How do i explain to someone its not about megapixels ?

Started Oct 4, 2013 | Questions thread
dholl
dholl Veteran Member • Posts: 3,233
Re: the cult of DPR

sir_bazz wrote:

dholl wrote:

sir_bazz wrote:

Use a site like Snap Sort

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-600d-vs-Pentax-K-30

Christ! snapsort is a candidate for the worst camera website ever! It's run by bot-programs, and it shows.

Excruciating. Should be shut down.

Perfect though, for demonstrating that there's more to a camera than just megapixels.

Read what you want into the ratings, (although most of the imaging categories are taken from DxO), but it clearly lists other features of a camera that may be of interest to a new camera buyer.

Snapsort is godawful wrong on so many levels, I'm shivering just thinking about it.

Futax wrote:

Note, that's for a given technology. Currently, it so happens that Canon's DSLR sensors seem to be lagging behind the likes of Pentax and Nikon, for example, when it comes to dynamic range and noise, so there's the best reason for selecting something other than a Canon DSLR.

That's not the best reason at all. It's a subreason.

The best reasons would be things like handling, reliability and system-flexibility.

That's why Canon has been the undisputed market leader for so long, not because it always offers the best IQ, but because it often offers the best camera.

Alan Brown wrote:

nostalgia?

times have changed but you don't want to. That's ok.

Who says I don't want them to? I was among the first wave to embrace video in system cameras, and live-view before that. I got me the 6D because it's the most modern option for getting decent OOC output at ultra-high ISO's.

I might get me the D800E as I'm seduced (just like any macro friend) by the insane resolution potential.

I've got no problems with evolving tech.

You are right: increased MP did 'used' to mean more noise at higher ISO and it would 'always would'.. (I have been here from 2001 and have been through that era of indoctrination) It wasn't correct though.

a Nikon D100's 6MP is noisier at the same ISO than their 36MP D800.. (you admitted that) I don't see where you can argue now?

How old is the D100? 10 years?

Let's stick to same-generation:

D600 vs D800 (D600 has 5% better high-ISO performance. Why? Because it has less pixels, and because these pixels are bigger).

6D vs 5DIII (6D has 2% better high-ISO performance. Why? Because it has less pixels, and because these pixels are bigger).

These differences are irrelevant to users. But they are there. Why are they there?

Is the only reason the Canikon flagships are 16-18mp because of FPS, or is it also to ensure market-leading high-ISO sensitivity?

Files are a lot bigger too: I agree. But were are not all using Intel 286 based PCs now, are we?

That's just silly. Let's be reasonable and assume quite a lot of people still use dual-core processors with 2GB RAM. They are gonna struggle with 36mp files.

Choice 1) upgrade the computer.

Choice 2) change the camera to one with smaller files.

Choice 3) decrease the in-camera resolution

So we have choices. Choices are cool.

Great Bustard wrote:

Mikael has contributed many valuable technical examples displaying the superiority of the Sony Exmor sensors over Canon sensors in terms of read noise (and thus DR) at base ISO.

That's not even the debate. We're not doing a Canon vs Nikon thing here. Anyway, I'm on record saying the D600 sensor produces better output than the 5DIII/6D (see my user reviews of these cameras).

I'm disappointed that you would cite a single example as a "very real rule-of-thumb" when the preponderance of examples show the exact opposite.

Yeah, just like those examples I wrote above.

However, let's discuss this exception to the rule.

Let's not. This thread really shouldn't be another technical fart.

Anyone fancy doing a F31fd vs 1020 ISO-1600 showdown?

Indeed, that would be great, but would only make sense with RAWs, since the in-camera jpg engine can do lots of things that will skew the results.

A lot of people shoot JPG's. I shoot only-JPG's myself quite often (even with the 6D's crappy pixel softness). RAW supertechnical tests aren't relevant to everyone, neither is maximising the output-quality.

Still, going back to the D600, that had more complete JPG's than the Canons too. It's just not a very good camera (camera as in being a tool).

That being said, the IQ differences are noticable only to those who geek out over it. To everyone else, the differences are never registered. Exception: ultra high-ISO out-of-cam video. Here the Canons win. Hence, one of the two reasons why I chose Canon (the other being its strengths as a tool).

Anyway, where be this mythical girlfriend??

edispics wrote:

Why not just get her to read this thread? Or is the fear of her running screaming into the woods and never ever wanting to pick up a camera again just too likely?

haha!

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow