Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the op posted the photo he thinks was an mp issue in another thread. just as i said the photo has every issue causing the softness but megapixels is not one of them.
never confuse sharpness and clarity with megapixels. unless you are going poster size megapixels isn't the issue.
megapixels is related to the size of the photo when it is viewed or printed . even 5 mp is enough to create the most detailed images unless you are going above 8x10. i would defy anyone to see much if any difference of an on screen photo unless cropped . .
clarity is a function of many other things. shake, lens quality,focus ,high iso , noise and depth of field will all be issues long before not having enough megapixels is.
This is just plain false. 8x12" (the 3:2 size closest to 8x10) at 600 dpi is 7200x4800 pixels which is 35 megapixels.
Not only that, but each pixel only contains the information for one color. We get a full color image through interpolation. So to get a REAL 600 dpi 8x12" image, you'd need a Foveon type sensor with 35 million photo sites, each of which is 3 "pixels", so over 100 megapixels.
Resolution is limited by lens sharpness, but with a good quality lens you ARE limited by the DPI of current mainstream DSLRs, much less 5 megapixel. 5 million 8 bit pixels is not a lot of data. If you do any postprocessing and cropping, you'll understand
why would you print at 600 dpi ? i print at 300dpi and i can go as low as 270 with no issues. i go up to 16x20
You can print at whatever resolution you want, but film prints could be over 600 dpi effectively.
Why print at 600 dpi? Because more clarity is better!
Why photograph with more resolution? Because whether or not you print, more information is better. You only take a photo once. That's why many of us shoot in RAW even though JPEG is "good enough". You might be happy with a low res photo for now, but in 100 years your grandkids might be thinking "Why didn't Grandpa mathjak107 use enough pixels for us to be able to tell our aunts and uncles apart in this family photo??"
Those 16 megapixels are interpolated from a Bayer grid, so to really get something equivalent information-wise to 16 megapixels 24 bit, you'd need 3x as many. Going by your 8x10 size you mentioned before, that's 24 megapixels.
You can print at whatever resolution you want, but film prints could be over 600 dpi effectively.
Why print at 600 dpi? Because more clarity is better!
Why photograph with more resolution? Because whether or not you print, more information is better. You only take a photo once. That's why many of us shoot in RAW even though JPEG is "good enough". You might be happy with a low res photo for now, but in 100 years your grandkids might be thinking "Why didn't Grandpa mathjak107 use enough pixels for us to be able to tell our aunts and uncles apart in this family photo??"
so far i have yet to see a difference in 16x20 prints between 300dpi and going higher on my epson 3880. 16x20 is the largset i print so i can't comment on anything bigger
so far i have yet to see a difference in 16x20 prints between 300dpi and going higher on my epson 3880. 16x20 is the largset i print so i can't comment on anything bigger
According to this, it takes 2400 dpi on an inkjet to match 300 dpi from a dye sub printer 600DPI Dye Sub Printer?
I looked up the Epson and it's 2880x1440 which means it's capable of about 350x175 dpi
mathjak107,
The “Print Size & Quality” chart is not a good reference without knowing what the typical sensor is (its physical dimensions). Try printing a 12”x8” image at 300DPI taken with iPhone 4S at full 8PM resolution to see why.
The drawback of most bridge/PS cameras is that they shoot in JPG format only. The quality of the JPG image can differ between cameras a lot and can go as low as 1bit/pixel with 72ppi native pixel density. Generally, the larger an image sensor is, the higher potential a camera has in terms of IQ. But “If sensor size was the only thing that defined image quality and detail, it would be child’s play to pick out a camera—with bigger being better—but sadly this simple formula will not serve you well. In addition to sensor size, image detail and quality are affected by such factors as lens quality, file formats, image processing, and photographic essentials such as proper exposure.” I suggest everyone to read “Digital Photography Fundamentals: Understanding Resolution and Bit Depth | Graphics.com” article for better understanding of PPI, DPI and how they affect print image quality.
mathjak107,
The “Print Size & Quality” chart is not a good reference without knowing what the typical sensor is (its physical dimensions). Try printing a 12”x8” image at 300DPI taken with iPhone 4S at full 8PM resolution to see why.
The drawback of most bridge/PS cameras is that they shoot in JPG format only. The quality of the JPG image can differ between cameras a lot and can go as low as 1bit/pixel with 72ppi native pixel density. Generally, the larger an image sensor is, the higher potential a camera has in terms of IQ. But “If sensor size was the only thing that defined image quality and detail, it would be child’s play to pick out a camera—with bigger being better—but sadly this simple formula will not serve you well. In addition to sensor size, image detail and quality are affected by such factors as lens quality, file formats, image processing, and photographic essentials such as proper exposure.” I suggest everyone to read “Digital Photography Fundamentals: Understanding Resolution and Bit Depth | Graphics.com” article for better understanding of PPI, DPI and how they affect print image quality.
Not entirely true.
The last three Panasonic Lumix cameras I have purchased (2 P&Ss and 1 bridge) all shoot RAW, as do most other point-and-shoots and bridge cameras above the $300-$400 range.
Indeed, the statement above is a little exaggerated without any scientific study on my part.
While most PowerShot & Lumix models feature RAW mode for still images, most Cyber-Shot & Coolpix models don’t, considering P&S/bridge cameras introduced in 2013.
For those interested in which models offer RAW and how they stack up against each other, check out this page: Charts Comparing the Prices of High-End Compact and Mirrorless Cameras
I'd like to get people's thoughts on a couple of questions. I currently have a Canon SL1. When I want excellent image quality, I use either my nifty fifty or my sigma 17-50 2.8.
But often, I just want versatility and hate missing a shot because I had the wrong lens on. So I'm wondering will an SL1 with a superzoom Tamron/Sigma lens still have better image quality than superzoom point and shoot? (Not certain superzoom is the right term.) I hear Tamron is coming out with an 18-400 and I know you can already get close to 20x zoom from Sigma/Tamron choices. Will the SL1 with one of those lenses produce better images on average than a Cannon SX60 because of the larger sensor? What about compared to the (expensive!) Sony RX10iii (a point and shoot with a 1" sensor)? Also, how would the auto-focus speed and effectiveness of these options compare?
Last edited by Poncho_NM; 06-22-2017 at 12:37 PM..
Reason: Bumping is not allowed. You were not bumping...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
