R1 Question - does the megapixel setting matter??

im not printing out the images....they are mainly used for web portfolio purposes. i usually resize jpegs i shoot to 800 x 533 and i was wondeing if i increase the megapixel setting would it make the picture sharper or of a higher quality when i resize?? should i have it on the 10mp setting then resize as needed?....thanks in advance
--
http://blog.myspace.com/rbn305

a more scientific or mathematical answer, but, unless you want to allow for significant cropping latitude, I can't see where you would benefit from anything larger than 3-5 MP if your finished image is only 800 X 533 pixels.

Just a gut feeling...
--
-Jerry
Sony V1 - Still learning...

'The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.'
-- Dorothea Lange

http://www.pbase.com/icicle50/root

...that the extra megapixels will give you more detail for the web after resizing, BUT, your work is soooo unique and strong, why not get the full use of that gorgeous sensor on the R1 in case someone sees an image of yours and wants to use it in print - be it an album cover, an ad or a poster.

It costs you nothing to downsize the image whether you start with 5 mps or 10. I know that the image sizes are large, but storage is pretty cheap these days and it would be a shame for you to miss out on an opportunity if it should pop up in the future.

Just my 2cents.
--
Cheers,
Charles

thanks guys...the reason i ask is because i need to update from the r1 to a sharper image camera....i was looking into the nikon d80 or beyond...they seem to producer a sharp image that just takes things to another level...i didnt see an end result of that on the a100 so i skipped over it...any insight would be great
--
http://blog.myspace.com/rbn305

wow... sharper?

I don;t think you'll ever top the R1 for sharpness. It is an awesome lens. The problem might lie with the user...?

You can always Sharpen using software if you want a more dramatic (unrealistic) result.

Photoshop has a suite of sharpening filters.

i guess of a higher quality like these pics..i guess i wanna kno if a nikon would offer better image quality than the r1...i kno the pixel count matters ofcourse....im not selling my r1 i just wanna get an upgrade to a higher quality image...and i guess having said that id love to start taking shots that can become posters...

--
http://blog.myspace.com/rbn305

Hi nite, I really doubt you'd see much of a difference between an R1 and a D80 as far as the image is concerned. What you might think of as being sharper could very well just be an image that was taken with very shallow depth of field, making the focused parts really stand out. That's the advantage with any dSLR, you can attach fast lenses to it to more easily achieve that type of effect. The downside is, you'll need to spend some heavy cash on optics (kit lenses won't cut it), but if you feel that you need that, then of course it's a good move!
--
Martin -- http://mjp.pixelpeep.com
'those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.'

well there have been times that i achieve the right ammount of sharpness with the r1...anyone have any tips on achieve sharpness in all their photos...maybe im doing something wrong....do most of u use the manual focus? or the auto focus....??
--
http://blog.myspace.com/rbn305

Pixel count matters very little... you're not going to miss much as far as large prints go even if you moved down to 8mp or 6mp cameras with equal size sensors, neither will you gain much going up to 12mp for example. The sensor size and quality, pixel pitch and the quality of the pixels is a much bigger factor, and so is the type of lens you mount on the camera. Good, sharp focus and a shake-free shot are yet other factors. Ahh, and then there's also raw vs. jpeg, and how good is the jpeg output.

If your R1 is somehow not producing sharp images, I have a feeling you might want to take a look at possible faults with your technique (ie. how steadily do you hold the camera, are you focusing on the right parts of a scene, are you shooting jpeg, etc), because the R1 images are pretty damn sharp, on par with high end lenses. Posters? Try interpolating one of your raw images up to a 50mb tiff file, I'm sure the detail will amaze you!
--
Martin -- http://mjp.pixelpeep.com
'those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.'

It seems to me that the standard wisdom for the R1 is to shoot RAW, with sharpness in camera set to low and then USM the image in photoshop. Although, I suspect for the type of photography you are doing you'd want to use jpg for shooting speed sake. Even still, sharpness set to low in jpg mode with a bit of photoshop USM should yield pretty darn sharp photos. As well, at the small sizes you're using, the difference in sharpness between one camera and another would be largely lost I'd suspect. Seems to me you're getting great results with the R1 - most here seem to echo that.
--
Check out my newbie efforts and comment freely!

http://gallery.photographyreview.com/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=249596

photoelectric said:

It seems to me that the standard wisdom for the R1 is to shoot RAW,
with sharpness in camera set to low and then USM the image in
photoshop.

Click to expand...

So is the logic to this is that there no advantage to in-camera sharpening if you are going to use PP sharpening? Does in-camera sharpening have any effect on the RAW image? -Den

10 megapixels is better than 5 megapixels but not very much. RAW is better than jpg but not very much. If all you do with your image is post it online at 800 by 533, then I don't think these things matter.

I get a high percentage of soft images with my R1. I checked the automatic focus by using a chart, but it is fine. The problem is usually that I'm using a low shutter speed and there is some movement, either mine or my model's, that either blurs the image, or throws the focus off.
I'm doing better now than I did six months ago.

