8Mp Vs 5Mp

You have me confused...
I'm considering the D-70 as a "real" companion to my Sony 717 (which I'll
use as a EDC), and the reason is the ability to use higher speeds with less
noise as the light drops (since most of my landscape work is just before
dusk).

The max f-stop for me will be 1.8 to 2.8 because I'll be using primes, not
zooms.

Like you pointed out, I'll still be stopping down to f8, but I'd be doing
that regardless of what cameras I'm using, so I think you DO benefit more
from the low light potential more than the number of megapixels.


And in turn, you have me confused there...

This must be the first time i hear someone speak of using an SLR as a
"companion" to a P&S, it's usually the other way round. BTW, what's EDC short
for? this may be the crux of my confusion.

Also, why are you considering getting a digital SLR for a specific usage of
just-before-dusk landscape? For a fraction of what it'd cost you to get the
D-70 and suitable lenses, I suggest you get yourself a medium format camera kit
and If you need to digitze it get the Epson 4870 scanner and that'll give you
circa 22-megapixel on 645 and circa 33-megapixel on 6x6, and more if you use
6x7 or 6x9.

Dane Brickman wrote:
You have me confused...
I'm considering the D-70 as a "real" companion to my Sony 717 (which I'll
use as a EDC), and the reason is the ability to use higher speeds with less
noise as the light drops (since most of my landscape work is just before
dusk).

The max f-stop for me will be 1.8 to 2.8 because I'll be using primes, not
zooms.

Like you pointed out, I'll still be stopping down to f8, but I'd be doing
that regardless of what cameras I'm using, so I think you DO benefit more
from the low light potential more than the number of megapixels.

Sorry to confuse you. But you won't need to stop down to F8 the Sony
717, because due to the smaller sensor the 717 reaches its optimum
around F4 or larger aperture.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

Dane Brickman wrote:
You have me confused...
I'm considering the D-70 as a "real" companion to my Sony 717 (which I'll
use as a EDC), and the reason is the ability to use higher speeds with less
noise as the light drops (since most of my landscape work is just before
dusk).

The max f-stop for me will be 1.8 to 2.8 because I'll be using primes, not
zooms.

Like you pointed out, I'll still be stopping down to f8, but I'd be doing
that regardless of what cameras I'm using, so I think you DO benefit more
from the low light potential more than the number of megapixels.

Sorry to confuse you. But you won't need to stop down to F8 the Sony
717, because due to the smaller sensor the 717 reaches its optimum
around F4 or larger aperture.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

What a crock that quote is. There isn't a DSLR made that has a usable
ISO 400 in low light.

Here is the Canon 10D at ISO 400...
http://www.pbase.com/image/31095832


at iso 1600

Here is the Sigma SD10 at ISO 400 -1.3EV, which is ISO 1000...

huh?

http://www.pbase.com/image/30994817

Neither are worth much in those modes, as you can see.

The second example from the sigma makes sense; photographing horse racing at
iso400 to get that 1/1000 shutter speed and f8 depth for an over 300mm lens.
But the canon example is somewhat bizarre, a mother spoon-feeding a baby in an
apparently daylight-lit room, i don't know why that image needed an iso1600.

What a crock that quote is. There isn't a DSLR made that has a usable
ISO 400 in low light.

Here is the Canon 10D at ISO 400...
http://www.pbase.com/image/31095832


at iso 1600

Here is the Sigma SD10 at ISO 400 -1.3EV, which is ISO 1000...

huh?

http://www.pbase.com/image/30994817

Neither are worth much in those modes, as you can see.

The second example from the sigma makes sense; photographing horse racing at
iso400 to get that 1/1000 shutter speed and f8 depth for an over 300mm lens.
But the canon example is somewhat bizarre, a mother spoon-feeding a baby in an
apparently daylight-lit room, i don't know why that image needed an iso1600.

On 9 Jul 2004 19:31:01 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:



Oops, previous was an awful Canon ISO 1600 image good light, this is
the awful ISO 400 image...
http://www.pbase.com/image/31045949

More stolen pics and changed data?
Try again Steve.

Georgette Preddy wrote:

"John S" wrote in message ...

"Digital SLR footnote: If you're considering an eight megapixel prosumer
digital camera you should also not rule out a sub-$1000 digital SLR while
initially more expensive (certainly if you want to achieve the 28 - 200 mm
zoom range) these cameras offer higher quality image processing, cleaner
images (virtually noise free up to ISO 1600)

What a crock that quote is. There isn't a DSLR made that has a usable
ISO 400 in low light.

400, 800, 1600.
candlelight even.
good results, great prints.
possible because I did not get a sigma camera.


Here is the Canon 10D at ISO 400...
http://www.pbase.com/image/31095832

Here is the Sigma SD10 at ISO 400 -1.3EV, which is ISO 1000...
http://www.pbase.com/image/30994817

Neither are worth much in those modes, as you can see.

Georgette Preddy wrote:

"John S" wrote in message ...

"Digital SLR footnote: If you're considering an eight megapixel prosumer
digital camera you should also not rule out a sub-$1000 digital SLR while
initially more expensive (certainly if you want to achieve the 28 - 200 mm
zoom range) these cameras offer higher quality image processing, cleaner
images (virtually noise free up to ISO 1600)

What a crock that quote is. There isn't a DSLR made that has a usable
ISO 400 in low light.

400, 800, 1600.
candlelight even.
good results, great prints.
possible because I did not get a sigma camera.


Here is the Canon 10D at ISO 400...
http://www.pbase.com/image/31095832

Here is the Sigma SD10 at ISO 400 -1.3EV, which is ISO 1000...
http://www.pbase.com/image/30994817

Neither are worth much in those modes, as you can see.

Alfred Molon wrote:
see here for the sensor sizes:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos.../Sensor_Sizes_
01.htm

Okay, based on those sensor sizes, the sensor used by the D70 is 23.7 x
15.6 mm, which yields a total sensor area of about 370 sq mm. Divide that
by 6.1 MP and you get a little less than 61 millionths of a sq mm per
pixel.

The 8MP prosumer cameras all use the same sensor, which is 8.8 x 6.6 mm,
for an area of about 58 sq mm. The DSLR sensor is about 6.4 times as big
in terms of total area. The 2/3" sensor with 8 MP also gives about 7.25
millionths of a sq mm per pixel.

Thus, the DSLR sensor's pixels are about 8.3 times bigger than the pixels
used by the prosumer 8MP cameras.

That's a pretty dramatic improvement in light-gathering capability.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **

Alfred Molon wrote:
see here for the sensor sizes:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos.../Sensor_Sizes_
01.htm

Okay, based on those sensor sizes, the sensor used by the D70 is 23.7 x
15.6 mm, which yields a total sensor area of about 370 sq mm. Divide that
by 6.1 MP and you get a little less than 61 millionths of a sq mm per
pixel.

The 8MP prosumer cameras all use the same sensor, which is 8.8 x 6.6 mm,
for an area of about 58 sq mm. The DSLR sensor is about 6.4 times as big
in terms of total area. The 2/3" sensor with 8 MP also gives about 7.25
millionths of a sq mm per pixel.

Thus, the DSLR sensor's pixels are about 8.3 times bigger than the pixels
used by the prosumer 8MP cameras.

That's a pretty dramatic improvement in light-gathering capability.

--Paul
** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **