Digital Camera Megapixel Questions
Most prosumer digital cameras are now 6 ? 8 megapixels. How do the sensors in these cameras compare in size, light gathering ability, resolution and noise to those found in Canon and Nikon?s 6 ? 8 megapixel DSLRs?
Canon, with the introduction of its 8 megapixel Digital Rebel XT, seems to have stolen a march on Nikon?s D70, D70s and the soon to be introduced D50, all of which are 6 megapixel. Given the quality of these DSLRs and their respective lens lines, are there any practical real life differences in the results from these DSLRs that can be attributed to 8 megapixel vs. 6 megapixel other than marketing hype?
Canon, with the introduction of its 8 megapixel Digital Rebel XT, seems to have stolen a march on Nikon?s D70, D70s and the soon to be introduced D50, all of which are 6 megapixel. Given the quality of these DSLRs and their respective lens lines, are there any practical real life differences in the results from these DSLRs that can be attributed to 8 megapixel vs. 6 megapixel other than marketing hype?
Comments
All of that says nothing about the DSLR's various other advantages: interchangeable and higher quality lenses being the other major difference between DSLR and P&S.
i'd say if you are looking at 6-8megapixel then you wanna go with a solid digital SLR body and some nice digital SLR lenses
sorry, just woke up, that's all me brain handle now
if you take a lot of pictures and edit and do stuff/work for other people, then 6 would be good prolly for you unless you want to spend the extra money and get 8. i would also recommend a cannon.. i have a canon and i love mine
Originally posted by ragingloogie
well, the better megapixels you get, the better picture quality you get and the bigger of a picture you can print out..
Basically, more megapixels=bigger pictures, that does not always= better pictures. The overall quality of the picture depends largely on the quality of the lens(es), sensors, whether there is any compression used on the camera, the light levels of the shot(digital cameras don't always take great pictures in every setting)and many other factors some of which are technical and I don't fully understand.
There are 2-3 Megapixel DSLRs from years ago that would produce a better quality picture than my 3.2 MP canon. Likewise, there are 3.2 MP canons that would produce a better quality picture than my 3.2 MP canon. Megapixels are not the sole qualifier for quality.
The best way to see this is to look at Cell phones these days. 1-2 Megapixels is becoming fairly common on phones in europe, japan and just now the states. But the picture quality produced by even the most top of the line 2 megapixel phone is still laughably 'digital' and crummy compared to any consumer range 2 MP camera. Yes, the picture is far superior to camera phones of yesteryear, and it is still adequate for vanity shots and such, but other than that, they are pretty dinky.
It is similar to Mhz. in computers. More Mhz. does not always mean it's a faster computer, and even if it did, it wouldn't necessarily mean faster at *everything* and even if it did, there are still tons of other factors that determine overall system performance and handling.
You have to compare A3 pics to see a difference. At A4 you will hardly notice big differences of details.
That's said, the rebel XT , deliver better images out of the box than the D70 (especially at 800 and 1600 isos), because the latter tend to be the better.
BTW, there is much more difference between a compact digital camera and a DSLR than between any modern DSLR.
I use canon cameras and love them.
With that said, most of the consumer point-and-shoots in the 5MP range are decent. I've tried Canons, Olympuses, and Sonys. There are all pretty decent but I think the Canons have the best user interface.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
If you can get a CMOS sensor, do.
What a difference a few years makes on that comment. 3 years ago I would have shuttered at the fact my camera would come with a CMOS sensor. Canon has lead the way in that field and it has paid off tremendously for them.
Occasionally, though I start thinking about a DSLR even though a few years back I got rid of my Nikon F3s and Pentax 6x7 because of their size and weight. The only two brands I'd be interested in are Canon and Nikon. I've looked at the D70 and Digital Rebel, but haven't seen the XT yet. I really liked the feel of the D70 and the range of the kit lens, but not the size and weight. The Rebel was lighter and smaller but seemed flimsy and the the range of the kit lens seemed skimpy. I guess I should check out the new XT.
One of the advantages of a DSLR would be interchangeable lenses. How sturdy are the lens mounts in the D70 and Rebel XT? How much of a sensor dust problem is there when one changes lens?
Originally posted by OldCodger73
I'm presently using an almost five-year old 3 Megapixel Olympus C3030, which I really like. It does great 4x6s and the few 8x10s I do are acceptable, where it falls down is in prints from extreme cropping. I really like the form factor of the C line and have my eyes on the latest reincarnation, the C7070.
