Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 112618	2010-09-14 05:07:00	The myth of the megapixel	Strommer (42)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1137081	2010-09-14 05:07:00	Some of us already know this, but it is worth repeating. Read article here. (conversation.which.co.uk) AFAIK, the quality of the lens and also the CCD/CMOS sensor is generally more important than getting the highest megapixel rating for a camera.	Strommer (42)
1137082	2010-09-14 08:26:00	AFAIK, the quality of the lens and also the CCD/CMOS sensor is generally more important than getting the highest megapixel rating for a camera. Very true but if you want to make big blow ups of the pictures those megapixels make a big difference.	mikebartnz (21)
1137083	2010-09-14 09:13:00	Like film there were APS (roughly 24mm size) vs 35mm vs medium format (big rolls) vs sheet film 4x5" or 8x10" to even larger sizes. Digital over time is able to be finetuned. You'll find that some cameras which may have the same MP, newer is better and of course there are larger sensor sizes. You could get a Hasselblad Digital camera like Steve McCurry or even scanning backs for sheet film cameras (cloth over head). PS. Camera brochures are usually taken with a digital medium format LOL. One could look at Sports Illustrated magazines from the past to the present and you will see the difference of the images overtime even just within digital days. With one of the Nikon cameras you could shoot ISO 3200 or even 6400 at a wedding and sell a A3 or A2 print. Try that with film. Some pro's don't even care about ISO b/c it is so good, they set it as auto and let it bounce around ... following people indoors / outdoors / indoors ..... But as a poor amateur even a 6MP can be exhibition quality to a degree, A3 is still pretty good and in the past mid 2000 they were being used for weddings still. I'll add that it's not just about quality of those pixels. One of the reasons I still shoot film (slide film) is b/c there is no post processing required unlike digital and negative film, slide film is a positive, also that you get a film that you like that's the real thing, you didn't photoshop that look or use plugins to create that look. Sometimes one does not want the best correct technical quality but they want a particular look that film creates. Pro's have known to use some that creates a natural tanned look on skin or ones that just create a landscape photo with excessive punch.	Nomad (952)
1137084	2010-09-14 10:13:00	I liked Craig Potton's camera he was toting around in the new TV show "Rivers" (Clutha - first show) For those who don't know the old film stuff, it is a Pentax 6x7 SLR.... magnificent film camera. That is a 60x70mm negative. A few years ago the impression was that a 35mm slide taken with Kodachrome 25 was equivalent to 25 or more megapixels. www.reference.com Different horses for courses I know, but boy' that was great film and the Pentax was a great camera. I had a Mamiya 6x7 but they reckon the pentax had the better lens. (Subjective comment by me) Kodachrome... How many digital cameras have a song named after their CCD sensors?:lol: This looks interesting... www.dpreview.com Ken	kenj (9738)
1137085	2010-09-14 10:21:00	I have 2 rolls of Kodachrome to be processed, to be shipped to the USA, they are ceasing labs this year, film supplies has already been pulled. From his more recent books, Craig Potton used Nikon 35mm SLRs but not sure what film he shot with. I have thought about it so long with 120 format, Pentax 67 or a Hassie, heard there were heaps of mirror slap with the P67 on tripod thou and it's big and chunky. The Hassie is just a 6x6. There is even a ginormous Mamiya RB/RZ 67, the most basic set up weighing 2.5-3kg ;) I am trying to switch to 120 format and maybe ditch the 135s, large format is easier thou to decide. Just a compact field LF cam, maybe a technical one in black carbon fiber than wood.	Nomad (952)
1137086	2010-09-14 10:35:00	I liked Craig Potton's camera he was toting around in the new TV show "Rivers" (Clutha - first show) For those who don't know the old film stuff, it is a Pentax 6x7 SLR.... magnificent film camera. That is a 60x70mm negative. A few years ago the impression was that a 35mm slide taken with Kodachrome 25 was equivalent to 25 or more megapixels. www.reference.com Different horses for courses I know, but boy' that was great film and the Pentax was a great camera. I had a Mamiya 6x7 but they reckon the pentax had the better lens. (Subjective comment by me) Kodachrome... How many digital cameras have a song named after their CCD sensors?:lol: This looks interesting... www.dpreview.com Ken I have a Pentax Spotmatic II and it has been an excellent camera. When I was in a serious mood I used to get professional slide film and what a difference that made. Not sure if you can still get it.	mikebartnz (21)
1137087	2010-09-14 10:58:00	I have had a Sony F828 for the last 5-6 years and there is no way I'm going back to film. To each their own though of course. I use Corel X3 for editing etc and get my shots printed off site.	Snorkbox (15764)
1137088	2010-09-14 11:19:00	I have had a Sony F828 for the last 5-6 years and there is no way I'm going back to film. To each their own though of course. I use Corel X3 for editing etc and get my shots printed off site. It's patience my friend :D To get everything onto the slide. If light is not that great and stuff, you need to return and return until you get it. I just like the colours looking right at the film and the sharpness. But it doesn't work that well in the same league if you are printing. It's a rip off in NZ so I import it, they try hoodwink you $30 or $40 for one roll then $15 for processing. I do mostly landscapes. I won't use it for family pictures or action.	Nomad (952)
1137089	2010-09-14 21:18:00	Megapixel to the uninformed is a selling trap and can be hyped up by sale reps to there advantage. If you really want to do big reprints, then megapixels do make a difference short of going to med format, same applied in the days of film. My old Nikon F4s could do great looking pictures that with the right film and settings could be blown up large. Still have the F4s though I am using the D200 and 300 now. But megapixels is not the end all be all. And while a nice camera with lots of bells and whistles can help, the camera alone does not make the photograph, it is simply a tool in your hand to take the picture.	PinoyKiw (9675)
1137090	2010-09-14 21:36:00	If you really want to do big reprints, then megapixels do make a difference short of going to med format, same applied in the days of film. I heard that any 10MP dSLRs can compete with medium format film up to 6x6, perhaps not 6x7 yet but of course you have digital medium formats :D That is using a dedicated film scanner. With a flatbed scanner, my Epson V700 retailing for $700-800 (?) 35mm professional transparency cannot match a 6MP dSLR even just in sharpness. But then again there are affordable dSLRs for enthusiasts like the Canon 5D II which has 20 MP (?) and the 50D (?). Regardless of the above, what I find digital is better is the noise and color accurateness if that is important to you than a preferred color biase.	Nomad (952)
1 2 3