 - Sherry Stricklin Boles  Contact Sherry Stricklin Boles Sherry Stricklin Boles's Gallery |
Megapixels: Are They Worth the Money? I have thought about upgrading in the future, but I can't decide if megapixels are really worth the money. I'm not a pro and haven't yet printed anything over a 4x6 (although I would like to in the future). Would it be worth the money to upgrade to more megapixels? Would more megapixels improve my smaller prints or should I just shoot at higher resolution? Also, is there an improvement to what can be seen on the screen using higher resolution? I've tried and haven't been able to notice... Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
Hello Sherry, Your question depends on a few criteria. 1) What do you want to upgrade to? (i.e) from 6 to 8? 8 to 22? 2) Are you upgrading from a "digicam to a SLR? Most prosumer SLRs are now in the 6 to 12 MP range, at least the ones that don't require we sell our first born. LOL. An 8 MP digicam cannot hold a candle to a 6 MP SLR. Going from a 6 MP SLR up to 8 will really not yield that much difference. Now from 8 to 12 will show a marked increase in resolution, color rendition etc. ...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephanie M. Stevens |
There are a lot of things to consider besides megapixels when you are looking to buy a new camera. For example, what other features does the camera have? Will you be able to exploit all the features of a pro level camera or would you be better off with something easier to use? Is it practical for you to have a bulky camera with lots of features, or should you be looking for something that can fit in a purse or pocket? You can get small, consumer cameras that are easy to use and have great resolution, if that's what's right for you. It's something everyone has to figure out for themselves, just make sure you aren't buying a camera based solely on MP numbers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Sherry Stricklin Boles Contact Sherry Stricklin Boles Sherry Stricklin Boles's Gallery |
Thanks a lot for your responses, Pete and Stephanie. Right now I am shooting with a 3.2MP (Minolta Dimage Z10, my first digital camera). Unfortunately, I feel limited, at times, by its capabilities. When I print pictures, the photos do not turn out nearly as well as I expect them to turn out (sometimes that is the fault of cheap quick printing), but I would like to have the option to print larger size prints. Also, I am frequently disappointed by what looks great in the viewfinder and awful on the computer. Do more megapixals and/or higher resolution increase sharpness when dealing with smaller size photos (such as 4x6 or 640x480)? I hate to ask such elementary questions, but I have just never had these things explained to my satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Keith Valencourt |
I'm no pro, but I've extensively used an Epson PhotoPC 850z (2 megapixel)since 2000, and within the last half year an Epson PhotoPC 3100z (3.2 megapixel.) Both of these, by the way, have an unusually wide range of manual settings to give you a great deal of control, if you need it, and unusually good optics. With the 850z, I've gotten great results when printing up to 8.5 x 11.0 (which I can do with my Epson Stylus 1280 printer.) Although a pro would recognize the slight loss of quality (absolute sharpness, for example), your average viewer would not. And really that's the bottom line. If you're taking photos to please the pros, by all means upgrade to the Canon Digital Rebel. But I've had great results with high quality 2 and 3 megapixel cameras. Especially when you're going to be printing nothing bigger than 4x6's, what you need is a camera with high-quality optics and processing chip--regardless of the megapixels. At the other end, you'll need a high quality printer, like the Epson 1280. To answer your question, I suspect that if you purchased an 8 megapixel camera, took 2 identical photos with it--a 2 mp photo and then an 8 mp photo--and then printed a 4x6 of each of the two, you would not be able to tell the difference (regardless of what a pro might legitimately say.) That's a test that you might be able to do at your local Wolf Camera Mart.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kurt Hawkins |
Hi Sherry , I too have a Z10 camera and was pretty happy with it until I got here and started see all of these clear and highly detailed 6 and 8 megapixel cameras. And while I want and could probably afford a better camera I can't warrant it at this time because
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Your existing camera of 3.2mp is capable of printing good quality prints (from a Lab) up to 22.3 x 15cm (8.8 x 5.8 inches) @ 250dpi. Or... maybe your "desktop printer" is lousy and extra pixels in camera are not going to make any difference to your printed quality (unless you use Lab developing). When you said it looks no different on-screen... this is because your editing software will auto-fit your picture to fit your screen size.... and all screen sizes display images at 72dpi. Of course you will see very little difference, unless of course you begin to zoom in (then it will be noticeable). As for your question: are more pixels better?... generally speaking "yes" (but other factors also come into play in this area which are too complicated to answer here).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jennifer Berndt |
I have always been told to shoot at the highest resolution that the camera offers. Then print some pictures at mpix.com and see the quality difference. It's better to shoot at the highest resolution and be able to enlarge your print, then shoot at the resolution that will hold more pictures and not have very good quality when you get that shot you want.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Jennifer is right. Always shoot at your highest resolution. Digital being digital, you can throw away unwanted shots. Better safe than sorry.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kurt Hawkins |
I agree w/ Roy and Jennifer , shoot on the highest resolution you can and take multiple shots of your subjects. This way you can delete or crop your photos later. I upgrade my sd card to a 512MB so I can take more phots without stopping. I often will shot 20 or 30 photos of more difficult shots so I have more choices and chances of getting a keeper.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Sherry Stricklin Boles Contact Sherry Stricklin Boles Sherry Stricklin Boles's Gallery |
Thanks to everyone! Your responses are very helpful! Kurt, I am going to take your advice and push this one as far as I can...I can't afford to get the one I really want anytime soon, I'm afraid :( However, I have started shoot at higher resolution and have noticed some improvement. Thanks again!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Megapixels aren't everything, but pixel count does mean something. However, the QUALITY of pixels is as important as the quantity, as I'll explain later. But first, a little about pixel QUANTITY. If print quality is important to you, then you want to shoot in the highest resolution mode available (on your camera it's 2048 x 1536), and at the lowest ISO speed that is practical (your camera will go as low as ISO 50, but ISO 100 is probably an all-around better choice unless you're shooting from a tripod). You'll obviously get your best shots in daylight or using flash. When it comes to printing, a good rule of thumb is that prints look superb when printed at or above 300 ppi (pixels per inch), good at or above 250 ppi, and fair at or above 200 ppi. You can determine how big that is by dividing your camera's horizontal and vertical pixel resolutions by those numbers. With your camera, your 300 ppi image equates to a 5x7. If you try to go to 8x10 you're decreasing your pixel density to around 200 ppi, resulting in a fair image... roughly equivalent to a 35mm ISO 400 print. Re your screen images, note that you are seeing every single pixel. If your camera cannot resolve enough detail then the image will not look good on the monitor. I find that prints that adhere to the 300 ppi rule generally look better than the on-screen image suggests. Now, a little about pixel QUALITY. All pixels are not created equal, and two cameras with the same megapixel count can differ greatly in picture quality and resolution. First, if pixel count is equal, the larger sensor will provide better resolution and a better picture. That's why a 6 MP dSLR with an APS-sized sensor will produce a much better picture than a 6 MP digicam with a sensor that is only a quarter the size. This is because the individual photosites (pixels) on the sensor are smaller, less sensitive, and more susceptible to electronic noise that degrades the captured image. Second, once you start getting above a certain pixel count, image quality diminishes. Most 8 MP digicams don't provide any better of a picture than a 6 MP digicam. Sure, you have more pixels, but the pixels capture less detail, so the end result is the same... a 250 ppi image from that 6 MP digicam is as sharp as the 300 ppi image from the 8 MP digicam. So, if you want to step up to a better image-making camera, step up from a digicam to a an interchangeable-lens dSLR with an APS-sized (or larger) sensor. And finally, while I shoot with a camera that nominally has 3.4 MP of photosites (Sigma SD10), the unique design of the Foveon sensor captures all three primary colors at each photosite (unlike conventional Bayer sensors, which only capture 1 color at each photosite). Here's a true indicator of pixel QUALITY: my 3.4 MP Sigma will out-resolve a 6 MP Nikon or Canon dSLR, because there's more to images than pixel quantity.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
The idea that 300dpi and above will give better picture quality than 250dpi is a total myth. In fact the notion of 300dpi being a "magic" number also is a myth and was invented in the days when most "colour printing" (in the print industry) was printed at 150 lines per inch. 300dpi was the safest, rounded off number to tell to the public (and easiest to remember) but the real ratio of dpi to output resolution was approx 1.3. I know this for a fact as I conducted my own tests one day when I had access to a $100,000 imagesetter for a few hours (top of the range in its day). I found the image only started to deteriorate just below this 1.3 ratio (ie: 1.25 - meaning 150 lines per inch requred at least 190 dpi to retain image and dot shapes for output). Today with photo diode imaging the mathematics are the same (forget about inkjets which require much less dpi to attain the same result). There is no increase in quality once you get past 250dpi (the mechanics don't allow it). Try it for yourself. Put 2 images side by side (one 250dpi and one 300dpi) and get a Lab to print the photos. Ansel Adams could not tell the difference. Now desktop inkjet printing is another story. Forget the numbers above. Inkjets spray on the toner, which makes it a dispersed process (but the principles are the same). 120 to 170dpi is about the range and limit required for decent inkjet prints. One thing I find amusing in all these photo discussion groups is that people will bend over backwards to buy equipment and talk pixels, and sensors, and quality.... but then output their images on a desktop. Desktop printing cannot compare to photo diode output. If you really want quality, throw away your desktop printers (all of them).
