Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 1, 2011, 6:20 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Streets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Euless, Tx.
Posts: 933
Default

If your presentations of those five photos were meant to prove something, I fail to see the point you were attempting to make. Please enlighten me.
__________________
Sony A57 with 18-55 kit lens, Sony A200 and Sony H70
50mm f3.5 Minolta Maxxum macro
24mm f2.8 Minolta Maxxum
100-300mm Minolta Maxxum APO Zoom
70-300 Sony apo G SSM Zoom
Streets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2011, 11:40 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,296
Default

Now that it only takes the click of a mouse to zoom in to whatever you desire, 100%, 200% or more, people are going to notice the differences from their 6mp camera to their new 16mp camera. You think our DSLR's have gone mad, there's a new medium format camera back that's 80mp.
http://www.leaf-photography.com/

I don't have a problem with it as long as they control noise and the price. It does make it easier to make large crops if you need to. Why question or get frustrated with the technology? Just enjoy it and try not to spend too much.

Have you ever heard of Moore's law? Check it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 1, 2011, 11:57 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

This Moore guy seems pretty accurate on his predictions. I wonder who his pick is for the super bowl?

The huddled masses are generally easily impressed, and I guess pixels impress. Like Streets, I am getting along just fine with 10, I would never upgrade my camera based on megapixels. At this point, I like lenses better as an upgrade. When my Sony A300 dies, I will get another Sony. Maybe by then they will have all the current issues sorted out.
__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

My Flickr
-Robert-


Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2011, 3:08 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Posts: 2,296
Default

I too Robert have no problems grabbing my 6mp 5D to go out and shoot with in most cases. In fact when it turns on and actually works I find myself using that camera with the Sony 18-250 more then my A700 and G lenses.

I am saving my money to buy the A77 when it becomes available. The rumors keep getting better and better. The last rumor I heard was 24mp.

As for Gordon Moore's super bowl pick??? Great thought though.
__________________
A-mount
E-mount
Canon S95
lomitamike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2011, 5:24 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Hawgwild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pensacola, Florida
Posts: 3,547
Default

My first digital camera was a canon s200, 2 mp. In September of 2004, Hurricane Ivan laid waste to my part of the world, and afterward, I got out and photographed the damage. When I look at thos pics now, I am amazed at the clarity, as long as I am viewing them on the computer. When I zoom in to 100% or greater, then I notice the shortcomings of fewer pixels. But for standard print sizes up to 8x10, I really think quality is a function of the lens, more than pixel count. I have a promaster manual focus lens that will give me crappy pictures no matter HOW many pixels I throw at it!
__________________
Always use tasteful words - you may have to eat them.
You cannot find knowledge by rearranging your ignorance.

My Flickr
-Robert-


Hawgwild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2011, 11:15 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 2,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawgwild View Post
My first digital camera was a canon s200, 2 mp. In September of 2004, Hurricane Ivan laid waste to my part of the world, and afterward, I got out and photographed the damage. When I look at thos pics now, I am amazed at the clarity, as long as I am viewing them on the computer. When I zoom in to 100% or greater, then I notice the shortcomings of fewer pixels. But for standard print sizes up to 8x10, I really think quality is a function of the lens, more than pixel count. I have a promaster manual focus lens that will give me crappy pictures no matter HOW many pixels I throw at it!
My first camera was a 1.3MP Pansonic camera that used 120MB supper floppy discs. I still have pictures from that camera on a DVD. I even photographed the coming of and after damage of a 2003 Hurricane Isabel with that camera. For its time it was a nice camera with large memory card just which it had more battery power -- we lost power for 3 days and the battery and spare died and had to wait to recharge them. As long as I am looking at the images on a computer screen or print them at 5 x 7 they look good to me..... but like you said when you zoom in at 100% or greater or try to make bigger prints you see the short comings of the pixel count.

dave
Photo 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2011, 9:09 PM   #17
Member
 
bella's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 62
Default

I agree, if you are only printing small it is fine, it doesnt really matter how many MP they have.
I have found the greater the megapixels in the camera, the better quality image I get.....but in saying that, thats only for when I do large format work, with this im talking large billboards, advertising work etc.
With a decent printer, you can use low megapixels and print a photo on very large canvas, that is only because canvas is very forgiving.

I can remember back when, I had a 32mb card, and a 16mb as backup, and that was a HUGE amount of space
bella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2011, 11:10 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 516
Default

Point being that earlier cameras, with less mp, with poorer performance do not do as well as the newer ones. Earlier photos could not be enlarged to 8x10 as can be the newer ones...from cameras with higher mp. I could, I suppose, if I wanted to make it a impressionist painting.
lisalonewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 4, 2011, 11:18 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 516
Default

The original of the last pic is 6.05 mb. I can enlarge and print a small part of that without a problem.
The one here is 409 kbs which is a big difference...needed to be smaller to download to the board. THAT is why the photos here are so small!
Do I want to make them into billboards, no, poster size, maybe. So, yes, more mp could be useful.
lisalonewolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5, 2011, 6:24 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

I took a photo of my wife at a Dressage competition several years ago. I took it with a 3MP Nikon CoolPix 880. I cropped it to about 2MP, and printed it at 8x10. It hangs on a wall in my dinning room next to a similar 8x10 photo that was taken by a professional using a Nikon film SLR.

You need an eye loupe to tell which is the digital photo.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 12:08 PM.