Occasionally, though I start thinking about a DSLR even though a few years back I got rid of my Nikon F3s and Pentax 6x7 because of their size and weight. The only two brands I'd be interested in are Canon and Nikon. I've looked at the D70 and Digital Rebel, but haven't seen the XT yet. I really liked the feel of the D70 and the range of the kit lens, but not the size and weight. The Rebel was lighter and smaller but seemed flimsy and the the range of the kit lens seemed skimpy. I guess I should check out the new XT.
One of the advantages of a DSLR would be interchangeable lenses. How sturdy are the lens mounts in the D70 and Rebel XT? How much of a sensor dust problem is there when one changes lens?
Fist of all, image quality are not the same between a compact and a DSLR
: DSLR pic are more smooth like an argentic pic and have a huge potential for PS sharpening. Compact camera pics are more ready to print, but do not support much post processing sharpening.
At high iso, the difference is stellar
- the DOF (depth of field) of a compact is too imortant : it's nearly impossible to have a blurry background (read nice Bokey)
- The DSLR is very fast and reactive, the compact is not.
The dust issue really exist, but I own DSLR since one year, and I still have no problems
Don't think you can go wrong with either of Canon or Nikon DSLRs, both have defined a "digital" mount and are making lenses available for that sized sensor. EF-S for Canon, DX for Nikon, or 1.6x and 1.5x crop factors (respectively). Not to mention Sigma and Tamron now supporting this (APS-like) size.
In a few years sensor technology won't mean a thing, and there will be very little to distinguish any one company's sensors from another. The tiny Fuji F10 sensor shows just how much can be accomplished at that size. Scale up accordingly for DLSRs and just imagine the goodness to come...
So, if you own any Nikon or Canon glass, that should make the decision for you... can't go wrong with either system.
4/3rds is also interesting -- should Olympus be able to realize some of the early 'open platform' ideals of the 4/3rds concept. Panasonic is committed to a new body next year, as is Olympus to two new bodies. Others may follow...
Support for Pentax and Minolta is spottier, and I wouldn't get into either of those unless you already own a reliable film system from those companies.
Originally posted by Matsu
....
4/3rds is also interesting -- should Olympus be able to realize some of the early 'open platform' ideals of the 4/3rds concept. Panasonic is committed to a new body next year, as is Olympus to two new bodies. Others may follow...
.....
hey matsu can you shed some light on this 4/3rds deal with the olympus? wtf is that? and what do you think of their ultrasonic dust cleaner thingy?
Of note: The 4/3rds sensor is the smallest of the DSLR sensors in terms of surface area.
4/3rds (Olympus) 18x13.5mm = 243mm^2
DX (Nikon 1.5x) 23.7x15.6mm = 370mm^2
AF-S (Canon 1.6x) 22.2x14.8mm* = 330mm^2
*there's a bit of variation, some Canon APS sensors are a bit larger
What this means is that APS sensors are about 35-50% larger, or that 4/3rds has about 65-75% of the surface area of APS sensors. This is about a half a stop difference in light gathering potential. I once thought differently about it, but it may be negligible. Depends on the lenses.
One stop is the difference between f/2.8 and 4, 1/125s and 1/60s; half is less than that. Olypus' lenses seem to be about one to 1.5 stops faster than APS kit lenses of the same reach.
Right now, they're noisier than C or N digital at ISO 800 and up, but it may not be the physics, but rather the Kodak sensors that are doing that. Even the 35mm SLR/n is much noiser than the 35mm FF Canon, and the sensors in those cams are almost 4X larger than 4/3rds. Generally, the 4/3rds lenses should allow you to shoot faster with equivalent depth of field. The sensors are the weak link right now.
If more manufacturers come on line in '06/'07, then 4/3rds may look really good for consumers without ay legacy glass. Panasonic is coming in '06, Kodak and Fuji are both members of the 4/3rds consortium, and you'd have to imagine both are waiting to see if the market could play in their favor. If that happens, any consumer on 4/3rds would have the great advantage of being able to mix and match amongst bodies, lenses, and flashes from a number of manufacturers, with the explicit guarantee that all 'standardized' components will work together seamlessly.
That said, I would wait a while to see how 4/3rds pans out. Nikon and Canon are going to be actively supported for years/decades...
Originally posted by Matsu
Less depth of field can also be a disadvantage, what would Ansel Adams say?.
Yes greater depth of field is an advantage for landscapes and macro, but is nighmarish for portraits. With DSLR you have better bokey control, and you can choose to have great DOF if you stop down to F16 (at F22 sharpness suffer too much of diffraction). With a DSLR you have a DOF control button, something is totally lacking with any compact camera.
Originally posted by Matsu
Don't think you can go wrong with either of Canon or Nikon DSLRs, both have defined a "digital" mount and are making lenses available for that sized sensor. EF-S for Canon, DX for Nikon, or 1.6x and 1.5x crop factors (respectively). Not to mention Sigma and Tamron now supporting this (APS-like) size.
