Do pixels matter?

[steven_.]

<p>Can I expect image quality with a D600 to be better than a D300 at 10x15" enlargements all other variables being equal?</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Yes. You will enjoy improved dynamic range, color range, significantly less noise and more detail at high ISOs.</p>

<p>You can download some comparison files here and check out the differences for yourself:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/28</a></p>

<p>You will need to select the D300s (D300 is no longer available) and the D600 manually. I suggest you download RAW files and process them as you would normally process your files before making any comparisons.</p>

<p>Based on my experience with the D800 vs the D3, you will likely notice IQ improvements even with much smaller sized prints.</p>

[barryhaugen]

<p>Steven,<br>

Do a quick search for the MegaPixel Myth by Ken Rockwell. He is a respected writer and professional photographer. Granted the myth paper is a few years old now but the jist still applies. Food for thought with the D600 shooting in DX your image area is 3936x2624 the equates to an image at 200dpi of 19.75"x13" and with the D300s at an image area of 4288x2848 @ 200dpi is 21.5"x14.25". Unless your doing gallery sized prints I couldn't justify doubling the cost of the D300s just for a the difference in megapixels. Granted the D600 has other features that make it worth the money.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>All other things being equal, more pixels gives you better image quality with large prints - where the size of the print is done at 300 dpi ... with the D300 you are printing a 10x15 at less than 300 dpi, with the D600 you are can print a 13x20 print at 300 dpi</p>

[mike dixon]

"He is a respected writer and professional photographer. "

 

He is respected as a marketer who's great at driving traffic to his site by saying whatever will get people talking. His writing should be taken as entertainment, not as an authoritative perspective on photographic issues.

[tom_mann1]

<p><em>"...by Ken Rockwell. He is a respected writer and professional photographer..."</em></p>

<p>My prediction is that in less than an hour, this statement will not only be challenged, but will likely stir up a hornet's nest of responses.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>Never mind. As I was typing my response, Mike started the ball rolling.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I think a better comparision would be a D600 to the similar D7000. The question then becomes, "Since the D600 is twice the money, is it twice as good?"</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<blockquote>

<p>He is a respected writer and professional photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As respected as M. Howard, L. Fine and S. or C. Howard? I don't think so.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>As respected as M. Howard, L. Fine and S. or C. Howard? I don't think so.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither do I. Those guys were legends, and they have inspired me since I was four years old.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>The problem is with saying that "<em>all other variables being equal</em>" - since they never are equal.</p>

<p>I would tend to say that more pixels is better, if pixel quality is equal, but that never happens.</p>

<p>I am still out on search for some reasonable definition of "pixel quality".</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>A D300s image at 300 dpi is 9.49 x 14.29 inches (4288 x 2848 pixels). I print them at 13 x 19, 219 dpi, with a Canon i9900 often and they look great.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Frank S.</p>

<p>More pixels, as such, don't matter after about 6M in these print sizes. But as you specifically match a D300 against a D600, chip-era, rather than chip pixel count, will give 'better' prints for the reasons outlined above.</p>

<p>10 x 15 inches at 200 dpi is 6M, at 300 dpi it's 13.5M. To use 300 dpi at that size <em><strong>might</strong></em> be seen as over-kill, but if given a choice, I'd use a D600, if I didn't need 8 FPS...:-)</p>

[jazzphoto]

<p>Hi, I'm probably the least qualified here to contribute a response as I am an amateur, not a talented professional, but here goes: Technical improvements over the years have certainly improved the image quality attainable with Dslrs.<br>

Will this be reflected in your prints? It depends on how good you are now, the type of photo etc. A simple answer is just impossible to give without knowing what you shoot, in what conditions you shoot, and what post processing you do. All these other elements have the potential to be more important for the final image quality than the camera used.<br>

You can see for yourself browsing the galleries on this site. there are a large amount of amazing artists here. Many produce astounding work with "lesser" cameras (e.g. D90 Eos 50D). Of course in some cases more pixels are better (e.g. landscapes) but are you using a sturdy tripod etc. etc. to actually maximize the camera's potential?<br>

In short, more pixels may be better, depending on technique, subject matter and your proficiency. A shitty photo will be the same at 2 MP or at 30 MP.<br>

Fred</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>I was just about to raise a similar topic when I saw this one.<br>

It seems to me that pixels can be important for professionals, who will likely print much of their work, and may be called on to produce big enlargements.<br>

However for most amateurs, I'd guess 90% or more of their photos only ever get seen on a screen. Considering that even a good quality screen is less than 2 megapixels then surely you're not going to notice the difference in resolution.<br>

For me the extra pixels would however mean that I could crop more often without losing too much quality. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>Frankly, I am surprised at some of the comments here. There is no doubt pictures will look better from the D600 over the D300 at just about any size. The D600's sensor is vastly improved over the D300. A lot of improvements have been made to sensors since the D300's release about 5 years ago.</p>

<p>The D600 is about 2 1/2 stops improved over the D300 in the noise department as a direct results of an improved sensor and more megapixels. (The higher megapixel count help in improving print quality even in smaller prints through downsampling - the net result is higher resolution and lower noise.) I found the D300 noisy at everything but the lowest ISOs.</p>

<p>The D600 has a 2EV advantage over the D300 over its entire ISO range. The D600 gives excellent picture quality even at extreme ISOs such as 12,800. This is a noticeable difference in prints at all ISOs.</p>

<p>The tonal range is also vastly improved - if the D600 is anything like the D800 (which apparently it is, skin tones and overall color is noticeably improved over the D300 throughout the ISO range, and will be especially noticeably at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>You can view more comparison images here:<br /> <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</a></p>

