Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 3, 2003, 10:08 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13
Default What MP for 8x10 typa thing?

If im looking at generally taking pictures at standard print size, but may occasionally print say portaits at a larger size, would a 3.2 MP camera do the trick? if anyone has a camera with a similiar MP could u post a link so i could check them out

PS. does anyone know where i can find comparisons of a film camera next to a digi camera, under all the same conditions with the same settings... i want to see of there is really a difference, it would help if the digital camera used was around 3MP but it doesnt really matter
Devatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 3, 2003, 10:26 PM   #2
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Well, this is an unfair comparison (because the 3 Megapixel D30 is a Digital SLR, using a much larger sensor than you'll find in a consumer model camera), but you may want to check out this one:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml

One of the advantages of film over digital (consumer models) is dynamic range.

However, in most lighting conditions, and at most print sizes, you're not going to notice the difference.

Here is a photo taken with a 2 Megapixel Nikon Coolpix 950, that I've printed many copies at 8x10" size. 3 Megapixels or more is recommended for better quality 8x10's though.

http://www.pbase.com/image/20951439/original.jpg
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 3:49 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

I think JimC makes a good point with his example. Faithful rendition of colour with low noise and good lighting, can more than make up for more megapixels, white balance errors, CA, JPEG artefacts from higher compression, excessive in-cam sharpening, auto ISO etc. VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 9:23 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 20
Default

If you donít want to make anything bigger than an 8x10 at photo quality, then youíll need a 4MP. You can make 8x10 with a 3.2MP, but it wonít be a photo quality.
iStudent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 9:53 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iStudent
If you donít want to make anything bigger than an 8x10 at photo quality, then youíll need a 4MP. You can make 8x10 with a 3.2MP, but it wonít be a photo quality.
Don't believe everything you read about what is, and what isn't photo quality.

I can remember Nikon advertising "Photo Quality" 11x14" prints using Genuine Fractals for interpolation at one point, from their 2 Megapixel Nikon Coolpix 950.

The difference between 3 and 4 Megapixels at 8x10" print sizes is negligible.

Of FAR greater importance, is the quality of the camera you're using, and your skill as a photographer. Look at things like Lens Quality, Image Processing Algorithms, Dynamic Range, JPEG Compression Quality, etc.

You can take terrible looking photos with a 5 Megapixel Camera, and great looking photos with a 2 Megapixel Camera, printed at 8x10" sizes. There can be a huge difference in the qualty of the photos between camera models.

I've printed 8x10's from cropped 2 Megapixel Images that people could not believe came from a Digital Camera -- much less a 2 Megapixel Digital Camera.

As a general rule, on an inkjet printer, 150ppi (pixels per inch) is plenty. On a Dye Sub, sometimes more is needed.

Unless you're using a magnifying glass, you're not going to see any difference between 3 and 4 Megapixels at 8x10" print sizes from a Digital Camera on a decent printer. You're getting approximately 200 pixels per inch from both (slightly less with the 3MP, slightly more with the 4MP).

In fact, in many cases, the 3MP camera may be better -- even from similiar models from the same manufacturer. Why? Some of the older 3MP models used sensors that are less dense (pixels/square inch). As a general rule, the larger the photodiodes used, the better the dynamic range. Smaller, denser sensors tend to have more noise, with lower dynamic range.

So, there are FAR more important considerations when selecting a camera for 8x10" prints, compared to resolution alone.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 9:57 PM   #6
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Ummmm

I have many 8x10's on my wall that were taken with a Nikon N80, a 2.1mp Olympus C2100-UZI, Dimage 5mp & a D30 3mp...I would bet that 99% of folks couldn't tell if they were made with either camera. BTW, the 3mp D30 takes the best images of them all.


3mp D30
  Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 10:03 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default Re: Ummmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalypso
BTW, the 3mp D30 takes the best images of them all.
I think he may have missed the link to the comparison between film and a D30 in my previous post. Here it is again:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_film.shtml

BTW, Kalypso, I really like your pics! I've admired them often in your forum posts.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 10:35 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 13
Default

Hey thanx for the help, the comparison page was awsome man, it was exactly what i was looking for. I did a little more research at the camera stores near my place and they are pretty much saying the same thing, ya just dont need the hi MP. I was considering the Fuji s5000, it looks like an awsome model, and it has all the features i want... anyone know anything particularely bad with it?
Devatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 11:27 PM   #9
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Thanks Jim &

The size of the sensor make a big difference in the quality of the image...one reason I went from a 5mp 7i to a Canon D30. You can read more about it here: http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
  Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2003, 11:36 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

While I pretty much agree with everything said I would add some different perspectives.

I ran across a very good test series a few months ago I should have linked. Unlike the Luminous Landscape tests that JimC linked it kept the film photos completely in the photographic process and compared the final large prints. Their conclusions were that ASA 100 consumer film like Kodak Gold is about equal to 6Mp and the fine grained Provia about 11 Mp. I would be suspicious of the film scanner or scanning skills in the LL article. There is a definite improvement from 3200 to 4000 PPI and a good drum scanner will do better than that. Even then the scanned film doesnít equal keeping the film completely in the photographic process.

A 3.2 Mp camera gives 192PPI with the best 8 X 10 crop you can get. The S5000 has a strange trait that both the EVF and LCD show only 89% of the scene. So if you frame perfectly you will have 11% to crop out to give the shot you took. That takes you to 170PPI which is still good. But if you donít frame perfectly and have to crop more you end up with a lower quality print as you can see the difference with a good photo printer below 180 PPI.

The Fuji S5000 evidently will not shoot lower than ISO 200, which makes for noisy shots. I think the Minolta Z1 and Oly 740 are better choices.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:05 AM.