Mega pixels vs Lens quality

[mtk]

Hi all...I currently have a D70s. My lenses are 18-70 nikkor, 75-300 G nikkor

and a 18-200 Tamron XR.....I rarely enlarge past 8 x 10 and am happy with my

setup at this time.

However with the introduction of the D80, I am wondering if I was to

update..Realizing the D80 has 10 mp and my 70 has 6.1....I can(could) only

afford to update one direction, would you spend the $$$$ on more mp's

or "better" lenses?

Thanks! Mark

[phule]

Better glass almost every time.

 

There are very few compelling reasons for you to buy a D80 except to satisfy some sort of techno-lust. :)

[tom_jenner1]

Stick with what you're happy with. The only thing you really gain with the D80 is a little more cropping room since you rarely enlarge above 8x10.

 

I don't se how you can go wrong with investing in better lenses.

 

-Tom

[thomas_rutter]

Essentially you are looking at resolution of 3872 x 2592 vs a resolution of 3008x2000. That means the 10 MP camera has 29% more resolution as the 6 MP camera. That's a tiny amount - to get a doubling of resolution you would need to multiply the pixels by four. So in order to get double the resolution of a 6 megapixel you need 24 megapixel. 6016x4000. And if you got that 24 megapixel sensor any fuzziness with your lens will annoy you so much more.

 

On the other hand a lens can make all the difference, depending on how you use it. If you always use the sweet spot of the lens (f/5.6-f/8.0) then it'll be sharp whether it's a toy lens or top grade one. Professional lenses give you luxuries like faster apertures, and sharper images when wide open. As well as build quality. It translates into better performance in low light, both in terms of sensitivity and sharpness.

 

The 18-70 Nikkor is a nice sharp lens though at 18mm at wide open it's sharpness is only medium and it has a lot of light falloff. And it's 'only' f/3.5 to f/4.5.

 

The downside to a better lens though is the weight. You may find it more painful to carry around, if you like to take lots of photos on the move.

 

So to summarise:

The 6 megapixel to 10 megapixel upgrade is puny - you'll only get 29% more resolution. Go with a lens upgrade instead - get one with a wider aperture and which is nice and sharp and well built.

 

If a lens that is twice as heavy and four times as expensive doesn't appeal to you, take advantage of what you already have and try to make better photos.

[erik_loza]

FWIW: I have several 8X10's in my living room that were done with a D1H, which is a sub-3MP camera. In one case, the lens was an 80-200mm and in the other, my old-timer 55mm Micro. They were shot in JPEG FINE and native file size as around 6 megs. I can tell little difference in informaton between these prints and those from my 6MP D70s, or even the 8x10's that were printed from 20-30MB files off my film scanner.

 

A 6MP camera is capable of producing files with more than enough info for a really nice 8x10 print. I would agree with the others: Buy the D80 if it makes you feel better, but your current glass would be the only limitation. Best of luck.

[photo5]

Well I upgraded from the D70s to the D80 and am very happy with the improvement. It's important to remember we're not talking the identical camera with only more megapixels. The D80 is an entirely new camera from the ground up, new sensor, new in-camera processing, etc. Not to mention a much better viewfinder, bigger LCD, faster shutter release.

 

You have good lenses. If you are happy with your 8x10s then don't upgrade. The D70s makes stellar 8x10 enlargements. Also a "better" lens will run you more than a D80 body.

 

I loved my D70s, but the D80 simply blows it away. It is an amazing camera.

 

Dave

[nikos peri]

Better lenses is a good answer; also given your current set-up has major overlap for no particular reason. Get rid of one of the two (or both) zooms and get one cheap but very good prime like the 50mm f/1.8 or 85mm f/1.8<p>

That said, if your type of shooting is moving kids/sports/planes in action and you're missing a large chunk of shots thanks to the D70's pedestrian AF, absolutely a camera upgrade does alot more than satisfy gear-envy or pixel inflation.<p>

A D80 <i>is</i> a better camera, and not because of the extra pixels.

[vivek iyer]

The zooms you have will give better results on the 80 than the 70.

[leicaglow]

Mark, what I found when I bought a D200 is that older lenses that worked well on my film cameras, and even manually on my D50, displayed CA and purple fringing problems with the D200. I would probably work on the glass first, then the camera, and maybe by then there will be a body with even higher MPs. I've enlarged some shots with my D200 to 44x66" that looked amazingly good.

[marike1]

Rob wrote:

"There are very few compelling reasons for you to buy a D80 except to satisfy some sort of

techno-lust."

 

I disagree, as for me there are several reasons to upgrade.

1) Bigger, brighter viewfinder.

 

2) Lower High ISO noise. For me this is a big one. I upgraded from a D70 to a D200, but

part of me wishes I had gotten a D80 as Nikon appears to have addressed noise issues

with its release of the D80. In Phil Askey's review on dpreview.com, the D80 actually

edged out the Canon EOS 400D in his noise comparison. Haven't seen that happen in a

while, as the CMOS sensor seems able to produce remarkably clean images.

 

3) 8 X 10 (20 X 25 cm) from my D200 seem richer, with more pixel density.

 

These are improvements that should have a direct impact on image quality and usablity.

Of course, it's still up the photographer to use good technique, composition, etc.

 

That said, only you can if decide the above points are important enough for the type of

photography that you do.

[ShunCheung]

While I am sure that a D80 will give you somewhat "better" image quality over the D70s, if you are generally happy with what you have, I would stick with it and upgrade later. 6 months, a year from now, there may be something even better that can easier to justify an upgrade; if nothing else, the D80 will be cheaper then.

 

Now, if you are unhappy with the D70s, that would be a different story.

 

And generally speaking, I would spend money on lens first and body second unless you have a compelling reason to upgrade your body.

 

Also keep in mind that the D80 uses SD memory cards. The CF cards you have for the D70s are useless on the D80.

[Sanford]

An 8"x10", 300 dpi photo has the exact same file size whether you use a 10mp camera or a 6mp camera. This is the reason I feel my D50 may actually produce a better 8"x10" prints than my D80, especially at higher ISOs. The more sensor sites you cram on to the same size sensor, the worse the image, in my humble opinion. What you do get with the D80 is three extra inches to crop to get to a 10 inch print.

[larrybc]

mark kittleson , feb 09, 2007; 11:07 a.m.

<br>> I rarely enlarge past 8 x 10 and am happy with my setup at

<br>> this time. However with the introduction of the D80, I am

<br>> wondering if I was to update..Realizing the D80 has 10 mp and

<br>> my 70 has 6.1....I can(could) only afford to update one direction,

<br>> would you spend the $$$$ on more mp's or "better" lenses? Thanks!

<br>

<br>Well, considering that you're happy with your current results and lens range, I would recommend upgrading the body to the D80. You'll get a camera with faster AF, more flash control, and a bigger viewfinder. While they won't necessarily improve image quality, they will make your shooting experience much more enjoyable.

<br>

<br>Remember that there is much more to a camera besides its image quality. In the film days, people found many reasons to upgrade to better featured bodies, even though they all used the same "sensor."

<br>

<br>I rarely print larger than 5x7 but I am really, really enjoying shooting with my new D200 compared to my D70. Among other things, the bigger viewfinder is a real joy to use.

<br>

<br>larsbc

[greg s]

"I rarely enlarge past 8 x 10 and am happy with my setup at this time."

 

Then I'm not really sure why the need to upgrade. But it definitely should be with lenses, especially at the long end (200 to 300mm). Not sure how often you use the 300mm zoom, but a 300mm f/4 prime would surprise you greatly... as an example. Taking photos with the 75-300 G on a D70 or D80 will not yield an appreciable difference.

[photo5]

Further reading on this topic <a =href"http://blogs.smugmug.com/onethumb/2007/02/08/the-megapixel-myth-youre-getting-ripped-off/">Here</a>

[photo5]

Sorry I don't know why that link didn't work. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/2f2utq">Here</a> it is.

[bob_flood1]

I've had a D70 for a couple of years, and when considering a D80, I tried an experiment with a friend's D2X. Took the same shot on the same tripod using the same lens, same ISO, and all manual settings (exposure, focus). Even with a good lens, enlargement of the 12 mp image wasn't especially better unless I was planning to go to a very large print or use severe cropping. The lens was more limiting.

 

But the improvements in metering and autofocus may be more valuable. I haven't found a real benefit to the more sophisticated metering yet (I received a D80 for Christmas), but I haven't challenged it yet, either. The better control of autofocus really helps with wildlife - no real benefit for landscapes or close-ups. The value of these features depends on what you want the camera body to do for you.

 

No matter what type camera, the lens is what captures the image. So I have a question for you - when you crop and enlarge an image to its limits, what's the limiting condition - the resolution of the lens or the image's pixels become apparent? If you're lenses are good enough that you hit the pixels first, more pixels will be an improvement. If the limit of sharpness in the lens becomes apparent before you start seeing pixels, then invest in lenses. And I can honestly say that, in the most recent 60 years, I've never heard a photographer complain about a lens being too good.

[craig_gillette]

What do you feel is "missing" from what you are doing? Where, if any, are the trouble spots? Low light? Faster subjects needing responsive focus or longer focal lengths? Sports? Nature? Birds? Wides and landscapes?

[mtk]

Thanks for all the responses...All are thought provoking adn has made me evaluate whether I "need" to do anything at all. Obviously technology moves at warp speed and there will always be something bigger/better/faster. Easy to get caught up in hype (megapixels). Especially thank you for pointing out the real difference in resolution 6 vs 10...After reviewing my post sometimes it is nice to pull out the old "F" with the 1.4/50....seems refreshingly simple..Thanks again, Mark

[albert_smith]

<I>After reviewing my post sometimes it is nice to pull out the old "F" with the 1.4/50....seems refreshingly simple.</I><P>

 

Yes! It is nice to be able to use a 40-plus year old camera and not have to do anything different than you did from day one (other than more modern films if you wish) and produce images that are no less in potential than someone that just bought a brand new F6.<P>

 

With digital, 40 weeks is the line that separates the latest thing from a dinosaur. Yep, that old F looks pretty good sometimes.

[ellis_vener_photography]

You might find this useful in making your decision:

 

"Breaking the Myth of Megapixels", http://tinyurl.com/yw2n95

[thomas_rutter]

Moving from 6 MP to 12 MP sounds like you are doubling the resolution, but you're not. You are only multiplying the resolution by 1.414.

 

So, even stating pixel counts on cameras is misleading, as for example it may lead people to believe that an 8 MP camera is twice the resolution as a 4 MP camera. So consumers deciding between 6 and 10 or 5 and 8 are really only talking about a very minor increase in resolution and it would easily be outweighed by other factors of the camera.

 

It would be more appropriate to state the resolution like in video - by quoting the horizontal and/or vertical resolution or "lines of horizontal resolution". For instance manufacturers could say "This camera has a resolution of 3008x2000 compared to the A95's resolution of 2592x1944". It's a more realistic idea. Or, assuming that you'll always have square pixels manufacturers could just quote the vertical resolution. "This camera has a massive 2000 lines of resolution".

 

Not to mention that sensor size is also a factor - a 6 MP sensor that is 4mmx3mm will give very different results to a 6 MP sensor that is 24mmx16mm. Not that this is something you need to worry about with DSLRs because the sensor sizes are all good, but with compact digital it just seems ridiculous to me that people still judge between cameras based on pixel counts more than sensor size.

 

---

 

With regard to that above posted link, there was a serious flaw in that guy's methodology in that he took a 13 megapixel image and downsampled it in Photoshop for the 8 and 5 megapixel versions.

 

The Bayer sampling and interpolation that happens in camera will limit the effective full colour resolution, because each pixel needs information from its surrounding four pixels in order to arrive at a value. This means that an image taken on a 5 MP sensor won't look nearly as good as an image taken on a 13 MP sensor scaled down in photoshop, due to the limitations of the Bayer interpolation when taking a full res shot out of camera.

 

Even the "zooming and cropping" method shown on page 2 has its faults, because the sharpness of a lens (and other visible factors) varies at different zoom levels. To do the test you would need to use the same lens at the same setting, and just change the body, ensuring that all bodies have the same size sensor, but just different pixel counts.

 

Bottom line is that there is a difference between a 6 and 10 MP camera, but the difference is way less than the megapixel counts would have you believe. In practical terms, other than viewing zoomed 1:1 on your monitor, the difference is always meaningless other than when you are printing it out poster size at high resolution and even then most people won't be able to tell, even when the difference is more than a factor of 2 megapixels.

 

On the other hand, if you take a shot with two different lenses, the differences in quality may be immediately obvious to most people, even if printed really small or viewed at a small resolution on screen. This is because factors like light falloff, distortion and contrast/flare are immediately apparent and if you are pushing the lens to its limits, will be easily visible.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Here is digital image with a phase one scan back set to 1/2 the full resolution; ie only 3600x2500 pixels; ie 9 million over the 7x10cm scan area. Full res is 7200x5000 pixels over the 7x10cm scan area. The lens used is a "dog"; a lowly process camera lens. Yeah; the one folks say is only like a coke bottle for normal photography. This roughly 9 megapixel image is not to shabby; and is better than a cellphone cam.:) The 150mm F9 apo ronar was on a ww2 speed graphic. The out of focus stuffed dog has no weirdness. The scan is probably abit better than a 9 megapixel P&S digital for 250 bucks at wallyworld.<BR><BR>In this example the sensor is giant and a lens is not used at its maximum; thus there is design margin.<img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmFull.jpg?t=1171163016"><br><br><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmDOG.jpg?t=1171163123"><br><br><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmStones.jpg?t=1171163174"><br><br><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/150mmRonar/Ronar150mmWWVCLOCK.jpg?t=1171163229"><br><br>

[mtk]

Kelly....cool examples! I am STARTING to understand this MP thing....Amazing after two beers what you can comprehend....Not to start a whole 'nother thread here, but then where does all this MPixel talk put a camera like a D1H? only 2. whatever MP's, but yet that camera was a pro camera and expected the results to be published..Maybe magazine/press/news photos not requirements not as strict, or have the standards come up?

Mark

[kelly_flanigan1]

Mark;<BR><BR> Whats really interesting is that once a pro high end Nikon dslr was only 1.3 to 1.5 megapixels eons ago and cost many thousands of dollars.<br><br>The cellphone I got 2 1/2 years ago is a 1.3 megapixel device but is really no match to a 1.3 megapixel section of the Phase One or the ancient Nikon dslr!<BR><BR>Here is a Kyocera Koi 1.3 Mp shot downsized "full frame" and a cropped full pixel detail of the same image. The green cast is from crud on the phones viewport; which is like a weird filter. The "cameras" ablitity to grab detail is enough to read the brake drums max machining diameter on its casting. <BR><BR>Note with the cellphone there is not the smooth "film like" appearance of the phase one shots. One gets noise due to the dinky sensor, plus "camera movement" due to the handheld 1/29 second shot, plus the grunge effect of a typical dirty cell-cams viewport window.<BR><BR>These two examples are radically at opposite ends of the digital capture arena!<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TIREHUBsmall.jpg?t=1171218874"><BR><BR><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/TireBlowout/TIREHUBdetail.jpg?t=1171219121"><BR>