Will someone please explain to this die-hard film fan, exactly what a 12 megapixel camera will do? Highest resolution at what size? Or, what size will the image be at 300 dpi for print?
::heather malone
Commenting on this Forum topic is closed.
Creativebits is a blog about creativity, design and Macs. We also have a critique section where you can post your work to get opinions and a forum to discuss any design related topics.
If you need a logo for your company or product you can get it done with us.
In our logo store you can pick from over 28,000 pre-made logos that will be customized to your name for free or you can post a contest for us for just $250 and our designers from all over the world will submit dozens of logo design suggestions to your specific needs.
Consumer range 12 megapixel (or up) cameras will do next to nothing - apart from, potentially making an image of slightly worse quality (more sensors crammed into a smaller space, all competing for the same amount of light - more compression used to save the resulting jpg to a useful file size). I can't find the reference at the moment, but there are several places that say around the 6 megapixel mark is the sweet-spot, both for image quality and usage size (it blows up well to A4/A3).
Pro-end cameras may well offer more, depending on the camera, with higher resolution sensors giving more control over how you crop your finished image, what size it can be reproduced at, etc. However, even here, as with film cameras the ISO capabilities of the film (sensor) and the glass you are using count for far more.
Megapixels have been used as a lazy shorthand in the same way as processor speed has been used to sell computers - true to an extent, but nowhere near the whole story.
That was incredibly helpful. Thank you. I have a nice Nikon film camera that I use with fantastic lenses (the lenses I will end up using) with this digital camera my boss will purchase. Any thoughts on the Nikon D5000. I am a true believer that it's not the amount of features, but the artist behind the camera...
::heather malone
Take care about using the same lenses. New lenses are optimized for digital CCD. See about 'test driving' a new higher end lens. You should notice the improvement immediately on any computer monitor.
Without my sense of direction, I don't know where I'd be.
as far as how it will print at different MPs vs 300dpi, it really comes down to the pixels (and this is leaving behind the sensor quality issue raised above).
a 6MP image is approx 3000x2000 (my pentax 6MP digicam is 3008x2008). divide those numbers by the DPI you wish to achieve (300dpi as stated above) to get the max size it should print at (10" x 6.66").
here's a calculator that will tell you what resolution you get at each MP level.
http://web.forret.com/tools/megapixel_aspect.asp?mp=6 (defaulted to 6mp at that link).
12MP is 4240 x 2824, which equates to 14.1" x 9.41 at 300dpi.
the important thing to keep in mind as you research reviews is sensor quality matters more than megapixels. quite often two cameras will use the same sensor and one camera will pack 10MP into it while another will pull 6MP from it. the one that's pulling 6MP from that same sensor is likely getting better quality from the sensor. less noise/digital artifacts, sharper images, etc.
the whole "megapixel" blitz from advertisers is a hoax, on many levels (at least imo). very few people will print anything that needs to be shot at more than 6MP (consumers, for sure, i mean, how many of them are printing 24x36 posters of their pictures?). more MPs can be useful, for sure, but not when you sacrifice quality to get them.
check to make sure all of your lenses will work on the new digital body. i'm a pentax guy, so i don't know all the details for nikon (or canon), but i know that there were some issues w/older lenses on other systems not working. and you'll always have some issue with the lenses designed for film being designed for full-frame 35mm film. digital sensors are smaller, thus having a multiplier (most in the vicinity of 1.5X the lens length, making a 50mm lens the equivalent of a 75mm lens with 35mm film), and sometimes this can create some issues. i know pentax labels lenses designed for the 1.5X multiplier as DA lenses. not that the other lenses won't work, they just don't work as optimally as the ones designed for that sensor size.
This has been an amazing wealth of information! Thanks everyone. And, I certainly hope that my Nikon 70-200 2.8 will do well with any new camera I only got it a couple of years ago. Anyway, keep the information coming my way as this is an entirely new world for me and it can only help me to do my job better. Cheers!
::heather malone
The way you determine the actual finished size is to simply divide the pixels by whatever number you want to output. So let's say you want 300dpi output for your prints and your camera shoots at 4,288 x 2,848 pixels (approx. 12.3 megapixels) so your final size would be...
4288 / 300 = 14.3
2848 / 300 = 9.5
So the final size at 300dpi = 14.3" x 9.5"
So far as the film - you won't miss it. 35mm film has a lot of drawbacks in comparison to digital. You'll get better results with less work and less outside expenses. Quite frankly, I know longer consider 35mm film as "professional" quality. Depending on the shot - I can get better quality with my little pocket digital camera.
Anyone have any thoughts on the Nikon d5000?
::heather malone
Okay Mr. Art. D. Rector. Shame on you. There's nothing more magical than film. It's that moment in the darkroom where you see your image appear as you imagined it would. Yes, I understand by today's standards it's far less practical, however, with a digital camera, given an infinite number of tries, any chimp could get a great photo. It takes away the skill and the art.
::heather malone
Well if that's true - then the artist doesn't matter... only the film. I've spent plenty of time in that timewarp known as "a darkroom" - yes it's magical. It's also a dirty and smells kind of funky and takes quite a toll on the wallet. Digital was a godsend to photographers. Really.
