfection, with smooth silky images that are easy to work with. But the price for that camera is out of this world. Worth waiting a few years until the price comes down.

 

Cheers,

 

Dave

[dave wyman]

>A true pro camera should shoot a 50mb file right out of the camera, and the D70 only shoots a 17mb file<

 

Oops, that must mean I've been using fake pro cameras for years! I better make sure the money I've made from any photos I've sold isn't counterfeit. ;-)

[eskoufos]

Sensor size is the key. The bigger the sensor, the better the image

Very similar with film: medium format is better than 35mm is better than APS.

As far as the glass goes, the Zeiss glass in the Sony cameras is very good, maybe a tad sharper (in my experience) than the 18-70 D70/D70s kit lens, but nothing like the Pro Nikkor glass...

[louisek]

all absolutely brilliant responses, thank you. As much as I would love to simply say that I am

right and he is wrong, whenever we get back into the megapixel arguement, it's so much

more satisfying having data to back it up . and on top of it, I learned a great deal. this forum

is a great thing. I wish I could contribute instead of just asking questions!

 

thank you

[louisek]

re: the Zeiss lens. I played around with the sony dsc 717 for a few years before I decided

to step up to the nikon d70s. Even though it was point and shoot, that lens was incredibly

sharp. Of course I couldn't get nearly the range that I can now achieve with the d70s, but

at times I miss the clarity of that lens. I realise that the 18-70 lens is only okay, the edges

are softer than what I want to achive in an image, so i will need to now step up and get

better glass. I want a crystal sharp-take everywhere lens for every day shooting and travel

situations. any suggestions? I did a small shoot at an event which was inside, sort of a

warehouse location, well lit and a lot of outside light. But some of the shots were

undexposed or had a lot of noise. I shot raw so I could go back after the fact. But my

thinking is that if I had a superior lens I would render better shots in these existing light

conditions. (lighting was not an option)

 

Louise

[lex_jenkins]

Dave Lee brings up a valid point.

 

P&S digicams and upper tier digicams with non-interhangeable zooms do indeed handle images differently from dSLRs. There's more in-camera processing going on.

 

This is advantageous to the photographer who doesn't want to be a slave to digital photo editing. I can plug JPEGs and TIFFs right out of my Olympus C-3040Z into a Frontier machine or Kodak dyesomthing printer and get excellent results. I set the in-camera sharpening to medium, contrast to medium and use auto white balance and auto exposure 90% of the time, and the results are excellent.

 

But my D2H photos require more effort, especially NEFs. And, frankly, it's a pain in the butt. That's why I usually shoot NEFs and JPEG-Fine versions simultaneously. I do as much in-camera processing as possible to minimize computer time. NEFs are a fallback when a JPEG doesn't come out right. Otherwise, JPEGs from the D2H can be printed directly with little or no tweaking. But to accomplish this I must shoot in one of the two sRGB spaces, crank in-camera sharpening to the highest or next to highest setting and watch the white balance, tone compensation and exposure very, very carefully.

 

So folks need to be aware of the essential differences in how photos are processed in the camera when comparing non-interchangeable lens digicams and dSLRs. For many folks a dSLR may be more trouble than it's worth.

[kelly_flanigan1]

dSlr buyers whine more, and create more warranty costs. They create dirty sensors thru lens removals, and are more sensitive to a stray hot pixel or noisy one. The P&S digital user is more carefree, and is a less burden for warranty costs, and whines less. dSlr users worry about their ancient lenses, being obsoleted, not having the latest rig. dSlr users dream of 200 dollar Full Frame bodies for their 1930's Exakta lens collections. P&S users sell their old Pentax and 1960's 135mm F2.8 on Ebay, and move on with life. P&S digital users often will be shooting an event, while a dSlr user is futzing around swapping out lenses. Cellphone camera users and Disposable film camera users shoot and ask questions later, and dont even know what the focal length or Fstop their rig has. A newspaper editor cares about the image, and the press deadlines, and doesnt have the time to worry about camera details.