Is 6 megapixels enough for you?

[Lin Evans]

There are tons of 6 megapixel and under cameras on the market

By weight or count?

with

improvements made to them all the time. From point and shoot to
DSLRs. Yes these are great for most hobbiest and ameteur
photographers. As far as professional applications go this is just
not enough.

Really?

I don't know what is needed to acheive medium to large

format equivelant in terms of pixels, but high end commercial
applications require medium to large format shooting.

Interesting viewpoint - but not accurate.....

I am sure

this would require extremely large pixel counts. at least 11 MPIX
like that offered in the 1Ds Try shooting for Archetectural Digest
or doing a food shot that will be made into a billboard. Portrait
photographers are not interested in selling prints smaller than 16
x 20.

I suspect most portrait photographers would not turn down any "prints" which the customer wanted....

Most Portrait photographers won't even display a print as

small as a 20 x 24 in there studios because they want to sell 24 x
30's up to 40 x 60 prints.

What planet are you from?????

Some won't even contract for anything

less than a 30 x 40 sitting.

Not on the same planet where I live....

Wedding photographers have to sell up

to larger prints or large quantities of small prints to make any
money because photography is the last thing on the bride and grooms
list and ther money is already spent on everything else. Therefore
initial contracts are low in addition to there thinking that a
thousand dollars is expensive when it comes to wedding photographs.
My point is that the technoligy so far has not provided
professional photographers with the same variety of options that
will suit there needs at affordable prices at the same level as the
prosumer market. We do expect to pay more for this equipment but
so far we are looking at $5,000 to $8,000 for modest DSLRs or
$15,000 and more for digital backs for medium format cameras. 2
out of 3 professional photographers end up going out of business,
and these expenses for DSLRs which have modest specs and which will
end up being upgraded in a short periode of time just like our
computers, are makeing business costs even harder to keep up with.
So yes it is extremely necessary for larger pixel counts and/or
improved censors that will yield large high end output.

I want some of what you've been smoking

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Bill Leddon]

I'm from the planet Earth where I have been shooting professionally for 26 years in addition to having been on the board of directors of the MPPA and associated with hundreds of FULL TIME PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS, from a 5 state regeion to answer your question. There are of course many more ameture photographers than pros, and many more high volume low end photographers who are happy to sell small prints, but there are many who are more discriminating and target a different market. No need to be sarcastic because I point out that there are professional photographers out there who do have the need for improvement in what is currently being offered by the photo industry.

If you feel we do not deserve any concideration to our needs or you just feel we really don't exist at all, which is the way it sounds to me with your ignorant remarks, then maybe you need to climb out of your hole and change what your smoking. Maybe you need to confirm with photographers who's names you would know like Lisa Valez, Monte Zucker, Al Gilbert, Ed Pierce, and the hundreds of thousands of Professional Photographers who aspire to get to the level of these legends.

There are tons of 6 megapixel and under cameras on the market

By weight or count?

with

improvements made to them all the time. From point and shoot to
DSLRs. Yes these are great for most hobbiest and ameteur
photographers. As far as professional applications go this is just
not enough.

Really?

I don't know what is needed to acheive medium to large

format equivelant in terms of pixels, but high end commercial
applications require medium to large format shooting.

Interesting viewpoint - but not accurate.....

I am sure

this would require extremely large pixel counts. at least 11 MPIX
like that offered in the 1Ds Try shooting for Archetectural Digest
or doing a food shot that will be made into a billboard. Portrait
photographers are not interested in selling prints smaller than 16
x 20.

I suspect most portrait photographers would not turn down any
"prints" which the customer wanted....

Most Portrait photographers won't even display a print as

small as a 20 x 24 in there studios because they want to sell 24 x
30's up to 40 x 60 prints.

What planet are you from?????

Some won't even contract for anything

less than a 30 x 40 sitting.

Not on the same planet where I live....

Wedding photographers have to sell up

to larger prints or large quantities of small prints to make any
money because photography is the last thing on the bride and grooms
list and ther money is already spent on everything else. Therefore
initial contracts are low in addition to there thinking that a
thousand dollars is expensive when it comes to wedding photographs.
My point is that the technoligy so far has not provided
professional photographers with the same variety of options that
will suit there needs at affordable prices at the same level as the
prosumer market. We do expect to pay more for this equipment but
so far we are looking at $5,000 to $8,000 for modest DSLRs or
$15,000 and more for digital backs for medium format cameras. 2
out of 3 professional photographers end up going out of business,
and these expenses for DSLRs which have modest specs and which will
end up being upgraded in a short periode of time just like our
computers, are makeing business costs even harder to keep up with.
So yes it is extremely necessary for larger pixel counts and/or
improved censors that will yield large high end output.

I want some of what you've been smoking

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Bill Leddon]

In response to your question by weight or by count I am sure it is both. I see that on this site under cameras I found 190 Prosumer cameras as opposed to 14 Pro DSLRs some of which are Prosumer targeted like the Canon 10D. I am also confident that there are alot more of these 190 camera models sold than Pro cameras.

For instance the Canon 10D wouldl suite many professional photographers just fine. This camera would suite me for some of my applications but not all of them. At a 1.6 magnification I would not be able to photograph my archetectural work. Interior designers for instance want wide views of there rooms and with a 24mm tilt/shift lense this would give me 38.4mm which is not acceptable. The 16-35mm is borderline.

I really do not know what ruffled your feathers but I'm in the Baltimore/DC area there are people here who think that if they have contracted a Wedding Photographer for $750 they may have overspent. At the same time there are people who contract for $7,500 and will think they have gotten a great deal and expect to pay more once they see the previews.

It is these photographers who are not happy selling 5 x 7's and 8 x 10's although they are certainly not going to turn them down. They also have to work there buns off to cater to the clientel that these photographers target.

There are photographers who will photograph with 35mm with a $500 minimum and are happy to make 5 x 7 and there are also photographers shooting medium format who have a $5,000 minimum who would rather not sell 5 x 7 prints. And believe it or not there are environmental photographers who's minimum contract is for an initial 30 x 40 Portrait Sitting. They do sell small prints after the initial 30 x 40 contract has been fulfilled. I know of a photographer who is contracted for Portraiture where the client does not even see previews of the photographs taken. She as the artist selected what she felt was the best representation of the subject. Through consultations with the subject the photographer creates a Portrait not a photograph of the subject and the reputation of this photographer alows this approach. How many proofs did any of the famouse oil painters present with there subjects before the final oil painting was painted.

My point is there are alot of approaches in the Art Industry that are rare but to only display large Portraits in your studio is not rare by any means. It is an old marketing strategy which many high end Portrait studios incorporate. Only show what you want to sell.

Appoligies for anything I said in response to what I concidered inflametory remarks on your part, but I am just stating why there is a need for more technology to cover the LARGE RANGE of professional photograpers requirments.

 

[Lin Evans]

I really do not know what ruffled your feathers but I'm in the
Baltimore/DC area there are people here who think that if they have
contracted a Wedding Photographer for $750 they may have overspent.
At the same time there are people who contract for $7,500 and will
think they have gotten a great deal and expect to pay more once
they see the previews.
It is these photographers who are not happy selling 5 x 7's and 8 x
10's although they are certainly not going to turn them down. They
also have to work there buns off to cater to the clientel that
these photographers target.
There are photographers who will photograph with 35mm with a $500
minimum and are happy to make 5 x 7 and there are also
photographers shooting medium format who have a $5,000 minimum who
would rather not sell 5 x 7 prints. And believe it or not there
are environmental photographers who's minimum contract is for an
initial 30 x 40 Portrait Sitting. They do sell small prints after
the initial 30 x 40 contract has been fulfilled. I know of a
photographer who is contracted for Portraiture where the client
does not even see previews of the photographs taken. She as the
artist selected what she felt was the best representation of the
subject. Through consultations with the subject the photographer
creates a Portrait not a photograph of the subject and the
reputation of this photographer alows this approach. How many
proofs did any of the famouse oil painters present with there
subjects before the final oil painting was painted.
My point is there are alot of approaches in the Art Industry that
are rare but to only display large Portraits in your studio is not
rare by any means. It is an old marketing strategy which many high
end Portrait studios incorporate. Only show what you want to sell.
Appoligies for anything I said in response to what I concidered
inflametory remarks on your part, but I am just stating why there
is a need for more technology to cover the LARGE RANGE of
professional photograpers requirments.

Hello Bill,

It would have made lots more sense had you simply said you would like more than six megapixels for your personal applications and for those with similar needs.

My "feathers" aren't "ruffled," but you have made blanket statements which may reflect you own personal experience, but by no means reflect the experience of many thousands of professional photographers who have done very well with six megapixel resolution.

Just to set the record straight - in 1995 Kodak produced the first six megapixel digital camera in 35mm platform - I bought one and replaced the vast majority of my 35mm color and transparency work with it. For an extended period Kodak was the "only" company which had a six megapixel digital. Until Canon produced their D60 (which hasn't been that long ago), Kodak had went through three iterations of this camera to the DCS-760 which they still produce. Nikon made a D100 shortly afterward and Contax finally got a six megapixel full frame camera into production just recently - one which has not had any market presence. Now Pentax has announced one which has not yet shipped. That's it!

So your comment that there are "tons" of 5 and 6 megapixel cameras makes absolutely no sense. There is only one truly professional level six megapixel camera and it's still Kodak. Canon has the 1Ds which is shipping and Kodak has a 14n which may ship soon - either of these should satisfy your requirements for greater resolution.

Some portrait studios "may" not take orders for smaller prints, but it's the minority and definitely "not" the majority in the United States, and though many jobs require medium format, there are countless thousands of professional photographers who use the 35mm platform very successfully. It has a definite place in professional photography and to deny that is simply to reveal your lack of experience - regardless of how many years you have been at this.

My guess is that you have little experience with professional digital, and probably come from the film world. Indeed the use of medium format is important to a number of photographers, but the world of professional photography is very "much" larger than wedding photography, portrait photography, and architectural photography.

There are countless professionals who get along quite well with less than six megapixels, so to distort the facts because of either inexperience or for reasons of bias simply call for a counterpoint which I made.

It's probably better not to make universal statements such as you have without either qualifying them or stating them as opinion. Had you extensive digital experience, you would know the extent of its use today. In case you didn't attend PMA, you might ask others who did about the relative presence of digital versus film in the past two years. This may give you a "clue" as to how many professionals (PMA) are using digital. The PMA statistics are available if you care to check. Also PhotoKina results mirror PMA.

Sorry if you feel insulted by my response, but you need to know that your experience is atypical.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Graham3]

Cipher wrote:
No not enuff pixels and NO for other reasons - I need 8 x 10 inch
prints at 300 dpi. This is a proffesional standard and 6MP doesn't
cut it. Especially if you start cropping the image a bit which is
almost always needed.

Your other reasons are valid, but the above is totally off base.
Six megapixels is more than enough to print any 8x10 at the highest
level of professional quality.

Lin

--

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

Now - I dont know if you took math in school , but 6MP does not cut it especially when you need to crop a bit as usual.

So could you please offer some sort of rationale to support your your opinion that my statement was off base.

You ask any magazine or other printer what kind of resolution they need in a print and the answer will invariably come back as 300dpi.

Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality level.

When a quality magazine gets an image that they want to print they will usually crop the hell out of it. If its only 6MP to start then they get limited as to size of reproduction. If it wont print as big as they want it just gets rejected and the photographer will never get his submissions reviewed again.

Welcome to the world of professional standards that todays digital cameras do NOT meet unless its a MF back. At 20 grand a pop I think film and a good scanner will do the trick for almost every pro photog except the lucky

guys with dough to burn. And I mean burn because the back will be worth ZERO in 3 years or less.

 

[Graham3]

No not enuff pixels and NO for other reasons - I need 8 x 10 inch
prints at 300 dpi. This is a proffesional standard and 6MP doesn't
cut it. Especially if you start cropping the image a bit which is
almost always needed.

6MP is more than enough to get a "professional" 8x10 print. If
you're really used to shooting 35mm chrome then you should be used
to shooting WYSIWYG.

What I need is a 10MP camera with a full size sensor. Yes I know
Canon has just that - but I don't want to sell my 1st born child to
get it.

For a working pro, the camera pays for itself.

I shoot architecture on 35mm and MF film and need an angle of view around 80 to 100 degrees....

Look at the 1D. It's image quaility is as good as, if not better
than, a D60 and the 1.3x lends itself better to wide angle prints.
(It too will make knock-your-socks-off 8x10s.)

Less hype and more facts please. And better spelling while you're
at it...

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

Now - I dont know if you took math in school , but 6MP does not cut it especially when you need to crop a bit as usual.

So could you please offer some sort of rationale to support your your opinion that my statement was off base.

You ask any magazine or other printer what kind of resolution they need in a print and the answer will invariably come back as 300dpi.

Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality level.

When a quality magazine gets an image that they want to print they will usually crop the hell out of it. If its only 6MP to start then they get limited as to size of reproduction. If it wont print as big as they want it just gets rejected and the photographer will never get his submissions reviewed again.

Welcome to the world of professional standards that todays digital cameras do NOT meet unless its a MF back. At 20 grand a pop I think film and a good scanner will do the trick for almost every pro photog except the lucky

guys with dough to burn. And I mean burn because the back will be worth ZERO in 3 years or less.

 

[Graham3]

With the everyone clamoring for the new EOS D10, are some of you
disappointed that it didn't come with higher megapixels? Are you
holding off buying one because of this? I know megapixels isn't
everything, but I'm certain that some who make their living or plan
on making a living as a photographer require a higher megapixel
camera.

About 18 to 21 months ago, I saw some professional photographer
say in some forum somewhere, "I've never seen any customer
complain about image quality from my 6mp DSLR".

That was a long time ago, and looking around I see it must have been
a DCS 560 (D6000) that he paid $16,000 for... but the quote
remains in my mind.

Yes - thats right - they never do complain. They just move on to a diff photog if unhappy and are never heard from again . lol

 

[Lin Evans]

Cipher wrote:
No not enuff pixels and NO for other reasons - I need 8 x 10 inch
prints at 300 dpi. This is a proffesional standard and 6MP doesn't
cut it. Especially if you start cropping the image a bit which is
almost always needed.

Your other reasons are valid, but the above is totally off base.
Six megapixels is more than enough to print any 8x10 at the highest
level of professional quality.

Lin

--

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi
on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

Actually, it is up for discussion, but that's another issue entirely.

Now - I dont know if you took math in school , but 6MP does not cut
it especially when you need to crop a bit as usual.

I took a little, Graham - I have a Masters in Physics. - but the issue isn't math here, it's image quality.

So could you please offer some sort of rationale to support your
your opinion that my statement was off base.

You opinion is based on lack of experience with professional digital, nothing more or less. It's an opinion offered frequently by those who come from the film world and still have a rather large learning curve about digital.

You ask any magazine or other printer what kind of resolution they
need in a print and the answer will invariably come back as 300dpi.
Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about
newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about
advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the
sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality
level.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of experience and your assumptions based on that. We have photographers right here on this forum who shoot Vogue and other high end magazine covers with the Canon 1D (4.1 megapixel). Sports illustrated uses the 1D nearly exclusively now.

When a quality magazine gets an image that they want to print they
will usually crop the hell out of it. If its only 6MP to start then
they get limited as to size of reproduction. If it wont print as
big as they want it just gets rejected and the photographer will
never get his submissions reviewed again.
Welcome to the world of professional standards that todays digital
cameras do NOT meet unless its a MF back.

Graham, I suspect I was doing professional photography while you were still in diapers. I've been using six megapixel digital for this express purpose since 1995 and I'm thoroughly familiar with professional standards as well as digital capabilities and limitations in all platforms including medium format backs.

Educate yourself about professional digital and what's going on in the world of professional photography, then come back and we will discuss it rationally. You have lots to learn....

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[irehound]

That 300 dpi is not a fact, its more like that business of 8 glasses of water a day. I am printing now on my 7600 at 180 or 240 and so far so good. Also image detail is highly overrated in photographic circles.

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi
on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

--
Jim Collins

 

[Graham3]

You obviously know whats cooking out there.
I agree with everything you said.

Digital is still for non pros , pros that sell 6 x 9 inch images , newspaper shooters and people with megabucks who like toys.

OH ya - also for pros that sell 16 x 20 max ( Kodak14MP or Canon 11MP) and don't mind their investment in equipment costing like 20 grand for full system ( lenses et al) being worth ZERO in 3 years. Probably the lenses won't be compat with new bodies AGAIN. What a racket.
All others use MF and scan at up to 4000 dpi. Period.

 

[Cipher]

Okay...I think it's time to call a truce here....

Just one thing...if I recall correctly, National Geographic requires that photos submitted to them must be 150dpi. I believe, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, most magazines want everything at 150dpi also. The 300dpi rule, which I've read about, is mostly for consumer inkjet printers.

Cipher wrote:
No not enuff pixels and NO for other reasons - I need 8 x 10 inch
prints at 300 dpi. This is a proffesional standard and 6MP doesn't
cut it. Especially if you start cropping the image a bit which is
almost always needed.

Your other reasons are valid, but the above is totally off base.
Six megapixels is more than enough to print any 8x10 at the highest
level of professional quality.

Lin

--

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi
on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

Actually, it is up for discussion, but that's another issue entirely.

Now - I dont know if you took math in school , but 6MP does not cut
it especially when you need to crop a bit as usual.

I took a little, Graham - I have a Masters in Physics. - but the
issue isn't math here, it's image quality.

So could you please offer some sort of rationale to support your
your opinion that my statement was off base.

You opinion is based on lack of experience with professional
digital, nothing more or less. It's an opinion offered frequently
by those who come from the film world and still have a rather large
learning curve about digital.

You ask any magazine or other printer what kind of resolution they
need in a print and the answer will invariably come back as 300dpi.
Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about
newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about
advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the
sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality
level.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of experience and your
assumptions based on that. We have photographers right here on this
forum who shoot Vogue and other high end magazine covers with the
Canon 1D (4.1 megapixel). Sports illustrated uses the 1D nearly
exclusively now.

When a quality magazine gets an image that they want to print they
will usually crop the hell out of it. If its only 6MP to start then
they get limited as to size of reproduction. If it wont print as
big as they want it just gets rejected and the photographer will
never get his submissions reviewed again.
Welcome to the world of professional standards that todays digital
cameras do NOT meet unless its a MF back.

Graham, I suspect I was doing professional photography while you
were still in diapers. I've been using six megapixel digital for
this express purpose since 1995 and I'm thoroughly familiar with
professional standards as well as digital capabilities and
limitations in all platforms including medium format backs.

Educate yourself about professional digital and what's going on in
the world of professional photography, then come back and we will
discuss it rationally. You have lots to learn....

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Graham3]

Dont let that Lin guy get to you Bill. You obviously know whats up and he seems to have done some reading ( not enough ) and only thinks he knows.

 

[Graham3]

Cipher wrote:
No not enuff pixels and NO for other reasons - I need 8 x 10 inch
prints at 300 dpi. This is a proffesional standard and 6MP doesn't
cut it. Especially if you start cropping the image a bit which is
almost always needed.

Your other reasons are valid, but the above is totally off base.
Six megapixels is more than enough to print any 8x10 at the highest
level of professional quality.

Lin

--

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi
on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

Actually, it is up for discussion, but that's another issue entirely.

Now - I dont know if you took math in school , but 6MP does not cut
it especially when you need to crop a bit as usual.

I took a little, Graham - I have a Masters in Physics. - but the
issue isn't math here, it's image quality.

So could you please offer some sort of rationale to support your
your opinion that my statement was off base.

You opinion is based on lack of experience with professional
digital, nothing more or less. It's an opinion offered frequently
by those who come from the film world and still have a rather large
learning curve about digital.

You ask any magazine or other printer what kind of resolution they
need in a print and the answer will invariably come back as 300dpi.
Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about
newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about
advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the
sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality
level.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of experience and your
assumptions based on that. We have photographers right here on this
forum who shoot Vogue and other high end magazine covers with the
Canon 1D (4.1 megapixel). Sports illustrated uses the 1D nearly
exclusively now.

When a quality magazine gets an image that they want to print they
will usually crop the hell out of it. If its only 6MP to start then
they get limited as to size of reproduction. If it wont print as
big as they want it just gets rejected and the photographer will
never get his submissions reviewed again.
Welcome to the world of professional standards that todays digital
cameras do NOT meet unless its a MF back.

Graham, I suspect I was doing professional photography while you
were still in diapers. I've been using six megapixel digital for
this express purpose since 1995 and I'm thoroughly familiar with
professional standards as well as digital capabilities and
limitations in all platforms including medium format backs.

Educate yourself about professional digital and what's going on in
the world of professional photography, then come back and we will
discuss it rationally. You have lots to learn....

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

Firstly - you are wrong - again.
You are presumptuous and thats the best way to loose any argument.
Shows you dont use FACTS to support yourself.
You just make up what is convienient for yourself..

I DO USE DIGITAL. I use a Fuji S1.
Have also used highr MP cameras.

Im an architectural pro - and if you dont see how useless digital is for me then you dont have a clue technically.
I have been given the requirements from many printers about res.
What I say is true.

I suppose you have spent a whole ton o bucks on stuff that be worth zero very soon and are trying to cushion the bruising on your ego.

I will not argue anymore with a fool.
I have not the inclination or time.
Good luck to ya.

 

[tim martin]

Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about
newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about
advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the
sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality
level.

I look at this guy's Web site, and it is clear to me that he is a top
level professional photographer.

http://www.ashleykaryl.com/about.html

And then I see this message of his,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4264431

and it's clear to me he at least has an open mind about digital. I
don't get that impression from your messages.

 

[Graham3]

Look - this is how it goes
You clich a client.
They put you in touch with their printer.
The printer says they need an 8 x 10 at 300 dpi.

You gotta be able to fullfill the printers request or the printer tells the client to get a diff photg.
The printer has a stake in the final image quality too!
Is that simple enough for you?
It's about business.
The client isn't about to discuss if 240 dpi is ok or not.
He hasnt got a clue in most cases.
They just refer to what is probably a long time trusted printer.
Almost any printer will reqire a 8 x 10 at 300 dpi.
If you dont know that then you aint been around.

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi
on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

--
Jim Collins

 

[Graham3]

NO - thats 150 lines per inch (lpi) Thats a printers term. it equates to appx 300 dpi.

Just one thing...if I recall correctly, National Geographic
requires that photos submitted to them must be 150dpi. I believe,
and someone correct me if I'm wrong, most magazines want everything
at 150dpi also. The 300dpi rule, which I've read about, is mostly
for consumer inkjet printers.

Cipher wrote:
No not enuff pixels and NO for other reasons - I need 8 x 10 inch
prints at 300 dpi. This is a proffesional standard and 6MP doesn't
cut it. Especially if you start cropping the image a bit which is
almost always needed.

Your other reasons are valid, but the above is totally off base.
Six megapixels is more than enough to print any 8x10 at the highest
level of professional quality.

Lin

--

The accepted level of professional quality is no less then 300 dpi
on a print.
This fact is not even up for discussion. It's just a fact.

Actually, it is up for discussion, but that's another issue entirely.

Now - I dont know if you took math in school , but 6MP does not cut
it especially when you need to crop a bit as usual.

I took a little, Graham - I have a Masters in Physics. - but the
issue isn't math here, it's image quality.

So could you please offer some sort of rationale to support your
your opinion that my statement was off base.

You opinion is based on lack of experience with professional
digital, nothing more or less. It's an opinion offered frequently
by those who come from the film world and still have a rather large
learning curve about digital.

You ask any magazine or other printer what kind of resolution they
need in a print and the answer will invariably come back as 300dpi.
Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about
newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about
advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the
sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality
level.

Once again, you demonstrate your lack of experience and your
assumptions based on that. We have photographers right here on this
forum who shoot Vogue and other high end magazine covers with the
Canon 1D (4.1 megapixel). Sports illustrated uses the 1D nearly
exclusively now.

When a quality magazine gets an image that they want to print they
will usually crop the hell out of it. If its only 6MP to start then
they get limited as to size of reproduction. If it wont print as
big as they want it just gets rejected and the photographer will
never get his submissions reviewed again.
Welcome to the world of professional standards that todays digital
cameras do NOT meet unless its a MF back.