Looks nice. I use Canon and I'm very happy with it. They're on the forefront of most sensor technology too, so that works to their advantage. But my photog instructor from college claimed that all the big name cameras were virtually the same (back in the film days, that is). There's really not much to a camera - it's a box that let's light in for a specific period of time. That's it basically.
Well, we have a full time photographer with nice equipment, however, when we get to shoots, I end up taking the pictures. So to free up his time to do other things, the boss is either offering to buy a Nikon body and me use my high quality lenses OR use her father's already existing Canon with whatever lenses he has (which I don't know what they are) ... any suggestions?
::heather malone
I would find a way to check the lenses with the body since some folks seem to believe there's a difference between the film lenses and the digital versions. There might be some shop in your town where they'll let you shoot a couple sample shots with one of your lenses before purchasing it. But overall, my suggestion is never make any business decisions based on saving a few dollars. That almost always makes the situation worse - instead of not having the proper camera and equipment, you end up with a camera you bought but don't like and still short on equipment. Just bite the bullet and do it the right way - pick out a camera and lens system that's going to work for the job at hand. It might hurt now, but it will pay off in the long run every time.
traditional film lenses dont work well, if at all with DSLR cameras. at least not the half dozen or so ive tried
i am also an old school nikon guy. but ive used a lot of higher end nikon as well as canon DSLRs recently and i GREATLY prefer canons now. most working photojournalists i know, agree.
I think Canon has an advantage because they're much deeper into the CMOS technology than Nikon. Canon makes scanners and all kinds of other digital equipment. My little Canon flatbed scanner did better line work than the $35K Scitex scanner at one of the local production shops.
that's not completely true, wgzn. it really depends on the camera and the lens. i have a 1.4 50mm that i bought for my film camera that is still my go-to lens on my digital camera. takes fantastic pics.
art's suggestion that you test them is a good suggestion. but really, you should be able to do some web research and find advice on specific lenses and probably even find test photos to look at.
Canon has test shots available on their website (or at least they did the last time I looked). Of course they're only going to post the best examples, but it does give you an idea of the color and quality - they had different sizes for each photo so you could see how the quality degrades (or not) as you go up and down the resolution scale. I found it helpful.
Canon also replaced a digital camera for me when the preview lcd died - AFTER the warranty had run out. Sent mine in (ostensibly to get it fixed) and they sent back a better model (refurbished - but still works great) because they were no longer selling my model. No charge other than the postage to send it to Canon. That's the one time I had to deal with the company - couldn't ask for better service.
Each colored box represents a certain number of mega pixels. The numbers along the top and left side are print dimensions in inches at 300ppi (pixels per inch). Most books and magazines require 300ppi for photo quality. For example, the chart shows that you can make a 5" x 7" photo quality print from a 3 megapixel camera.
Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixel required increases geometrically. You can make nice 8" x 10" prints with a 6 or 8 megapixel camera, but to make a true photo quality 16" x 20" print, you need between 24 and 30 megapixel. Don't be fooled by manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20" prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly can make a print that size, it will not be true photo quality.
Here's why:
1. A megapixel is 1 million pixels. It's an area measurement like square feet.
2. A typical 8 megapixel camera produces images that are 3266 x 2450* pixels.If you multiply 3266 by 2450, you get 8,001,700 or 8 million pixels.
3. To find the largest photo quality image you can print, simply divide each dimension by 300:
3266 / 300 = 10.89 inches
2450 / 300 = 8.17 inches
4. If you are not publishing your images in a book or magazine, and you're just making prints for yourself or your friends, you can "cheat". Good quality ink jet printers can make a nice looking print at 250 or 200ppi. At 200ppi, the maximum print size becomes:
3266 / 200 = 16.33 inches
2450 / 200 = 12.25 inches
5. If you know how to use image editing software like Photoshop, you can "cheat" even more by increasing the image size, and even doubling the number of pixels in the image. The quality of the camera and lens becomes more important at this point because any loss of detail or sharpness is magnified. If an image is enlarged too much in this manner, it will look "fuzzy" or "pix elated".
6.Typical Resolution. Actual pixel dimensions vary from camera to camera.
7.At 150ppi, printed images will have visible pixels and details will look "fuzzy".
macwareinc
macwareinc
actually, 300dpi isn't a hard and fast rule. it's a simplistic answer to a little more complicated question.
the real rule is 1.5 to 2 times the line screen. most offset printers use 133 or 150 line screen printer, so the safe number is 2 x 150, or 300. so anything more than 300 dpi is overkill. but on many printers, 225 (1.5 x 300) to 266 (2 x 133) is more than sufficient resolution to get a quality image.
There are other printers that use different line screens and other factors to consider (like what kind of paper it's being printed on), but 300 dpi is always the safest number to shoot for. that said, if you're talking with your printer and know what device they're printing on and know your papers, you may easily be able to print with a lower DPI with no loss in quality over printing with a higher DPI on that device/paper combination.
i would suggest a reading a really good book, real world scanning and halftones.
http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Scanning-Halftones-3rd/dp/0321241320
probably one of the best books i've seen for someone to read to really understand the issue.