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Well, Roy, I have to respectfully disagree based upon my own personal experience. The 300 dpi recommendation is not a myth. I can tell the difference betwen a 170 dpi image and a 300 dpi image... or between a 300 dpi image and a 360 dpi image on a printer with a native resolution of 720 dpi (my Epson R300, for instance). The interpolation caused by the printer driver is obvious. The solution is to make the printer driver's job as easy as possible. I can also tell the difference when outputting to a processed paper printer. For the best results, get the printer's native resolution in dpi and supply a file that either sized to that resolution or to an easily-dividable value, e.g., 240 dpi for a 300 dpi printer is better than 230 dpi or 245 dpi. Re desktop quality, I think that today's premier desktop printers will certainly give conventional chemical-process printers a run for their money. And finally, if 170 dpi is all that's necessary or usable, then why do 8 MP cameras produce sharper prints than 3 MP cameras?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Many do not understand "dpi". A desktop printer (say Epson) outputiing at 720dpi is a very low resolution, as is the common desktop printer at 600dpi. On the other hand "Imagesetters" (even the low end of the market) start at 1200 dpi, and have the option for 1800dpi and 2400 dpi, and some go higher to 3000 dpi plus. Text or images output on these devices are extremely sharper than any desktop image. This is the type of machine I conducted my tests, using a printer's loop (magnify glass) and various output resolutions as tests (not the naked eye). Imagesetters actually "draw the dot" not just drop it onto the paper. Different dot shapes can be drawn (round, eliptical etc). Try that with a conventional 600dpi printer. The dot from these is crude (to say the least). Inkjets don't draw dots, they spray them (ie: dispersed imaging) in the hope of camouflaging low quality. They also do 2-pass printing to simulate higher resolution (I say "simulate"). Photo diode printing operates the same way as imagesetters (small beams of "light" not sprayed inks). Light will always be better, crisper and sharper than any ink spray. A desktop printer has not been invented to come close to photo diode imaging, but because of some increased contrasts to the eye, they may "appear" to be as good. As for the comparison between 8mp and 3mp.... well there is no difference on a 6 x 4 inch print. The extra pixels only come into play when one requires "larger" output sizes. The 3mp has it's limits around 7 x 5 inch whereas the 8pm can safely go up to around 10 x 14 inch. Anything after that the image must be interpolated. These comparisons are based on similar sensor arrays between 3mp and 8mp cameras, plus same optics. Remember also that Labs using photo diode imaging often have their printers set up to be super fast (ie: being in a commercial world outputting thousands of pics a day). I am sure they can go higher in resolution, but hence slower output. The distance between the diodes and paper is also important here. Imagesetters project their beam of light form almost point zero. I am not sure about Lab diode output. Me thinks it could be a slightly larger gap.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Here is a link to a website where the author has done extensive research into what makes a sharp picture (and also what is the digital resolution equivalence of 35mm Velvia film): http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/scandetail.html#printpixels To summarize, his scientific research shows that people can tell the difference up to around 700 dpi... after than the human eye cannot resolve any improvement even if it is there on the print. He has also discovered that prints don't look acceptably sharp to most people unless they're printed at a minimum of 300 dpi, and that the "Wow" factor ("Wow, that print is sharp!") is around 500 dpi. And, he proves that, in order to get 'X' dpi of print resolution, the printer needs to actually have a native ppi resolution of 2X, e.g., the Epson R300 has a max resolution of 720 dpi because it's native pixel size is 1440 ppi. As an aside, he finds that, due to interpolation, conventional (Bayer) sensor-equipped digital cameras (RGBG, with 25% red, 50% blue, and 25% green pixels) effectively resolves about 60% of the theoretical resolution without accounting for the anti-alias filters loss of resolution, e.g., an 8 megapixel dSLR really only resolves equivalent to a 4.8 MP sensor before the detail loss caused by the AA filter. His test photos show how Bayer sensors actually MAKE UP image data out of whole cloth. And, it explains why the 3.4 MP x 3-color Foveon sensor-equipped SD10 resolves as well as a Bayer sensor of twice the resolution with added advantage of no made-up data. Browse the whole website and you'll find a plethora of interesting information for us photographers.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Carlito Antioquia |
megapexils are worth the money,i have a canon w/ 3.2 megapexils and jump to 8.0 megapexils and you could see a big difference in picture quality for an 8x10 picture regardless of what kind of printer you have,trust me I like printing my pictures in 8x10,and I love it,the only draw back is too big to send it in e-mail
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
I have just read every word of the site you refer, and agree with it all. Written in fine technical detail it is full of "trueisms" that are already established in both the film and print world. It mainly dwells on film and digital differences, which most people know (in a novice way) to be true. He makes good reference to the "visual" and "actual" and "manufactured" appearance of a print or scan (which are often overlooked by many, referring mainly to the "visual"). In simple terms it backs up my previous comments.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