Right
Originally posted by Matsu
In a few years sensor technology won't mean a thing, and there will be very little to distinguish any one company's sensors from another. The tiny Fuji F10 sensor shows just how much can be accomplished at that size. Scale up accordingly for DLSRs and just imagine the goodness to come...
I am not sure, that there won't be any difference betweens sensors in the future. Companies can custom her sensors to have not so much pixels, but better highlights (like the Fuji S3), and less noise, while some others will be focused to have the maximum amount of pixels.
Originally posted by Matsu
4/3rds is also interesting -- should Olympus be able to realize some of the early 'open platform' ideals of the 4/3rds concept. Panasonic is committed to a new body next year, as is Olympus to two new bodies. Others may follow...
Support for Pentax and Minolta is spottier, and I wouldn't get into either of those unless you already own a reliable film system from those companies.
4/3 is interesting, but unfortunately are quiet noisy for the moment : 1600 sucks compared to Nikon D2HS or the digital rebel XT or EOS 20 D
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Yes greater depth of field is an advantage for landscapes and macro, but is nighmarish for portraits. With DSLR you have better bokey control, and you can choose to have great DOF if you stop down to F16 (at F22 sharpness suffer too much of diffraction). With a DSLR you have a DOF control button, something is totally lacking with any compact camera. ....
what is the f-stop range for a decent prosumer level nikon or canon dslr, let's say 6 megapixels? something like F2.5 to F16? this would be the range i would desire for good depth of feel control
edit:
also, what is the B mode like on the digital SLRs? or for that matter, say 6, 4, 2 second exposures? we know the 1/1000+ range is well covered depening on ISO sensitivity... but are there still problems with say shooting at night with several seconds exposure? or do the nikon and canon ccds hold up quite well at these lengths of exposure: edit: i mean say 2, 4, or 6+ seconds at ISO 100-400, ISO 800max...
Originally posted by sunilraman
what is the f-stop range for a decent prosumer level nikon or canon dslr, let's say 6 megapixels? something like F2.5 to F16? this would be the range i would desire for good depth of feel control
edit:
also, what is the B mode like on the digital SLRs? or for that matter, say 6, 4, 2 second exposures? we know the 1/1000+ range is well covered depening on ISO sensitivity... but are there still problems with say shooting at night with several seconds exposure? or do the nikon and canon ccds hold up quite well at these lengths of exposure: edit: i mean say 2, 4, or 6+ seconds at ISO 100-400, ISO 800max...
On a DSLR camera : the range of a good zoom is from F2,8 to F22 (but forget this last one)
On a compact camera , the range is from F2 to F8. The range is much smaller. The limiting factor is diffraction. Small photosites are more prone to diffraction than large ones.
There is no problems with shooting at night, with DSLR (and in general any digital camera), sensor react in a rather linear way in very low light condition compared to argentic film. Some DSLR camera, have a noise reduction mode, that is basically a black extraction : the pic first take a dark shot, to figure where is the noise, then it take the shot, and made a soustraction between the black shot and the normal one, to suppress some noise. This feature do not exist on all DSLR cameras
I'm not entirely sure anymore that 4/3rds is inherently limited, though I used to think so. But they have some interesting stuff in the 4/3rds paradigm. The 'open standard' idea, not really open, but defined so as to make sure that all cameras, lenses and flashes from any manufacturer making 4/3rds equipment works perfectly.
At lot of considerations equal out when you consider that you can shoot about 1 stop faster and have equivalent depth of field (so long as you have the lenses) and with their upcoming f/2 zooms, you will have the lenses.
Right now the Kodak sensors that they use are not up to the standards of Nikon/Sony or Canon, but that seems to be true at all of Kodak's 35mm and under FFT sensors. Just look at the ISO performance of a Kodak SLR/n/c vs the Canon 1DsII.
As for sensor technology, perhaps I should rephrase. No one sensor manufacturer will really have any clear advantage overall. Different sensors will be available for different tasks/markets -- ie lower res, high speed, high res, low ISO, more flexible moderate speed, moderate resolution, etc etc... Yes, that's true, but neither Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, or Sony will hold any appreciable advantage in sensor design ere long, or for long when/if they do. That's just the nature of technology -- especially one that's bound to be highly commoditized.
I say this for the benefit of people looking for the best 'sensor' to define the best camera system. The lenses are more important, buy the system that you already know, or failing that, buy the one that offers the lenses you like at the prices you can afford. The sensor will change, and even the best of today's tech will look like the entry level in 5-6 years. Lenses, however, will limit overal resolution somewhere between 12-30MP depending on the lens.
but holding on to essentially well-made GLASS is still the important thing, at least in photography...