<p><em>"The problem is with saying that "all other variables being equal</em><em>" - since they never are equal."</em> Why not? I always keep them the same when I am doing comparison shots - what is so hard about using the same lens, same ISO, same aperture and shutter speed on the same subject? Keeping all the variables equal is the only way to create a valid comparison test.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I know that an 8 x 10 shot with 6MP and 12MP looked the same with both</p>

<p>I suspect a 10 x 15 shot with 16MP and 24MP will be the same too. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>If it was pixel count that mattered, we should be comparing the D3200 and D7000, as the same sensor size and similar vintage. The D600 should produce better results than the D300s, but partly because sensor technology has moved on and partly because it's got a sensor that's 2.25x bigger at the same f-stop. Match the effective focal length and DoF, and (mostly) only the sensor vintage/technology advances will matter - but it'd still be better. Assuming you have FX lenses, of course.<br />

<br />

However, if the actual question was "should I upgrade my D300s to a D600", the answer may not necessarily be "yes", depending on whether you want reach, high-end autofocus and frame rate (and DX lens compatibility). The D600 is not a direct D300s replacement. There may, at some point, be a "D400" which <i>is</i> a more obvious high-end DX camera, but, while the D600 has many advantages over the D300s, it has a few disadvantages as well.</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"</em><em>I suspect a 10 x 15 shot with 16MP and 24MP will be the same too."</em> If you had two identical sensors, one 15mp and one 24mp, and made 10 x 15 prints, you would likely not see a difference. The D300 is 12mp, not 16. The D300's sensor is very different from that of the D600.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>> Frankly, I am surprised at some of the comments here. There is no doubt pictures will look better from the D600 over the D300 at just about any size. The D600's sensor is vastly improved over the D300. A lot of improvements have been made to sensors since the D300's release about 5 years ago.<br>

There is no doubt the sensor has been vastly improved and is larger (D300 vs D600), but this does not necessarily mean pictures will look better. Mind JPEG shooters almost never see the 2 1/2 stops DR improvement at base ISO because in-camera processing doesn't let it thorough; while there is a huge difference for those that shoot NEF in harsh light and develop in LR4. There has been some improvement at higher ISOs, but not as considerable as the difference due to the sensor size among same-generation sensors. Pixel count matters when printing <em>very</em> large or cropping <em>heavily</em> - but if the lens and technique does not provide extra sharpness, the difference boils down to less quantisation artifacts. There will be a considerable share of users which will never see much of the advantages but will suffer slower processing of images.</p>

[orcama60]

<p>Guys, the OP had a question and we should focus to answer him not to talk about Ken Rockwell or your personal opinion about this person, why don't you keep your personal opinion about somebody for yourself or why don't you have the courage to talk to Ken directly about what you think about him ? <br>

Steven, yes you will be able to print 10 x 15 with the D600.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>I'm with Elliot on this one. The point isn't the resolution, which both D300 and D600 have enough for this print size (*). It's dynamic range and better high ISO that can make a significant difference.<br>

At the same time, personally I never felt limited by the dynamic range of my D300, and the need for high ISO performance depends on the style of photography one has. So, the answer is the same as always: it depends...<br>

__<br>

(*) Calculating back to dpi is nice, but negates the effect that large prints are usually seen from a larger distance. I had a 16"x 24" print from a D50 that looked fine from a normal viewing distance. Up close it would sure have been a nicer print wit more pixels to get started with.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I disagree that the dynamic range difference between a D300 and D600 can make a significant difference in a print. With a properly exposed shot made by a capable photographer, I will bet that the 10 x 15 from one will be nearly indistinguishable from the other. Please... someone... <em><strong>prove</strong></em> otherwise...</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Peter: That depends what you call "properly exposed". The dynamic range difference can allow you to capture a much larger range of brightness in one image, then map it to a printable range afterwards. (Whether you call this "HDR" depends on your opinion of the kind of thing Ansel Adams did for most of his career.) Sometimes there's no way to fit a capture inside a single shot.<br />

<br />

As with most of Ken's posts (I've exchanged emails, I respect some of his expertise, I do not enjoy his tendency to state out-of-context opinions as fact in a way that can confuse people but his site can be entertaining and, used carefully, informative) there's a lot of assumption in the megapixel myth article. 2MP is plenty if you print a 30x20" poster <i>and view it from a long way away</i>. Print a 30x20" poster and try to stand close - for example because you want the immersive experience captured by a wide-angle lens - and you can run out of 12MP quickly. I've done that, with my D700, and - in addition to the ability to crop - that's why I now have a D800. Is the jump from 12MP (D300s) to 16MP (D7000) significant? Probably not very. Is the jump from a D300s to a 24MP D600 significant? Much more likely. It's roughly the difference between 720p and 1080p HDTV, for example (though not if you're viewing it on a screen that has one of those resolutions as native).</p>

[barryhaugen]

<p>As in typical Photo.net fashion my comments are taken out of context. My point has nothing to do with your personal opinion of a particular author or photographer. MegaPixels are Length X Width nothing more nothing less. A bigger area does not equate to better quality, it just allows for bigger prints. You do not get better dynamic range or higher ISO from area. You get better dynamic range and higher ISO from better sensors and processers. A modern 2MP camera with the latest CMOS has a better quality and more dynamic range then a 2MP camera from 10 years ago. The image size is still the same length & width. Dpi on the other hand does effect image quality. The higher the dpi the better the image looks at close view distance. What most people forget is dpi is limited to the MP of the image they are trying to print. For instance the D300s is a 12.3MP camera, it only has 12.3 million pixels of information and the dpi is how tight those pixels are grouped or distributed. If you plan on viewing an image at 8-10 ft you can use less dpi but if you plan on only being 8-10 inches you need higher dpi resulting in a much smaller print. </p>