12 vs 18 megapixels

[mrbill5825]

Going to plunge into the DSLR world. Our old F717 is about wore out. Do you think we should go with 12 or 18 megapixel (Nikon vs Canon)? All other things being the same, except price. We mainly use it for travel, grandchildren, architecture, the usual home photo amateur type phtography.

Tough decision

 

[Cedarhill]

My opinion is that for all intents and purposes, there is no difference. I shoot a couple of 10 megapixel DSLRs and I can't say I have ever wished for greater resolution. All other things being equal, I would opt for higher resolution - but all other things are not equal. What is more important to me is ease of use, dynamic range and low light performance. When you read reviews, pay attention to these things as well.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Going to plunge into the DSLR world. Our old F717 is about wore out. Do you think we should go with 12 or 18 megapixel (Nikon vs Canon)? All other things being the same, except price. We mainly use it for travel, grandchildren, architecture, the usual home photo amateur type phtography.

Since you've listed Nikon and Canon, 12MP and 18MP, I guess you're comparing a Nikon D5000 or D90 with the Canon T2i.

I don't believe you will see any difference in the pictures that can be attributed to the megapixel count; both cameras have a lot. Going by the common print standard of 300 dpi, you can print the Nikon to 9" X 14" and the Canon to 11" X 17". So the Canon has a small but noticeable advantage here if you print that big .

All three cameras work well but are different in operation. It goes strictly to personal preference; try them both and see if one is more comfortable to use than the other. I haven't used any of these cameras (I use a Nikon D300 and Canon 50D) but the Canon T2i appears to be a higher-end camera than the D5000 and lower than the D90. The D90 is the only one with a pentaprism finder, which is bigger and brighter than the pentamirror finders in the D5000 and T2i. It also has 2 control dials, which makes it easier to change settings than in the other cameras.

There are also DSLR's from other manufacturers that have comparable performance, usually at a lower price than Nikon or Canon. You may prefer Sony, Pentax or Olympus, any of which can deliver the same picture quality as a Nikon or Canon.

--
Leonard Migliore

 

[davoe]

for the casual user and the not so casual

there was probabally more than enough MP at 6 and 10 was probabally the magic number where it was well and truly more than all but those that really need it needed more

basically all cameras these days have more than enough MP than youll ever use by a long way so put it last on your criteria for buying

 

[mrbill5825]

We are comparing the D5000 and T2i as you said. After analyzing tilll I paralyzed I am more confused than ever, but will probably go with Nikon. I usually second guess myself.
Thank you all for the help.

 

[slowhands214238]

for the casual user, I recommend any of the "super zooms" which puts most all you'll need into a single package...wide + long + carry around everywhere so you have the camera to take the pic when the mood arises, vs having to swap lenses, and worry about $$$$ bag of gear being stolen vs $$$ super zoom

With practice, the slight shutter lag of a non dSLR can be compensated for by anticipating and shooting.

For the most part the super zooms don't approach the low light ability that can be purchased by $$$$ of dSLR body and $$$$ fast glass...but the average consumer does not need it.

Suggestion... save the $$$$, get a super zoom, and hire a pro with the gear when appropriate. My $.02

 

[slayboss]

Going to plunge into the DSLR world. Our old F717 is about wore out. Do you think we should go with 12 or 18 megapixel (Nikon vs Canon)? All other things being the same, except price. We mainly use it for travel, grandchildren, architecture, the usual home photo amateur type phtography.

Tough decision

megapixels matter if you crop photos, otherwise the image quality is similar. if you want more magnification on a cropped pic with a cleaner, sharper image it could be important.

 

[Ansonn701987]

For most photographers 8 - 10 - 12 megapixels are plenty. I prefer the Canon CMOS Sensors in this range. Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony ect. are all excellent cameras as well. It's a matter of choice. Ansonn

 

[BrentR]

We are comparing the D5000 and T2i as you said. After analyzing tilll I paralyzed I am more confused than ever, but will probably go with Nikon. I usually second guess myself.
Thank you all for the help.

Mr. Bill,

Ignore the megapixel race. The number of pixels is one of the least important factors in picking a DSLR. It is more important to think about the quality of the pixels and generally bigger is better. The D5000 has a pixel density of 3.3 MP/cm2 and the T2i has a density of 5.4 MP/cm2: if I knew nothing else about the cameras that would push me towards the D5000.

