It's a question of standards, apparently.
Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
6 Megapixels Can't Be Enough
- Thread starter CowDad
- Start date
I have a Canon G-2 at slightly less than 4 MP and have been able toI had been into film for awhile--I've had four Canon SLRs. I
bought an S230, 3.2 mp, in January, and, yeah, I've been very happy
with it--but all it's good for is snapshots. Yeah, I can make an
8x10--but that's it.
Now, for $1,000, I can make an 11x14?
If an 8x10 is 80 sq inches, and I can make an 8x10 with 3.2 mp, I
figure I can double the square inches with 6 mp, or 160 sq inches,
roughly an 11x14.
Bottom line: you still ain't got much here.
CowDad
print out 12x16 pics with a little PS tweaking. The prints were
good enough to sell a dozen to a local sports club at nearly $15 a
piece. I'm expecting my next upgrade, DR @ 6.3 MP to do much
better work, especially after I get my 70-200 4.0L lens.
Cheers.
--
GFP USA
Mark Marshall
Senior Member
Stick a wooden stake into it's evil heart. CowDad - I'm glad you are choosing to remain a film troll. I have matted and framed 11x14's from a 4Mp CCD hanging in my house and I love the "oh wows!" I get from my low standard guests. You on the other hand would be tossed out on your high standard bovine butt. - m²
It's a question of standards, apparently.So you printed a 3 MP image to 13x19. That's about 100 dpi trueI've cropped away half of a RAW image from my S2 and still come up
with a TACK SHARP 13 x 19 on my CAnon 9100i -
resolution. If you consider 100 dpi "TACK SHARP" (as you say you
do) you must really ENJOY the brilliance, resolution and sharpness
of newspaper photos, as they are 100 dpi too.
I'm not a troll at all, dude.Stick a wooden stake into it's evil heart. CowDad - I'm glad you
are choosing to remain a film troll.
Just somebody with some standards.
This claim is certainly more reasonable than any claim about making good 16x20's from a 2 mp image, isn't it?I have matted and framed
11x14's from a 4Mp CCD hanging in my house and I love the "oh
wows!" I get from my low standard guests.
But let's face it: 6 mp just ain't that much.
Dude, this is a forum for discussing digital photography--it's not a forum for trading insults.You on the other hand
would be tossed out on your high standard bovine butt. - m²
Mike Flaherty
Senior Member
I can print tack sharp 8X10's from my 1.5 megapixel Olympus E100RS. I have printed wonderful 24X36's from my 3.11 megapixel D30. My 1D, with slightly more than 4 megapixels has produced a couple of stellar 24X36's, too. Clearly, you don't fully understand how the interpolation process works; otherwise, you'd be singing a different tune. Best to you...
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
--I had been into film for awhile--I've had four Canon SLRs. I
bought an S230, 3.2 mp, in January, and, yeah, I've been very happy
with it--but all it's good for is snapshots. Yeah, I can make an
8x10--but that's it.
Now, for $1,000, I can make an 11x14?
If an 8x10 is 80 sq inches, and I can make an 8x10 with 3.2 mp, I
figure I can double the square inches with 6 mp, or 160 sq inches,
roughly an 11x14.
Bottom line: you still ain't got much here.
CowDad
Mike Flaherty
http://imageevent.com/mflaherty/mikesgallery
kyrebel
New member
I think he has an extremely valid point, and we could learn a lot from him, I would say his credentials and ability to understand what he is saying are far ahead of most of us. They don't just hand out PHDs from MIT to anyone...
From his website:
"Dr. Roger Clark earned his Ph.D. in Planetary Science from MIT in 1980. Roger's expertise is identifying and mapping minerals on the Earth and other planets and their satellites using imaging spectroscopy. He develops laboratory, telescopic and spacecraft spectrometers and imaging spectrometers. He has published over 100 scientific papers.
Roger is a science flight team member on the Cassini mission to Saturn, Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer, and a co-investigator for the Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) Team on the Mars Global Surveyor, which has been orbiting Mars since 1997.
As an "amateur" astronomer, Roger has been an avid deep-sky observer, sketching hundreds of faint fuzzies, and he has advanced the amateur's knowledge both of what to observe and how best to observe the brightest as well as faintest of galaxies and nebulae.
Roger captures the beauty of the earth and the night sky with photography and through drawings of celestial wonders. His photography ranges from 35mm through large format (4x5 and 8x10 cameras), and the new field of digital. Roger's images have appeared in scientific publications, popular articles, books, magazines, and newsletters."
From an engineering standpoint I think he is right!!
KY
If it weren't for cheap cameras there wouldn't be any photos of myself as a baby....
From his website:
"Dr. Roger Clark earned his Ph.D. in Planetary Science from MIT in 1980. Roger's expertise is identifying and mapping minerals on the Earth and other planets and their satellites using imaging spectroscopy. He develops laboratory, telescopic and spacecraft spectrometers and imaging spectrometers. He has published over 100 scientific papers.
Roger is a science flight team member on the Cassini mission to Saturn, Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer, and a co-investigator for the Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) Team on the Mars Global Surveyor, which has been orbiting Mars since 1997.
As an "amateur" astronomer, Roger has been an avid deep-sky observer, sketching hundreds of faint fuzzies, and he has advanced the amateur's knowledge both of what to observe and how best to observe the brightest as well as faintest of galaxies and nebulae.