I sharpen my images with ultra sharp mask in Photoshop every time I change the size of the image. They always need it.
John Dunn

if what all of u are saying is true is that there is no better quality than the r1...and while i will implement these new tactics into my shooting its hard to believe there is just nothing better out there...

are u guys using manual focus or auto focus?? im just trying to better myself......thanks for all your help

and i kno lens is a factor...does the r1 have the best lens on the market?? i think thats what im getting confused on...cuz i kno theres lenses that produce a higher quality image...

also keep in mind i am still a beginner...even tho i use the manual setting i just adjust settings till i get what i want...i kno that the f/ will open or close making things fade and such but i really dont push the iso envolope on the r1 cuz i hate noise and shutter speeds i kno a lil about....but seeing is that im tryin to get the most out of this camera id love to kno how to get shots like these...im going to buy lighting right now....

--
http://blog.myspace.com/rbn305

...the R1 jpegs at default sharpness have been dead on sharp for me.

I made my name on clarity, sharp images that don't look "sharpened", but just very clear, and I worried moving from the perfect default sharpness of the 707 to the R1, but was worrying for no reason.

R1 is just plain sharp.

Make sure you have a fast enough shutter for shooting conditions, and any time you downsize an image, for instance for the web, follow up with a sharpen filter and you'll be happy. Again, if you're downsizing for the web and NOT sharpening after, then you'll be unhappy with any cameras image.

In no application I can think of will you find sharper images with the D80 or other DSLR.

If the camera doesn't shoot fast enough for you, or you need a long zoom, move to the DSLR..otherwise the R1 is as sharp as you're gonna get.

have fun
dave
--
Amazing what we can do with just three crayons, red green and blue!
http://diamondmultimediagroup.com

thanks...are all the images on ur site with the r1?
--
http://blog.myspace.com/rbn305

nite said:

its hard to believe there is just nothing better
out there...

Click to expand...

No, there definitely is better out there, it's just that you'd have to look at lenses more than camera bodies. A D80 with its kit lens won't match the R1. The previous kit lens, the Nikkor 18-70 is pretty good, but it doesn't give you the same reach, and is slower at the wider angles... and it'll cost you $300. The 17-55 Nikkor has a constant f2.8 so you'll have decent depth of field options throughout, but... it's $1200, doesn't give you much reach, and does pretty poorly in the barrel and pincushion departments. To clearly surpass the R1, you'll want something like a D80 and primes, or a full-frame camera with a higher end zoom... lots of $$ any way you look at it.

nite said:

are u guys using manual focus or auto focus?? im just trying to
better myself......thanks for all your help

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone uses an R1 for manual focusing. It's virtually useless

nite said:

and i kno lens is a factor...does the r1 have the best lens on the
market?? i think thats what im getting confused on...cuz i kno
theres lenses that produce a higher quality image...

Click to expand...

Compared to other standard zoom lenses, there's not many that are better (check around the net for lens tests and you'll see). Some that come close don't have the same 5x range either. The only area where it might lack is the f2.8-f4.8 variable aperture. Compared to prime lenses, though, sure, most primes will outdo it.

nite said:

also keep in mind i am still a beginner...even tho i use the manual
setting i just adjust settings till i get what i want

Click to expand...

If your thing is control of depth-of-field, try using aperture priority and the EV dial. If shutter-speed is your thing, try shutter priority with the EV dial. This is pretty much the same deal as manual except it's faster once you adjust to this way of shooting. Shooting in manual should be the option when you know you want to over/under expose more than 2 stops, otherwise it does nothing for you except slow you down and give you a greater risk of error in situations where you don't have a lot of time to take the shot.
--
Martin -- http://mjp.pixelpeep.com
'those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.'

what setting should i be using when im on shoots with models?? that arent moving??....

thank u for all ur help...ur pics are hot...
--
http://blog.myspace.com/rbn305

Oh man, that's not something easily answered, plus I don't know how you like to shoot. If you like shallow depth of field, I don't think you've got a lot to worry about for sharpness other than check your focus carefully (go with spot focus), otherwise I'd consider a tripod or monopod if you're using small apertures with slower shutter speeds.

Just a thought too, maybe try keeping the focal length at the 'classic' portrait range... 75mm-90mm to avoid distorting the subject, and physically move fwd/back for composing. Keep it at about 50mm maybe for full body shots? I'd avoid full tele because you're limiting your options to f4.8 max aperture. This is just random thoughts, I have no idea if they'll apply for you.

Hot? hehe thanks for the comment, but I think 'hot' photos are more your thing!
--
Martin -- http://mjp.pixelpeep.com
'those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.'

...the F707 was my primary camera for four years until upping to the R1 just a couple weeks ago.

During that time I shot with several different SLR setups, and found that shooting Sony prosumers had made me into a very demanding shooter when it came to clarity. The R1 is really working for me so far..

dave
--
Amazing what we can do with just three crayons, red green and blue!
http://diamondmultimediagroup.com