I haven't read a quality review of the T2i so it's difficult to directly compare it with the D5000. I will guarantee you one thing though, both cameras will deliver outstanding results. Go to your local camera store and play with the two cameras and decide which one feels right to you. Choose on that basis. Please don't choose based on the number of pixels.

My 2 cents,
Brent

 

[Chris59]

Going to plunge into the DSLR world. Our old F717 is about wore out. Do you think we should go with 12 or 18 megapixel (Nikon vs Canon)? All other things being the same, except price. We mainly use it for travel, grandchildren, architecture, the usual home photo amateur type phtography.

Tough decision

The total number of megapixels will determine the maximum resolution of your camera lens regardless of what else you may hear about a megapixel "race". However, even though more megapixels usually means more resolution, you need to weigh up how important this is compared to another camera's better high ISO images, lenses and so on.

The bottom line is that either camera will give you excellent results and you should go and have a play with the cameras you are interested in to see which ones you like the feel and controls of.

 

[rramjit]

I have heard Ken Rockwell and others dispel the need for more pixels but one thing seems to be omitted when discussing this issue, the crop factor. Let's say you are in your backyard and you suddenly see a bird swoop down and grab a lizard. It is 20 yards away. You grab your D5000 and your friend grabs her T2i. You are both going to have to crop your pics even with 200mm to get a compelling image to publish.

You will notice after crop that her pic is clearer, even worse, her T2i has very low noise at high ISO of 800. Now I did this exact scenario with my D40(6.1 MP). I will say that the Nikon is extremely fast at autofocus. I am a Nikon guy but I am very impressed with the T2i, it is in another zone for DX cameras. I will say this also, I am not impressed yet with the sharpness, but she just got it. There is obviously a good reason that Nikon kept their pixels low. Now I know that the D40 is a far cry from the D5000 but I was addressing the issue of pixel difference.

I refuse to change to Canon because I love my D40 and Nikon's menu. I also use Capture NX2 a lot now so I am going to stay with Nikon. I am considering getting the D300s but I am thinking of getting the D5000 and use the money on a very good lens..17-70mm 2.8. DX. If I can't justify the cost, I may look for a manual focus lens with that kind of speed.

If this helps, I have also found that a fast lens beats a slower lens with VR or stabilization, they are sharper. It is really true, spend the money on the lens.

When I have to make tough decisions, I sometimes narrow it down to one or just a few points. Assuming that the video is not a deal breaker, I would advise you to compare the images by taking a card with you to a camera store and take pictures with both cameras, with decent lens. The 18-55mm should suffice for this. Then base your decision on which one is sharper. The high iso, the other stuff can be compensated with good lens. In the end, you need to go with the one that is most compatible with your lifestyle, i.e. software, budget. IQ is always the bottom line though. Get the one that is sharper by comparing the images at home later.

I hoped I have helped. I know by addressing your concerns, I have helped myself!! I am going to do exactly what I told you to help me with my decision. Forget about all the various comparisons with those dumb pictures of teddy bears, toy cars, etc. Compare it for yourself with your own eyes.

Thanks,
--
YRaj Enterprises

 

[Deleted1929]

12 is plenty. 18 is just bigger files to transfer.

Suffice to say that Canon's flagship professional camera uses 16Mp and Nikon's flagship models use 12Mp. If it's good enough for a professional who's income depends on it, it's good enough for anyone.

With 12 megapixels you should be able to print at 16x12 inches easily and really at twice those dimensions without a problem. I print 16x12 from my 6Mp DSLR and I can't see why you'd be any different. And, yes, I am quite fussy about quality.

Lens choice is a fair more important factor. Not just resolving power, but other optical factors as well. It's quite complex and it is always a compromise.

Finally I would add that the most famous photographs ever taken were taken with cameras and lenses that had nothing like the resolving power of a modern entry level DSLR.

Image quality isn't about resolution - not at all, not in any way.

--
StephenG

Pentax K100D
Fuji S3 Pro
Fuji S9600

 

[Bjorn_L]

Going to plunge into the DSLR world. Our old F717 is about wore out. Do you think we should go with 12 or 18 megapixel (Nikon vs Canon)? All other things being the same, except price. We mainly use it for travel, grandchildren, architecture, the usual home photo amateur type phtography.

Tough decision

I do not think there is any difference between the two cameras you are considering.
The Canon has more pixels
The Nikon has better pixels (more accurate info per pixel)

The Nikon has better ISO performance (slightly less grain / noise in the image at the same ISO setting)

The Nikon has better dynamic range. It records a broader spectrum of the darkest to the lightest shade without loss of detail. This would include shadow detail and highlight (bright spot) details.
The Nikon has slightly better color depth.

Then there is the effect of the extra pixels. 12 million pixels is roughly 4000x3000 dots, while 18 is roughly 20% more pixels in each direction. Sounds like a big number until you realize that even at 12 megapixels most people resize them or crop them to toss out 75% of the info. A large 27inch computer screen is 1920x1200 pixels To completely fill that screen you could crop or resize away 81.3% of the image from a d5000 or 87.2% from a Canon 550d. Add in the fact that the Nikon had slightly better per pixel data and it is a complete wash.

However if you want to take photos in low light (like family gatherings without a flash) then the d5000 has a very slight edge.
I think you would be just as happy with either one. Both are fine cameras.

 

[chuxter]

Going to plunge into the DSLR world. Our old F717 is about wore out.

Sorry to hear that...DCs don't last as long as film cameras. :-(

Do you think we should go with 12 or 18 megapixel (Nikon vs Canon)?

Yes.

Tough decision

Nah. Just do as others said...go hold the cameras and operate them for a while (don't rush!). Then go home and sleep. When you wake up, the first one you think of is the one to buy. Trust me!

Bottom Line: All cameras now-a-days have too many pixels.

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D50, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
“...photography for and of itself – photographs taken
from the world as it is – are misunderstood as a
collection of random observations and lucky moments...
Paul Graham

 

[brn]

Seriously. I've had people in awe of 1MP images. Your 1080p HDTV is about 2MP (and that's displayed much larger than you'll ever display a photograph). I'm convinced that for the average user, 3MP is plenty.

You're looking at 12 vs 18 MP? They're both over 3MP, so you'll be fine with either one.

 

[Chris59]

12 is plenty. 18 is just bigger files to transfer.

Rubbish. More pixels equals better resolution - period.

Suffice to say that Canon's flagship professional camera uses 16Mp and Nikon's flagship models use 12Mp. If it's good enough for a professional who's income depends on it, it's good enough for anyone.

No, you are wrong. Canon's "flagship" model is 21 megapixels and Nikon's "flagship" model is 24 megapixels. Also, Nikon's "flagship" outresolves Canon's "flagship" - check out the images from the DPR RAW conversions. Professionals for whom image quality is paramount (as opposed to sports photographers or photojournalists for whom speed in all its aspects is important) use MF with digital backs which routinely have 36 to 48 megapixels.

12 megapixels may be "good enough" for you but some people - especially professionals - want better resolution.

With 12 megapixels you should be able to print at 16x12 inches easily and really at twice those dimensions without a problem. I print 16x12 from my 6Mp DSLR and I can't see why you'd be any different. And, yes, I am quite fussy about quality.

Clearly you are not that "fussy". Have you actually seen the quality possible from cameras that have high resolution sensors?

Lens choice is a fair more important factor. Not just resolving power, but other optical factors as well. It's quite complex and it is always a compromise.

Really? How is a lens' "quality" manifested if itsn't in resolution? What are these other "optical factors" of which you speak?

Finally I would add that the most famous photographs ever taken were taken with cameras and lenses that had nothing like the resolving power of a modern entry level DSLR.

True - so? Does that mean I need to have a low resolution camera (and perhaps use film) to make "famous" photographs? Certainly, it is true that I don't need to have the latest and greatest camera to make well composed, original, thought provoking or creative images, but whatever image I can make, a camera with a high resolution sensor will make it sharper and more detailed.

Image quality isn't about resolution - not at all, not in any way.

Pure and unadulterated garbage!

--
StephenG

Pentax K100D
Fuji S3 Pro
Fuji S9600

 

[Frenske]

12 is plenty. 18 is just bigger files to transfer.

Rubbish. More pixels equals better resolution - period.

Rubbish ... you won't see a difference when viewing on a 1680x1050 monitor, but you will see a difference on your hard-drive, processing speed, etc. On a pixel peeking level you see some differences. At the end most amateurs have no need for 18MP.

Lens choice is a fair more important factor. Not just resolving power, but other optical factors as well. It's quite complex and it is always a compromise.

Really? How is a lens' "quality" manifested if itsn't in resolution? What are these other "optical factors" of which you speak?

• The quality of the out of focus area aka bokeh.
• Sharpness across the whole field and not just centre
• The colour rendition
• Focus speed

 

[Chris59]

12 is plenty. 18 is just bigger files to transfer.

Rubbish. More pixels equals better resolution - period.

Rubbish ... you won't see a difference when viewing on a 1680x1050 monitor, but you will see a difference on your hard-drive, processing speed, etc. On a pixel peeking level you see some differences. At the end most amateurs have no need for 18MP.

True, but you will see it in a print and when you crop. Bottom line you are wrong - all things being equal more megapixels mean more resolution. It is also true that some photographers may not want or need the extra resolution but that is a far cry from sayiing "rubbish" when it isn't so.

Lens choice is a fair more important factor. Not just resolving power, but other optical factors as well. It's quite complex and it is always a compromise.

Really? How is a lens' "quality" manifested if itsn't in resolution? What are these other "optical factors" of which you speak?

• The quality of the out of focus area aka bokeh.

Which is irrelevant if the subject is also out of focus.

• Sharpness across the whole field and not just centre

Gee, sharpness is different to resolution in the context of a lens? I don't think so!

• The colour rendition

These days lenses are quite neutral in their colour "rendition" and even if there is a slight colour cast, it can easily be corrected in post processing. Indeed, I've never heard of a lens having "inferior" colour or even have colour cast listed as a "con".

• Focus speed

What is the point of having fast and accurate focussing speed when you have poor resolution? - None!

Resolution is the main attribute of a lens. Certainly there are other attributes, but without resolution, they are wasted. No one wants a lens with superb bokeh, large aperture, excelent contrast and super fast focus if the end result is a blurry image and likewise with sensors. To belittle resolution and say it is unimportant, whether is comes from an optically excellent lens or high resolution sensor, is simply foolish.> --

 

[Bjorn_L]

Are you serious that you know so little about photography that you do not know the role a quality lens plays?

A quality lens makes FAR FAR more difference to the image than more pixels. To claim otherwise shows a profound lack of understanding. Perhaps you just got caught up in a moment?

 

[Deleted1929]

I don't intend to get involved in an argument with you ( or anyone ).

However one remark you make needs to be addressed.

Really? How is a lens' "quality" manifested if itsn't in resolution? What are
these other "optical factors" of which you speak?

Frankly, this demonstrates either a very aggressive approach to communication or an almost complete lack of understanding of a very important aspect of photography. Perhaps both.

You also make an odd comment in response to your reply ( by someone else ) listing some of those other factors.

The quality of the out of focus area aka bokeh.

Which is irrelevant if the subject is also out of focus.

Firstly you seem to be saying that being 'in-focus' and 'sensor resolution' are in some way related. Focus is, of course, nothing to do with resolution, and I hope I've just picked up your intent wrong, but it does need to be clarified for other beginners reading this forum.

In fact in many photos the majority of the subject IS out of focus. You cannot have tried any shallow DOF portraiture if you don't know this. You presumably also don't understand why soft-focus is often desirable in a portrait.

It's about more than sharpness and focus. Much more. Resolution is an irrelevance compared with the many other aspects of what makes one image good, one bad, one ordinary and that very rare one extraordinary.

I'd suggest you look at a few websites :

(1) Photozone.de

With all respect to DPReview, I regard this as the premier lens testing site on the web. I doubt I am alone. You will note several lenses which get marked down heavily despite having top-notch resolution. ( The Pentax FA 16-45 leaps to mind ).

(2) http://galactinus.net/vilva/index.html

This is the homepage of one Veijo Vilva. He has different ideas about photography which I'd recommend to anyone for consideration, particularly those with an obsessive need for greater resolution. It will perhaps give people other things to think about than technical photography.

(3) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Head for 'essays' and start reading. There are a wealth of opinions and analysis of artistic and technical aspects of photography. There are quite a few addressing this subject of resolution and sharpness and what it means in the real world.

I could name others ( Thom Hogan is always a source of authority ), but they'll do for now.

If you wish to cling to your believe in resolution over all other things then go ahead. It's a (partially) free world. My only concern is that I believe you are spreading many misconceptions about photography and I feel that needs to be addressed,

I will not be adding any further comment to this thread. Carry on without me if you want. I've seen similar threads degenerate into heated personal contests and even abuse and I don't wish that to happen.

In any case, whatever you do, good luck with your photography which I sincerely hope is better than mine.

--
StephenG

Pentax K100D
Fuji S3 Pro
Fuji S9600