Alright, So i know a lot about computers, but not a lot about DSLR Cameras... I noticed the more megapixel the higher the price (of course) but why are megapixels so use full... If I can get a brief explanation of the deal that would be great! Thanks.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Megapixels.
- Thread starter MacOCD
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So Basically, Less megapixels i can't get a huge image... I know the Nikon D40 has 6.1 Megapixels i think... Do you know how big that can be scaled up?
With a 6mp camera, the largest quality print you would be able to get would be around 16" by 20", after that you might lose some quality.
Chundles
macrumors G5
More megapixels = better quality.
Don't pay any attention to those saying "it's all about the sensor" or "it's all about the lens" or "it's all about the photographer's eye for a scene," it's 100% about megapixels.
If you have a camera with more megapixels then it takes better pictures.
This will get complaints...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel
Don't pay any attention to those saying "it's all about the sensor" or "it's all about the lens" or "it's all about the photographer's eye for a scene," it's 100% about megapixels.
If you have a camera with more megapixels then it takes better pictures.
This will get complaints...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel
Well, I'm just doing research to buy a DSLR, on a budget and i do want a good camera... I was just concerned with the megapixels. 16 by 20 isn't that bad, its not like I'm gonna go try and sell these 😛 Hobby's are just for fun.
jmann
macrumors 604
16x20 is pretty huge. It should be fine. My Sony is a 10mp. but I bet your DSLR takes nice photos because of the type of camera it is. Mine is a fancy point and shoot. 🙂
thomahawk
macrumors 6502a
I love the Nikon D40, i dont think megapixels matters a lot. only for if your printing huge prints or your blowing up a huge poster.
i have used the nikon d40 its a great camera just get a nice big aperture lenses and your good go 🙂
i currently use a Canon Rebel XSi, love it. 12mp to me is just right. i take better pictures than a friend who sports a 50D (15mp i beleive) but i guess its cause hes using the kit lenses and i was using a rented 24-105L 😱
i have used the nikon d40 its a great camera just get a nice big aperture lenses and your good go 🙂
i currently use a Canon Rebel XSi, love it. 12mp to me is just right. i take better pictures than a friend who sports a 50D (15mp i beleive) but i guess its cause hes using the kit lenses and i was using a rented 24-105L 😱
sammich
macrumors 601
Just to clear things up...
EDIT: lol there's the white text. It will get complaints because it's kinda wrong. 10 megapixels in a samsung phone camera vs 6 megapixels in a slightly old SLR...the SLR wins, no discussion.
1 pixel = 1 bit of information from a scene. More pixels = more information. But smaller sensor, mediocre lens means information is not captured efficiently. Hence, megapixels != quality.
Chundles
macrumors G5
Phrasikleia
macrumors 601
What is important is not merely the number of megapixels but the size of them. A small sensor with lots of megapixels means very small photosites that have weak light-collecting capabilities. In other words, this means a weak signal and therefore more noise in the image.
Conversely, a large sensor with the same number of megapixels will have larger photosites and will therefore have a better signal-to-noise ratio.
For example (clickable):
These two images have roughly the same number of megapixels represented, but the upper image is from a camera with a very small sensor. The lower image was taken with a DSLR that has an APS-C sensor, so one that is many times larger. The upper one appears to have fewer megapixels only because the larger amount of noise robs the image of detail. These shots were taken in relatively low light (inside a museum), where the light-collecting abilities of a sensor make a big difference.
Conversely, a large sensor with the same number of megapixels will have larger photosites and will therefore have a better signal-to-noise ratio.
For example (clickable):
These two images have roughly the same number of megapixels represented, but the upper image is from a camera with a very small sensor. The lower image was taken with a DSLR that has an APS-C sensor, so one that is many times larger. The upper one appears to have fewer megapixels only because the larger amount of noise robs the image of detail. These shots were taken in relatively low light (inside a museum), where the light-collecting abilities of a sensor make a big difference.
sammich
macrumors 601
TheReef
macrumors 68000
not completely true. while 150 DPI is pretty good when looking at a large print relatively closely, you don't need that kind of resolution for a huge print because, well, who looks at a 16x20 from 6" away?
to take an extreme example, if you covered the moon with a print with a resolution of 1 dot per mile, it'd look pretty good from here.
also not completely true. the advantage of an SLR/RF is the size of the sensor, not necessarily the size of the pixel: Small pixel sensors do not have worse performance
I put photos from my D40 on my 37'' high def tv and it was a razor sharp image (using the new 1.8f 35mm) even viewed from a foot away.
That resolution is higher than most printers (I think) so I know the can go at least 80x45cm, probably get acceptable quality at much bigger sizes too.
I'm never going to print even remotely near that size, so for me 6.1 megapixels is enough.
Hope that helps.
telecomm
macrumors 65816
Any decent camera will produce images that look sharp on an HDTV (assuming things are in focus, etc.), since the resolution of an HD screen is low relative to the size of any digital photo produced by a modern digital camera.
One thing that more megapixels does get you (assuming it's a decently sized sensor, etc.) is the ability to get better crops. You may want to crop your images more often than you want to blow them up to poster size.
One of the reasons why I bought the Nikon D90 was due to it having 12 Megapixels.
Taking a photo using a 6 Megaixel camera is fine as long as you are using the correct lense. However where I find having more Megapixels really is an advantage is cropping. Blowing up those small images in your photo.
Earlier this week I was lucky enough to go on a whale safari and unfortunately the lense I was using could not get close enough to take great pictures of the sperm whales I was watching. Once I was back at home I was able to crop the images and get some close ups I am very happy with, images I would NEVER have been able to get had I used say a 6 megapixel camera.
If you want to play around with the smaller images on a photo and say a programme like Photoshop, then the more megapixels the better IMO.
Taking a photo using a 6 Megaixel camera is fine as long as you are using the correct lense. However where I find having more Megapixels really is an advantage is cropping. Blowing up those small images in your photo.
Earlier this week I was lucky enough to go on a whale safari and unfortunately the lense I was using could not get close enough to take great pictures of the sperm whales I was watching. Once I was back at home I was able to crop the images and get some close ups I am very happy with, images I would NEVER have been able to get had I used say a 6 megapixel camera.
If you want to play around with the smaller images on a photo and say a programme like Photoshop, then the more megapixels the better IMO.
Padaung
macrumors 6502a
luminosity
macrumors 65816
Except that even for the Mark II, it can't fully match the D700's light-gathering ability. At just 12 MPs, the D700 combines still-strong resolution with relatively huge pixels, enabling ISO 3200 to look like ISO 400 did just a few years ago, and perhaps more recently than that. Its ISO 3200 looks like your average compact camera today at its best.