| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/29/2004 03:13:51 AM · #1 |
I am humming and hawing between buying a D70 (6MP DSLR) or a Canon Powershot Pro 1 (8MP P&S). I need pixels because I make biggish prints.
BUT I've seen many opinions that the DSLRs' better image processing, RAW availability and bigger CCDs make their 6MP basically equivalent to 8MP. (No, I can't afford a Canon 1D Mk2 :-( )
Does anyone have experience with this?
|
|
|
|
06/29/2004 03:18:21 AM · #2 |
When you get to that size the quality of the glass is fairly important. The D70, with expensive lenses (increasing the price) will most likely have better results, even with less resolution.
I believe there's a caveat about the Pro 1 from Canon themselves saying that 8MP in such a small sensor won't result in a low-noise sensor. |
|
|
|
06/29/2004 03:35:28 AM · #3 |
well this is just me.. but I used to have a nikon coolpix 5400 (5mp), and upgraded to a D70. I haven't looked back. The things that really niggled me about compact digicams (these may not apply to all compacts):
1) slow zoom
2) Manual focus is really clumsy and hard to use
3) slow auto focus
4) shutter lag
5) slow writes, limited buffer.. with extended pauses every now and then
6) stuck with the lens that comes with the camera
7) limited ISO range, with large amounts of noise at anything over 200
Pros
1) lighter
2) cheaper
3) some have larger pixel count (but always smaller CCD)
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you have the money, get an SLR. Chances are you will produce some great photo's with both cameras, but an SLR won't frustrate you as much along the way.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2004 06:01:32 AM · #4 |
It is a popular misconception that increased megapixels equates to a better camera. Not sure if this is clever marketing, the fact that in the early days going from 0.5 mp to 1.5 mp was a massive improvement, or simply people thinking bigger must be better.
Sure, given everything else as equal increased mp is going to be good news, assuming the noise does not increase accordingly.
Personally I would rather have an excellent 4 mp camera (is the 1D 4, or something close to that?) than a camera with double the mp but lacking other features, such as interchangable lenses.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2004 09:27:29 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Natator:
Personally I would rather have an excellent 4 mp camera (is the 1D 4, or something close to that?) than a camera with double the mp but lacking other features, such as interchangable lenses. |
Yes, the venerable Canon EOS-1D, announced in September, 2001, was a 4MP camera. It had a lifetime of almost 3.5 years, and they are still in demand and holding their value well -- people are buying them used at fairly hefty prices, even with the advent of the 1D Mark II because of the high quality images this "meager" 4MP DSLR produces. And one thing to remember is that a large chunk of the sports action photos that you've seen in the last 3 years were likely shot at 4MP and then cropped to something even smaller, including the double-trucks (two page spreads) in Sports Illustrated, since the Nikon D2H is also 4MP.
It isn't just about the number of pixels in an image. It is about the quality of those pixels. |
|
|
|
06/29/2004 10:13:07 AM · #6 |
I have looked hard at the small sensor integrated systems (Leica and new crop of 8MP P&S) because I don't like the bulk of my Canon 10D and the associated lenses, but the images from the small sensor are too noisy and shutter lag is too long. If you are focused on biggish prints, you will wanter the bigger sensor even if it has less pixels.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2004 11:58:15 AM · #7 |
I shoot the Pro1 in mostly ISO50 every once in a while I will go to ISO100 and seldom ISO200 for noise for effect, Noise doesn't really become a factor until ISO200 and very low light situations.
16x20's from this thing are spectacular. I haven't printed anything larger yet.
True story, I lent my PowerShot Pro1 to a fellow photographer at work. When he goes out to shoot he looks like one of those guys from the daily plantet in the superman movie with his 10D with huge lenses, battery handle etc.
I noted him saying that the Pro1 took pictures as good, and better in certain situations, as his 10D. Now this guy is pretty good with some very good street scene shots, I take it as a compliment.
Now the ProSumers are a little work (or need to be set up right) to finally get in the groove. I am just getting there.
Out of the box Prosumers are set up for tourists and beginners. I guess they are hoping that someone who never took a picture could, charge the battery, then fire off some snapshots right oob. You need to go into the menu right off.
These Prosumers don't really have bad shutter lag, it is the EVF lag that is the issue when shooting action shoots. The Electronic View Finder will fall behind (freeze) as you are tracking a subject. This is the first thing you will notice when shooting birds, planes and cars etc.
I went into the menu and turned off the gimicky CAF (continuious auto focus) and it cut that down drastically. Turn off Picture review, go to High Speed Continuious shooting mode and you are shooting 6 raw/jpegs before the buffer writes. I also Pre Focus (lock on something a similar distance in the general area) or Manual Focus (9 to infinity) before the subject reaches the frame. The EVF lag is no longer and issue and does not frustrate me anymore.
I was torn between the dSLR's and a couple of the prosumers (Pro1 and Minolta A2). I knew that if I went with the dSLR that I would have to have every attachment that I could possibly put on the thing, eventually becoming broke and homeless. So I went with the Pro1.
The 7.2-50.8mm (28-200mm equivalent) "L" series glass is all that really need right now. Maybe in the future get the 1.5 Teleconverter and/or the closeup lens?
Ok, so I have already gone out and got a 420EX speedlite for the thing, but it was well worth it.
|
|
|
|
06/29/2004 12:03:57 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
It isn't just about the number of pixels in an image. It is about the quality of those pixels. |
Its also about the target usage - sports images don't typically get blown up large and hung in galleries - so 4MP is more than enough for general use. An 8x10 or 16x10 type print isn't very taxing for that sort of image resolution, particularly when it is a realtively clean, noiseless image.
Resolution still matters if you want to do big prints, reliably. There are probably occasional 4Mp images that are sharp enough and taken perfectly with great technique that they can hold being blown up to 20x30. Certainly those are few and far between and don't compare to say a 22Mp image at the same final print size, when looked at closely. But most people don't print at 20x30 or larger very often.
In fact, most people don't print beyond 5x7 very often and 3Mp is approaching overkill in that situation, for the right sensor.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 10:30:56 AM EDT.
