 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / November 2006Nikon 10mp reality check
The 6mp sensors of the D70/50 capture more than enough picture information for the vast majority of users. At least that is my impression after using a D70, a Sony 828 (8mp) and now a D80 (10mps). Depending on color depth D80 file sizes range from about 30-60mbs and larger depending on added layers in Photoshop. That requires alot of fast computer CPU horsepower, gobs of RAM and acres of hard drive platter space. Nikon NX is a useful program but try keeping NX, CS2 and Bridge open at the same time with less than 2 gbs of RAM and passing images between the programs, particularly with 16 bit/60mb image files. If you do not really understand what the benefits are of going from the Nikon 6mp to 10mp sensors for your particular purposes, apart from the incomparably improved TTL viewing system of the D80/200, you are not really missing anything. The 10mp sensor has nicer looking noise at higher ISOs (I am not sure there is really less noise) but who shoots much at ISO 1200 and expects perfect results? I cannot see that the dynamic range of the 10mp sensor is appreciably different than the 6mp sensor. If you print at smaller than 8.5x11 the printer driver arbitrarily strips out vast chunkages of picture information anyway with either sensor. That being said: they will have to pry my D80 out of my cold, dead hands. > The 6mp sensors of the D70/50 capture more than enough picture > information for the vast majority of users. Quite probably correct. Most probably don't need more than 3mp. I usually print 4x6 and 8x10 for family and friends, and some 13x19 where requested. I also submit a few images to the rags for printing (don't ask where), and 6mp is usually more than enough. I had 8mp before, and 10mp now, but megapixels don't mean much - it's all about image quality. A good image counts more than pixels. > That requires alot of fast computer CPU horsepower, gobs of RAM and > acres of hard drive platter space. All of which are very inexpensive these days. My current system can chew through most programs with vigor. Yet some programs are very resource intensive. > If you do not really understand what the benefits are of going from > the Nikon 6mp to 10mp sensors for your particular purposes, apart > from the incomparably improved TTL viewing system of the D80/200, > you are not really missing anything. Agreed. I upgraded from the Canon XT to the Nikon D80, but not for the pixels. It was all about handling, viewfinder, controls, and a lot of other features. I was a Canon user for about 10 years, but Nikon made the change worthwhile for me. > That being said: they will have to pry my D80 out of my cold, dead > hands. Hey, that's what I said! :-) > If you print at smaller than 8.5x11 the printer driver arbitrarily strips > out vast chunkages of picture information anyway with either sensor. I'd like to know which printer driver you use. The Epson photo printers (all of them, AFAIAA) have a resolution of 360 or 720 ppi, switchable. Note, this is real pixel resolution, not "dots per inch". So, that corresponds to 13 megapixels on the page at 360 ppi, 50 megapixels at 720 ppi. Andrew. On Nov 3, 5:21 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote: > > If you print at smaller than 8.5x11 the printer driver arbitrarily strips > > out vast chunkages of picture information anyway with either sensor.I'd like to know which printer driver you use. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Andrew. Epsons work well if the ppi is divisable by 60, but in Harald Jackson's book Mastering Digital Printing he states that this is probably not the case. But if I feel the print will be better at divisible by 60 or 120 I can do that. One reason for buying a 10mp camera is that the camera produces 8"x12"x300ppi images. Personnaly I wouldn't trust the printer driver to do the resizing until I got into pro level printers, especially if I feel it strips out data. Photoshop bicubic can resize the pics quickly and efficiently and gives nice looking 4x6s, if you don't want to do that step and leave it to the printer get QImage, well worth the $40. Having been issued a D70 for a study I'm having to photograph for, and having a D200 personnaly, I find the D70 to be a big comedown. But with this camera I got a 105 Micro Nikkor and an R1 flash so all is not bad. Tom > The 6mp sensors of the D70/50 capture more than enough picture information > for the vast majority of users. At least that is my impression after using > a D70, a Sony 828 (8mp) and now a D80 (10mps). > If you print at smaller than 8.5x11 the printer driver arbitrarily strips > out vast chunkages of picture information anyway with either sensor. > That being said: they will have to pry my D80 out of my cold, dead hands. The "chunkages" are in dynamic and not resolution. Always best to edit with as much dynamic range as possible. You can crop 10 Mpix down; you can't uncrop 6 Mpix up. Memory, and for that matter, dual-core Athlon's, are cheap. I would agree that going from 8 to 10 Mpix (12%) is no great advance; but going from 6 to 10 (29%) is worthwhile for many. Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> The 6mp sensors of the D70/50 capture more than enough picture >> information for the vast majority of users. At least that is my [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Far greater change results from upping the sensor size. I recently went from the Oly 8080WZ (arguably one ot the best p&s cameras with an excellent lens) to the D80. The difference is STUNNING. > Far greater change results from upping the sensor size. I recently went from > the Oly 8080WZ (arguably one ot the best p&s cameras with an excellent lens) > to the D80. The difference is STUNNING. I would hope so. You went from a 8.8 x 6.6 mm sensor with 3264 x 2448 pixels. Or a density of 371 pixels / mm to a 23.6 x 15.8 mm 3872 x 2592 164 pixels / mm. Your 8080 had more than double the pixel density; probably more than the lens could hope to resolve. And then the signal/noise figure for the 8080 would have been lower as well. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >I would agree that going from 8 to 10 Mpix (12%) is no great advance; >but going from 6 to 10 (29%) is worthwhile for many. Depends what type of photography one is interested in. Comparing full frames your statement is true. However, given an interest in subjects which require a good bit of cropping any increase in pixels may be a positive. SignatureEd Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.