Graham, I suspect I was doing professional photography while you
were still in diapers. I've been using six megapixel digital for
this express purpose since 1995 and I'm thoroughly familiar with
professional standards as well as digital capabilities and
limitations in all platforms including medium format backs.

Educate yourself about professional digital and what's going on in
the world of professional photography, then come back and we will
discuss it rationally. You have lots to learn....

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Lin Evans]

Firstly - you are wrong - again.
You are presumptuous and thats the best way to loose any argument.
Shows you dont use FACTS to support yourself.
You just make up what is convienient for yourself..

Sorry Graham - I haven't a clue what you are talking about - apparently neither do you??

I DO USE DIGITAL. I use a Fuji S1.
Have also used highr MP cameras.
Im an architectural pro - and if you dont see how useless digital
is for me then you dont have a clue technically.
I have been given the requirements from many printers about res.
What I say is true.
I suppose you have spent a whole ton o bucks on stuff that be worth
zero very soon and are trying to cushion the bruising on your ego.

I will not argue anymore with a fool.
I have not the inclination or time.
Good luck to ya.

Good - then we will both be happy....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Graham3]

Pro photogs know this and so should you. Im not talking about
newspapers and other low res requirements. Im talking about
advertising materials - magazines - promotional phamplets - the
sort of thing that pay photographers to shoot at minimum quality
level.

I look at this guy's Web site, and it is clear to me that he is a top
level professional photographer.

http://www.ashleykaryl.com/about.html

And then I see this message of his,

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4264431

and it's clear to me he at least has an open mind about digital. I
don't get that impression from your messages.

Well - here is my web site..... http://home.cogeco.ca/~gmarshall11/

AS you can see I shoot architecture.
I reiterate that digital is 2 things for me........

1) Absolutely technically inadequate ( not even close in fact ).

2) Just barely adequate but costs so incredibly much for a full new system that will be worth almost nothing in a few years.

Both of the above are completely unacceptable when simple film scanning on a high quality scanner meets my needs. Meantime I earn big interest on the money I saved by not going digital.

Soon ( 3 years maybe ) the situation may change. At which time I fully welcome digital and all it has to offer of which I am fully aware and experienced with .
I shoot some Fuji S1 now for some low end purposes.

Any other architectural photographer will tell ya the same thing.

Its the stupid tiny sensors. Who came up with this nonesense?

It's because the damn sensors wont accept light at an angle the way film will no problem.

 

[Graham3]

Firstly - you are wrong - again.
You are presumptuous and thats the best way to loose any argument.
Shows you dont use FACTS to support yourself.
You just make up what is convienient for yourself..

Sorry Graham - I haven't a clue what you are talking about -
apparently neither do you??

Well then - let me explain a little more simply then -.......

You imply I have no experience with digital. You don't know that . You are just guessing. You try to support you side with assumptions.

I do in fact have plenty of experince with digital and have run into many limitations which I pass on to those who can understand.
I guess I used too many sylables for you in some words. Sorry.

I DO USE DIGITAL. I use a Fuji S1.
Have also used highr MP cameras.
Im an architectural pro - and if you dont see how useless digital
is for me then you dont have a clue technically.
I have been given the requirements from many printers about res.
What I say is true.
I suppose you have spent a whole ton o bucks on stuff that be worth
zero very soon and are trying to cushion the bruising on your ego.

I will not argue anymore with a fool.
I have not the inclination or time.
Good luck to ya.

Good - then we will both be happy....

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Lin Evans]

Firstly - you are wrong - again.
You are presumptuous and thats the best way to loose any argument.
Shows you dont use FACTS to support yourself.
You just make up what is convienient for yourself..

Sorry Graham - I haven't a clue what you are talking about -
apparently neither do you??

Well then - let me explain a little more simply then -.......
You imply I have no experience with digital. You don't know that .
You are just guessing. You try to support you side with
assumptions.
I do in fact have plenty of experince with digital and have run
into many limitations which I pass on to those who can understand.
I guess I used too many sylables for you in some words. Sorry.

I appreciate your straightening me out Graham. Thanks for keeping it simple so I can understand

Lin

http://208.56.82.71