Roger captures the beauty of the earth and the night sky with photography and through drawings of celestial wonders. His photography ranges from 35mm through large format (4x5 and 8x10 cameras), and the new field of digital. Roger's images have appeared in scientific publications, popular articles, books, magazines, and newsletters."
From an engineering standpoint I think he is right!!
KY
--I had been into film for awhile--I've had four Canon SLRs. I
bought an S230, 3.2 mp, in January, and, yeah, I've been very happy
with it--but all it's good for is snapshots. Yeah, I can make an
8x10--but that's it.
Now, for $1,000, I can make an 11x14?
If an 8x10 is 80 sq inches, and I can make an 8x10 with 3.2 mp, I
figure I can double the square inches with 6 mp, or 160 sq inches,
roughly an 11x14.
Bottom line: you still ain't got much here.
CowDad
If it weren't for cheap cameras there wouldn't be any photos of myself as a baby....
eddie anton
Forum Enthusiast
I had been into film for awhile--I've had four Canon SLRs. I
bought an S230, 3.2 mp, in January, and, yeah, I've been very happy
with it--but all it's good for is snapshots. Yeah, I can make an
8x10--but that's it.
Now, for $1,000, I can make an 11x14?
If an 8x10 is 80 sq inches, and I can make an 8x10 with 3.2 mp, I
figure I can double the square inches with 6 mp, or 160 sq inches,
roughly an 11x14.
Bottom line: you still ain't got much here.
CowDad
L
Lin Evans
Guest
Hi KY,I think he has an extremely valid point, and we could learn a lot
from him, I would say his credentials and ability to understand
what he is saying are far ahead of most of us. They don't just hand
out PHDs from MIT to anyone...
From his website:
"Dr. Roger Clark earned his Ph.D. in Planetary Science from MIT in
1980. Roger's expertise is identifying and mapping minerals on the
Earth and other planets and their satellites using imaging
spectroscopy. He develops laboratory, telescopic and spacecraft
spectrometers and imaging spectrometers. He has published over 100
scientific papers.
Roger is a science flight team member on the Cassini mission to
Saturn, Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer, and a
co-investigator for the Thermal Emission Spectrometer (TES) Team on
the Mars Global Surveyor, which has been orbiting Mars since 1997.
As an "amateur" astronomer, Roger has been an avid deep-sky
observer, sketching hundreds of faint fuzzies, and he has advanced
the amateur's knowledge both of what to observe and how best to
observe the brightest as well as faintest of galaxies and nebulae.
Roger captures the beauty of the earth and the night sky with
photography and through drawings of celestial wonders. His
photography ranges from 35mm through large format (4x5 and 8x10
cameras), and the new field of digital. Roger's images have
appeared in scientific publications, popular articles, books,
magazines, and newsletters."
From an engineering standpoint I think he is right!!
KY
Roger did that study many, many years ago and it hasn't been updated to reflect the much different sensor and processing capabilities of today's digital instruments.
If you read it carefully, you will learn that he used a now very old and very low resolution Hewlett-Packard digital camera and a Nikon CP950 (2 mp) and his conclusions were based on extrapolation of the capture results.
Nobody is questioning Roger's technical background or qualifications - but remember there are many of us here who have advanced degrees and a good deal of "practical" experience with recent professional level digital equipment.
When it comes to understanding what's possible and interpreting the results, you might resist the impulse to "theorize" and rather look at practical results. Results show that six megapixel pro level digital sensors are a suitable replacement for 35mm color film and transparencies. This is not a "guess" or an "extrapolation," but rather the voice of experience with side by side examinations of thousands of prints made by both technologies.
The differences have been thoroughly discussed in other threads, but this lengthy thread started and continued by an uninformed and apparently "hard headed" individual simply demonstrates that the vast majority of those who use both digital technology and film technology on a daily basis, both professional and amateur have spoken, and the message is clear.
Lin
http://208.56.82.71
I understand some people can make some way out claims.I can print tack sharp 8X10's from my 1.5 megapixel Olympus E100RS.
I have printed wonderful 24X36's from my 3.11 megapixel D30. My
1D, with slightly more than 4 megapixels has produced a couple of
stellar 24X36's, too. Clearly, you don't fully understand how the
interpolation process works;
Thank you kindly.otherwise, you'd be singing a
different tune. Best to you...
Damon Joyce
Active member
I think really what it comes down to, is the clarity of the large CMOS sensor. When you blow up an image that has JPEG artifacts and noise, they get magnified greatly. The CMOS sensor produces a silky image, that can be enlarged quite a bit. When you enlarge the 300D/D30/D60/10D/etc pictures a lot, they might look grainy, but not blocky/jaggy like the CCD cameras put out.
It seems a lot of people here are touchy... pay no mind to them. ^ ^
It seems a lot of people here are touchy... pay no mind to them. ^ ^
I had been into film for awhile--I've had four Canon SLRs. I
bought an S230, 3.2 mp, in January, and, yeah, I've been very happy
with it--but all it's good for is snapshots. Yeah, I can make an
8x10--but that's it.
Now, for $1,000, I can make an 11x14?
If an 8x10 is 80 sq inches, and I can make an 8x10 with 3.2 mp, I
figure I can double the square inches with 6 mp, or 160 sq inches,
roughly an 11x14.
Bottom line: you still ain't got much here.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.