I understand more about this than you clearly do. Your web picture comparisons are useless. My point can only be proved with a print. All those web comparisons use pictures that have been resampled to make them smaller at 72 ppi. But since you know so much more than I do, I don't have to explain why this invalidates the comparison. I never said they were the same. I said they would give the same results prointed ar 8 x 10. If you want to print bigger pictures you do indeed need more pixels (feel free to re read the title of my post). Your eye can only resolve 220 lines per inch. So a 5mp image will make a fine 8 x 10, and all the extra pixels in the world won't make it better.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
More megapixels means bigger pictures, not better pictures!!!
- Thread starter VizBiz
- Start date
I can't believe this is so hard to understand for some people.
Here's a real world situation: you see a rare blue-bellied woodpecker perched on a tree 40 yards away. You've got a 400mm f2.8, the Canon 5D, and Canon 20D. Which camera do you put the lens on?
Here's a real world situation: you see a rare blue-bellied woodpecker perched on a tree 40 yards away. You've got a 400mm f2.8, the Canon 5D, and Canon 20D. Which camera do you put the lens on?
thx1138
Veteran Member
Well a D2X of course
)Just kidding, of course.
You're not allowed to say any more, then. You're a traitor to both sides
That's the odd thing about this. Everyone seems to be very emotional even though many of us agree about the details of this all.
I prefer the 20D/30D for tele/macro work. I'd prefer the 5D for cases where I can fill the frame with the subject the way I want. Having both bodies would be a very good setup if you ask me.
I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to accept that neither body is ideal for everything. You've solved the problem by having one of each.
--
Jim H.
You're not allowed to say any more, then. You're a traitor to both sides
That's the odd thing about this. Everyone seems to be very emotional even though many of us agree about the details of this all.
I prefer the 20D/30D for tele/macro work. I'd prefer the 5D for cases where I can fill the frame with the subject the way I want. Having both bodies would be a very good setup if you ask me.
I'm not sure why it's so hard for people to accept that neither body is ideal for everything. You've solved the problem by having one of each.
--
Jim H.
FretNoMore
Veteran Member
...by using actual real life scenarios. You'll destroy whole belief systems doing that.
- Anders @ http://www.andersostberg.com *
M
misha
Guest
--
Misha
I never said that FOV was more important. I just gave an example of why having a bigger FOV might help. And, yes, for many, if not most, circumstances digital images give you the ability to crop an image without degrading the print. Every print size has a maximum amount of information it can utilize, any more is discarded by the driver.
Also, why are you printing at 300dpi? 220dpi is more than the eye can resolve, so you are wasting those precious pixels. And I hope you are letting your print drivers size your prints. There are many of you out there who are changing their images sizes to print. And don't mistake dpi of the image with the dpi of the printer.
Your response takes everything to the extreme. I was clearly pointing out that the 5mp crop from the 5D would indeed produce beautiful prints. So you comment that we should use ultrawide is shows a complete lack of understanding or was purely condescending, was it not?
Also, why are you printing at 300dpi? 220dpi is more than the eye can resolve, so you are wasting those precious pixels. And I hope you are letting your print drivers size your prints. There are many of you out there who are changing their images sizes to print. And don't mistake dpi of the image with the dpi of the printer.
Your response takes everything to the extreme. I was clearly pointing out that the 5mp crop from the 5D would indeed produce beautiful prints. So you comment that we should use ultrawide is shows a complete lack of understanding or was purely condescending, was it not?
Julio
Veteran Member
Ok...so if we had a third choice--let's call it a 3200D--with an even smaller 3.2 crop factor sensor, I could walk another 40 yds away from the peckerwood back to that Starbucks behind me, order a double mocha, have a seat and take the shot...
Come on Canon, smaller sensors is what we need!
that is exactly what I'm talking about if you read my now countless (and I hope not useless) posts here and the other threads about this.
I have indeed solved the problem. The reason I like more the 5D apart from the higher pixel count (I am almost never focal-length nor space limited) are better AF, better detail in high ISO and so on. Things that don't belong in this thread.
wrider
Veteran Member
You know, your right! A lot of people have wasted a lot of time here worrying about pictures that are too big! See, you learn something new every day!
--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com
'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein
I have read your posts to this thread and I agree with your position.
Did you see my post here in this thread? I think we're on the same page with this. Some others here seem to be having difficulties with some of the basics.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=17491496
--
Jim H.