Good to hear Caroline. Your 8 x 10 prints from a 3.2mp camera would have been ordinary (to say the least). For sure your new 8mp camera will show definite improvements (regardless of your printer).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kurt Hawkins |
Sherry I got a 8 MP Canon EOS 20D a few days ago and have yet to get a picture as good as my Z10 pictures. I am very dissappointed with the 20D's image quality. Although it is still too early to tell I am seriously thinking of selling it and looking at a higher MP Minolta camera with better zoom and image stability.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michelle Ross |
Hi Kurt! My son has the Minolta Z3 and it is very disappointing to take pics with in low light . . . I have the Maxxum 7D so if you are considering up dating with Minolta I can vouge that I really like this camera. The A2(A200) I think are 8mp though and I think they might have the image stabilization in them. They also have the 5D which I actually held and looked at the other day and think it could definitely serve your purpose, however, it's only 6mp. I would like to have a backup camera but just hate to dump another $800-$900 and get the same thing. .. I would rather move up in MP but Minolta doesn't offer anything additional that allows me to use my lenses and I just don't know if I want to go with another brand and have to learn a new camera and purchase new lenses. Minolta is behind in lenses also :-(
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kurt Hawkins |
Thanks Michelle, I was looking at the 7D. I liked the anti shake in the camera body and interchangable lenses. I think it is more alongs the lines I am looking for.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
I have just completed my own test prints using Photo diode printing from a Lab. I resampled a lakeside pic down to 15 x 10cm at 1,000 dpi, reducing the pixels and saving the files as I go. I then compared the results and studied them using a magnifying glass (printers/jewellers loop). 1000dpi (5906 x 3937 pixels) 15 x 10cm (23mp) At first glance, they were all passable (from normal viewing distance, like on a coffee table). However upon closer inspection (magnify glass) the quality/sharpness optimized at the 250 to 300dpi size.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Sherry Stricklin Boles Contact Sherry Stricklin Boles Sherry Stricklin Boles's Gallery |
Very interesting, Roy! Thanks for sharing your test results... Kurt, I'm really sorry that you aren't happy with your purchase. =( Maybe it will just take a little getting used to... Michelle thanks for sharing your thoughts as well.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kurt Hawkins |
I agree Sherry , It is a big change over the Z10 and will take some getting use to. I do believe it is a good camera though with a lot of room for growth.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
Trust me, if you know what you're doing with your 20D, you will get much better picture out of it in more situations than the Z10. I wouldn't sell the 20D. Make sure you know how to use photoshop though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Roy, I'm glad your tests basically confirmed my first post on this topic. It would have been interesting to print at 360 dpi and 450 dpi to see if the difference in sharpness was discernable. However, that would depend on the native resolution, in dpi, of the photo diode printer. If it was 300 dpi, then higher pixel densities are basically a waste of time. That's why it is important to know the native resolution of the print output device that is being used. The short answer here is, higher resolution cameras give one the ability to print at larger sizes while still maintaining print quality. 3 MP cameras are best at 5x7, but it takes 4 times the resolution to double the print size. In other words, a 6 MP image only lets you enlarge it 40% more at the same density (dpi). To get a great 11x14 print at 300 dpi, you'd need to go to 12 MP... but you can get acceptable 11x14 quality at 6 MP and up.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Roy Blinston |
My tests included 140, 160, 180, 200, 225, 250, 300, 600, 1000 dpi (from a 1,000 dpi master pic re-sampled down for each test). I defy anybody to pick the difference between 300, 600 or 1000 dpi pics in this test. If I hadn't included a printed "note" on each pic I would not be able to tell the difference between these three. I know all about the square of the image for larger sizes as I have been using Photoshop professionally for over 13 years in Printing and Design (I am a graphic designer). The above tests were done on a Photo diode printer so these resolutions are higher than what would be required on a Desktop Inkjet. I have an Epson inkjet that can output at 1440dpi, however the file resolution required is less than 300dpi - I often drop this to around 150 to 200dpi for my prints (no noticeable difference whatsoever). Photo diode imaging is more resolution dependant than inkjets because the image is projected onto the paper not sprayed (a bit like comparing a film negative print with a digital image print). Being able to notice the difference between 225, 250 and 300dpi on the diode tests I think proves the point. My inkjet would not nearly be as noticeable. The increased range of "subtle tones" with the diode printing is also far superior to inkjets (which can be harsh and contrasty in comparison).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Sandra Wortmann |
I went for a 5mp camera to a 1ds which has 11 mp and there was a lot of differance in the quality. I thinking about moving up to a 1ds mark II. Has any one used one, and how do their pictures look. Someone told me you can but a print along side a film print and can not see a differance.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||