ted_kostek Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Over on the Luminous Landscape Michael Reichman has a review of the new 8MP Canon SLR. I was most impressed by what he *didn't* discuss much: image quality. In an addendum, he wrote: "People shouldn't look for some dramatic change in this area. The real story with this camera is the shooting performance, not the image quality � which is terrific." It seems that image quality is levelling off. Sure, there are nits to pick about this one vs that one, but it seems that the worst of the digital tsunami may be past us. Having made digital capture so good, the newest models are beginning to differentiate and to compete on issues other than image quality. From now on, change won't be torrential, only fast. Responses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jespdj Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 A 3 MP camera has 50% more pixels than a 2 MP camera.<br> A 4 MP camera has 33% more pixels than a 3 MP camera.<br> A 5 MP camera has 20% more pixels than a 4 MP camera.<br> ... <p>So the relative difference becomes less and less. Yes, an 8 MP camera still has 33% more pixels than a 6 MP camera, but 6 MP is already more than sufficient resolution for pin sharp 8 x 10 inch or even larger prints, so you won't see much difference between 6 and 8 MP cameras unless you're going to enlarge more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Well, Reichman is comparing the 1DMII to the 1Ds, a full-frame sensor camera. The 1DMII will have dramatically more resolution than any DSLR Nikon currently offers. To again flog my pet peeve as a Nikon shooter, whither the D2x? I have never been impressed by the D1x for the money and, for my purposes, the D2h and D70 are non-starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 8 mp vs. 6 mp is about 15% increase in linear resolution, I wouldn't call it dramatic. Yes, let's hope Nikon comes up with the D2X soon. The question is, will it have more pixels than the current Nikon offerings? Will the image quality improve even within the small sensor size? Will there be colour problems with cramming so many pixels in such a small area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asher Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I "upgraded" from the 4 MP Olympus E-10 to the 3.2 MP Canon D30 and have enjoyed the obvious improvement in image quality, likely at least in part the result of acquiring the ability to select my lens, but also likely in part due to the larger size of the D30 sensor vs. the E10. Hardly a revelation; it's well-known sensor size has a major impact on image quality, and I still save on card size requirements. I used to crave a 6 MP DSLR; for my amateur needs/wants, no longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 <I>The 1DMII will have dramatically more resolution than any DSLR Nikon currently offers. </I> <P>Only a head to head test will prove the rightness or wrongness of that assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 C'monnnn, Ellis, larger chip and two more megapixels than any Nikon DSLR. Of course the Mark II will have more resolution than the current Nikon DSLRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_oliva Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Nikon (as well as Canon) was among the sponsors of the fourth International Symposium for Aviation Photography two weeks ago in Las Vegas. Canon gave a presentation on the EOS 1D Mk II. Nikon, during it's scheduled presention, instead of talking about hardware, surprised the group by having Joe McNally appear from the back of the room and give a talk about his recent National Geographic cover story on the centennial of powered flight. The other surprise, which is more relevent to this thread, is that Nikon will be introducing a DSLR later this year with a sensor size "north of 10 megapixel". The Nikon rep (there were actually 3 of them, not including Joe McNally) also said that nikon has no plans for a full-frame DSLR. Thought you might be interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark houtzager Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 I was impressed by the comparison between the 1Ds and the Kodak 645 back, see https://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-dcs.shtml I am looking forward to a similar head to head test of the 1DsMarkII and the Digital rebel / Nikon D70. Other than waiting for that test, the only thing that can be reasonably concluded from Reichmann's test is that the more expensive Canon is expected to last longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark houtzager Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 Sorry, that should have been 1DMarkII. Confusing, those Marks... Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric friedemann Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 "The other surprise, which is more relevent to this thread, is that Nikon will be introducing a DSLR later this year with a sensor size 'north of 10 megapixel'." Was the surprise that Nikon was finally going to introduce a camera that might come close to rivaling the resolution of the 1Ds, so long after the 1Ds was introduced, or that Nikon was going to wait until later this year to do it. What is a "surprise" is that even now, the "upgraded" 1Dx is still Nikon's highest-resolution camera at about 6.1 MP and that it cost $3,400. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_gifford Posted March 31, 2004 Share Posted March 31, 2004 There is more to this than megapixels, but as long as the rest of your argument is apples-to-apples then a comparison of pixel count can be a starting point for image quality discussions. By apples-to-apples I mean let's consider similar sizes for the image sensors, and similar lenses through which to gather and focus the images, etc. Okay... The resolution component of image quality is not a linear function, it is an area function. If you want to provide twice the resolving potential of a current camera, your "new and improved" model will offer twice the number of pixel rows and twice the number of pixel columns. Consider a 6MP camera with the typical sensor array of 2000 pixels by 3000 pixels. When you want to produce a camera that really seems to be a worthwhile upgrade from that one -- not just a bit better but a lot better as in "Oh God Help Me Honey Where is the Damned Visa, Hand Me The Phone!!!" ... you'll at least double the number of pixels vertically and horizontally, for a 4000 by 6000 array. Presto, a 24MP camera. And THAT is why you notice that the increases in image quality are no longer so obvious as they were in the early days of consumer digitl cameras. Have fun, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_chan4 Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 First it was the Canon vs Nikon film-based cameras. The die-hards all had their say then. You know the likes of F4s and the EOS 1. And the F5 and 1v. Then it was Kodak vs Fuji. Some swear by their Kodachrome and Elite chrome. Others with their Provia and Velvia. Now its back to D1x, D2H and the 1D MkII. Or whatever. Come to think of it, so long as I get my shot that settles it. Or perhaps its more fun to go fly fishing instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kieltyka Posted April 1, 2004 Share Posted April 1, 2004 Every D-SLR currently in production is capable of producing pro-level results in technical terms. Now it's up to us photographers to demonstrate that we're as good as our tools. Get to it. -Dave- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Remember when 640k of ram was enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Sorry, but 640 k was never enough RAM, except in Bill Gate's mind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 If you're Cartier-Bresson or Edward Weston, and compose every square inch of the frame then 5-6 megapixels are probably just fine. For me, (the klutz who snaps away and then badly needs to crop the picture into a coherent image), an increase in pixels (even the small increase from 6 to 8 MP) is VERY important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now