Did you see my post here in this thread? I think we're on the same page with this. Some others here seem to be having difficulties with some of the basics.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=17491496
--
Jim H.
M
misha
Guest
Why should this size be the test? Many make larger prints, some hardly ever print bigger than 5x7.
If you do bird photography (that albatross you mentioned in your original post), you very often are focal range limited, and have to crop even a 1.6x image to make the subject reasonably large in the frame. So if a 1.6x photo requires cropping to, say, 5 megapixels, one from the full frame 5D will shrink to 2 mp or so with the same coverage - not really enough for a good 8x10.
--
Misha
" You'd have to zoom in more or move closer to the subject with the 5D, but hands down it blows away the detail of smaller sensors."
LOL! Yeah, but a different website proved the 20D has about 100x higher resolution than the 5D. Sure the 5D photo was taken from 200 yards away and the 20d photo was taken from 5 feet, but hands down the 20D blew the 5D away.
LOL! Yeah, but a different website proved the 20D has about 100x higher resolution than the 5D. Sure the 5D photo was taken from 200 yards away and the 20d photo was taken from 5 feet, but hands down the 20D blew the 5D away.
My wife's sister bought a Sony Mavica a long time ago. That camera has 640 X 480 resolution.
I bought, a few months later, a Kodak DC260. That camera has a whopping 1.6 megapixels.
Now I set up more than a few web sites back then, and I can assure you that a photo taken with the 1.6 megapixel camera, and then downsized using a bicubic algorithm to 640 X 480 for web viewing ALWAYS looks better than the photos taken "native" at 640 X 480.
And before you say "Yeah, but the Mavica was just a bad camera.", let me also point out that if I simply cropped a 640 X 480 section out of one of my DC260's shots as opposed to getting in closer and making the shot, then downsizing it, THOSE crops looked far worse than the downsized versions.
So you are totally incorrect when you assert that the "extra pixels" are "thrown away". They are not. They are used, even to make a small print. Good RIP software or good downsizing software generates a better small print or web photo by taking the extra information and mapping it onto the smaller image in a useful way.
Maybe you can't see the difference, but I'll bet that If we were to take 5 megapixel crops from a 5D and make 8 X 12 prints and then make 8 X 12 prints from the full 8.2 megapixels of a 20D (for cases where we used the same lens and same camera position to attempt to make a bird shot or whatever), most people would prefer the results from the 20D's full frame versus the lower resolution image from the center of the 5D.
I don't believe that you've actually done this and compared the results. I think you'll be surprised at what you find when you finally do try it.
Now I'm not saying that there is a huge difference, but the thing that is making people angry in this thread is not that you might believe that what you'd get from the 5D would be "good enough for you", but that you're trying to ram your beliefs down everyone else's throats and many of us here have done this for a long time and we know that the higher res images are better - even on 8 X 12 prints!
--
Jim H.
I bought, a few months later, a Kodak DC260. That camera has a whopping 1.6 megapixels.
Now I set up more than a few web sites back then, and I can assure you that a photo taken with the 1.6 megapixel camera, and then downsized using a bicubic algorithm to 640 X 480 for web viewing ALWAYS looks better than the photos taken "native" at 640 X 480.
And before you say "Yeah, but the Mavica was just a bad camera.", let me also point out that if I simply cropped a 640 X 480 section out of one of my DC260's shots as opposed to getting in closer and making the shot, then downsizing it, THOSE crops looked far worse than the downsized versions.
So you are totally incorrect when you assert that the "extra pixels" are "thrown away". They are not. They are used, even to make a small print. Good RIP software or good downsizing software generates a better small print or web photo by taking the extra information and mapping it onto the smaller image in a useful way.
Maybe you can't see the difference, but I'll bet that If we were to take 5 megapixel crops from a 5D and make 8 X 12 prints and then make 8 X 12 prints from the full 8.2 megapixels of a 20D (for cases where we used the same lens and same camera position to attempt to make a bird shot or whatever), most people would prefer the results from the 20D's full frame versus the lower resolution image from the center of the 5D.
I don't believe that you've actually done this and compared the results. I think you'll be surprised at what you find when you finally do try it.
Now I'm not saying that there is a huge difference, but the thing that is making people angry in this thread is not that you might believe that what you'd get from the 5D would be "good enough for you", but that you're trying to ram your beliefs down everyone else's throats and many of us here have done this for a long time and we know that the higher res images are better - even on 8 X 12 prints!
--
Jim H.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum