 K D. KINNEY |
Megapixels and Resolution I'm am looking for a new camera - actually, I'm deciding within the Canon EOS 1 (digital lines). I shot a few Canon EOS 1(film lines) and 1. love it 2. familiar with it 3. lazy and don't want to learn a new system 4. Almost always shoot manually. As I enter the digital world I discover a lot of advertisement surrounding Megapixels but very little addression resolution. What little I know, I know resolution is probably more important than pixels. I know there's a relations; they're intertwined. How do I determine what best fits my need. From what I gather, the Canon EOS 1D probably meets the majority of my needs. What would be the reason for going with the EOS 1D Mark II? Thank you for your time
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ellen Anon |
The resolution of a camera refers to the number of pixels on the sensor. The number of pixels horizontally is multiplied by the number vertically which yields the megapixel/resolution of the camera. The change from the Mark 1 to the Mark 11 and now the Mark 111 reflect an increase in resolution, as well as decreases in noise, increases in how many shots you can take at a time and how fast the camera writes to the CF card, the size of the LCD screen on the rear (and now the Live LCD screen on the Mark !!!) in addition to a variety of other enhancements. All the 1D series have a 1.3 magnification factor whereas the 1Ds are fullframe sensors. If you are a landscape photographer, this is an umportant issue. (There's also a huge difference in price.) The Mark 1, 11, and 11 series are weather sealed whereas other models are not. You may want to go to Canon's site for more specifics or check out a very nice comparison of the features at www.dpreview.com
|
|
|
|
||
chrisbudny.com - Chris Budny Contact Chris Budny Chris Budny's Gallery |
KD, one thing to consider, is whether you're blending camera sensor info with printing info, in your question? ie, you can take a 10mp file from a camera, and print it from a file set at 200dpi resolution (perhaps for newsprint) or from a file set at 600dpi resolution (perhaps for art books.) Naturally that same image will print on paper at 2 different physical sizes, based on the 200 or 600 dpi resolution. But the source file was captured with the same camera chip, and you can control the file resolution depending on the printer hardware capabilities, your end-result print-size requirements and what you do in editing software, etc.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
All you know from the megapixel figure is how many pixels will be on a print. There is at best only an indirect correlation between megapixels and resolution (the ability of a digital camera to resolve fine detail in an image). Other factors, like sensor size and sensor design, play a huge role; that's why a 6 MP dSLR with its larger sensor can actually out-resolve a 10 MP point-and-shoot 'digicam'. Since you are a Canon fan, I'd recommend looking at the 5D. It doesn't have all of the bells and whistles as the Mark I/II/III models, but it does have a full-frame sensor with 12 megapixels worth of sensors. You'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a 5D image and one from a 1DS Mark II, yet the latter costs twice as much.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Erin Johnson |
Any Pro will tell you that 6mp is all you need to make good quality photos. The MarkII has 8mp and is great for sports or catching that quick moment. The 5d is a great camera, just to slow for fast moving events. Dennis Regie was saying at the last PUG meeting that the next MarkIII is going to be the fastest full frame camera on the market due to hit in March, so you might want to wait for that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ellen Anon |
Be wary of statements beginning. "Any pro will tell you ..." I am a pro and what I will tell you is that you can make good quality photos with many different cameras of differing megapixel counts. The issue of megapixels comes into play when considering the output size. You can make a very nice 8 x 10 print from a well taken, sharp image taken on 6 mp camera - but that same file will not look anywhere near as good at 16 x 20 or larger, viewed up close, as it would have if it were taken by 16 megapixel camera. There just won't be as much detail. But if viewed from far away, you would have more difficulty telling the difference. Viewing distance and output size are important considerations. The 1D Mark 111 has been available for several months and the 1Ds Mark III (full frame) has already been announced and is due to be available this fall.
|
|
|
|
||
|
K D. KINNEY |
Thank you much for the information. I'm fairly certain I will continue to shoot with a Canon EOS 1 series - even as I go digital. For at least 2 years now, I get my film developed to disc and operate through that venue - so . . . in theory/actuality I've already been working in the digital world. My concern is what I view on the screen is usually far from what I see on the print (4x6). Several of my prints have been blown-up to poster size(s) - but all from film. As I migrate to digital I want to best camera for the money (photography is not my bread 'n butter - but his has provided several desserts :) ) My choices thus far are: Canon EOS 1D, EOS 1DS, EOS 1D MK II. The prices of the latter 2 seems to be fairly close to one another (used of course). I frame/print countless 5x7, several 8x10, and occasional 24" prints. For gifts, I've gone slightly bigger, but as mentioned earlier, several of my shots others have had developed into poster size(s). Last question - what about downloading and storing files. I will soon be in possession of a 250gb portable hard-drive. Right now I'm operating from an 80gb HD. I'll probably shoot from 2 and/or 4 gb cards respectively. I shoot all of time - though I often walk-a-way not taking any shots (nothing pleasing that particular day) :) Any guidance is greatly appreciated. Thank you! K D
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ellen Anon |
KD, you might want to check out one of one books - Photoshop (CS3) for Nature Photographers (Anon & Grey), Sybex for answers to a lot of your questions. Your prints looks different than your monitor because you need a color managed workflow - a color calibrated monitor and to use printer/paper profiles in the print dialog. You're not going to get reasonable 24" prints from a 4.15 mp camera unless you're viewing it from a pretty good distance away, (as in across the room), whereas with my 16 megapixel 1DsMK II I can make excellent prints viewed up close even as large as 2feet x 3 feet. With an 8 or 11 megapixel camera you can make good prints up to 11 x 14 and maybe 16 x 20 as well. For image management you might consider Aperture if you're a Mac user, or Lightroom if you're a PC user. Either will help you organize your images. You can use Photoshop alone, but then you must create the organization yourself with a folder structure. Ellen
|
|
|
|
||
|
K D. KINNEY |
Ellen, Thank you! In fact, I must share, I had a humungous . . "Duhhhhh!" I forgot, for a moment, that files have several file-saving options, i.e.: raw, jpeg, tiff, etc. I was confused, for a while, about saving photos. Now that that's cleared-up, I can proceed smartly. I also realized that my monitor does not resolve pictures the same way prints will. And yes, the color is you mentioned. Today's been a day of revelation. I believe I am going to go with the 1DsMkI. It fits my needs both capablity and financially. I shot (and still shoot) the 1N RS, famous for the 10fps, AND I NEVER USED THAT FUNCTION! Actually, once I did. It ate through film so fast, I never used it again :)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ellen Anon |
KD - just a couple thoughts for you. The Original 1Ds has more noise than the Mark II version - although we have tons of great shots from our 1Ds bodies. You might try to check how heavily a used one has been used, because some may be nearing the shutter life if they were heavily used. Have fun! Ellen
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
KD - another thing to consider. Depending on where you have been getting your film developed, then digital versions of your film images may have been low-resolution scans. The one time that I asked for a CD with a roll of film that I was getting developed, the images on the CD were 1200x1600 pixels. This is the equivalent of 2 megapixels, and really only good for printing a 4x6. This was at a drugstore. Depending on what lab you use, you may be getting the same or better. This may be part of why images on your screen don't compare well to print from your negatives. Chris Vedros
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||