10 vs 8 MP

VC wrote:
I am trying to decide if 10 MP is significantly better than 8MP. ( just want
to decide whether to buy Canon XTi or 30d )
The very respectfule sources say - no difference. While the image is bigger
actually Canon's 8MP CMOS is ever sharper than 10 Mop sensor.
Read here for example at the bottom of the page
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page24.asp
Many other similar sources agree ( for example cnet.com)

Now compare the following two images from the same source.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...so0100_std.JPG
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Niko...0d_iso0100.JPG

Magnify the images to 400% and try to read the vertical text on the middle
bottle.
The text produced by Canon XTi's is readable the one from Canon 30D (or
350D) is not.

To me this is a very big difference. Am I missing something ?


Yes, the lens and focusing. What apertures were these shots taken at?
Since there is some depth in the target subject, where precisely was the
focus point? Was it autofocus, or manual, and if manual, on what
exactly was the lens focused? Was it even the same lens for both shots?
There is no exif data to find what lens, what aperture. Were the shots
taken by the same person? There are just too many variables to be able
to put relative sharpness solely down to the sensor. Any conclusions
drawn from that comparison are unreliable.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

C J Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 16:37:02 -0800, Mark² wrote
(in article ):

C J Campbell wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 11:04:53 -0800, VC wrote
(in article ):

I am trying to decide if 10 MP is significantly better than 8MP.

I guess you know, eh? No, it is not significantly better. Most
people get fuzzier images with more than 8MP, because higher MP
counts magnify motion blur. It you always use a tripod, 10MP should
(in theory) be slightly better, but you lose some resolution with
noise reduction software.

In general, I think most people start taking worse images at
anything above 6MP, although 8MP is tolerable. Beyond that, you
have to be real careful to get that last bit of extra performance
out of more pixels.

This is a real benefit of full frame sensors...that they offer higher
resolution without having to use tiny pixel pitch.



For now. How long before we get the 45MP "full-frame" sensor?

Sure, but then imagine 45MP in a 1.6 cropped job!

-Or worse...these little point&shots with that...
Anything to attract the folks meandering through Best Buy...at the mercy of
box-reading salespeople, who know nothing more than the "specs" listed on
the carton...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Now compare the following two images from the same source.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...so0100_std.JPG
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Niko...0d_iso0100.JPG

Magnify the images to 400% and try to read the vertical text on the
middle bottle.
The text produced by Canon XTi's is readable the one from Canon 30D (or
350D) is not.

To me this is a very big difference. Am I missing something ?
Yes, the lens and focusing. What apertures were these shots taken at?
Since there is some depth in the target subject, where precisely was the
focus point? Was it autofocus, or manual, and if manual, on what exactly
was the lens focused? Was it even the same lens for both shots? There is
no exif data to find what lens, what aperture. Were the shots taken by the
same person? There are just too many variables to be able to put relative
sharpness solely down to the sensor. Any conclusions drawn from that
comparison are unreliable.

Colin D.
Actually I would be very surprised if the author making such a comprehensive
test would not know or would not care about the lens and other similar
factors.
I believe this is the same lens. In fact the difference between Canon 30D
and Canon 350D is much smaller than between 30D and 400D.

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:05:18 GMT, "VC"
wrote:

Now compare the following two images from the same source.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...so0100_std.JPG
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Niko...0d_iso0100.JPG

Magnify the images to 400% and try to read the vertical text on the
middle bottle.
The text produced by Canon XTi's is readable the one from Canon 30D (or
350D) is not.

To me this is a very big difference. Am I missing something ?
Yes, the lens and focusing. What apertures were these shots taken at?
Since there is some depth in the target subject, where precisely was the
focus point? Was it autofocus, or manual, and if manual, on what exactly
was the lens focused? Was it even the same lens for both shots? There is
no exif data to find what lens, what aperture. Were the shots taken by the
same person? There are just too many variables to be able to put relative
sharpness solely down to the sensor. Any conclusions drawn from that
comparison are unreliable.

Colin D.
Actually I would be very surprised if the author making such a comprehensive
test would not know or would not care about the lens and other similar
factors.
I believe this is the same lens. In fact the difference between Canon 30D
and Canon 350D is much smaller than between 30D and 400D.

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that there is no EXIF
data--it's all there and according to the EXIF an f/1.4 50mm lens at
f/1.9 was used, autofocus in both cases.

Yes it is. It's equipment masturbaton.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
babaloo wrote:
Splitting digital hairs.
You must live a charmed life if you have nothing better to agonize over
than this piffle.

Since there is a discernable difference in the text readability (despite
the CW that 8 to 10 Mpix is a trifle) then it is not splitting hairs nor
is it agonizing.

--
-- 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.

VC wrote:
I am trying to decide if 10 MP is significantly better than 8MP. ( just want
to decide whether to buy Canon XTi or 30d )

The difference is about 11.2%, big whoop! Go to the better built 30D, or
wait for the soon to be announced 50D

J. Clarke wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:05:18 GMT, "VC"
wrote:

Now compare the following two images from the same source.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...so0100_std.JPG
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Niko...0d_iso0100.JPG

Magnify the images to 400% and try to read the vertical text on the
middle bottle.
The text produced by Canon XTi's is readable the one from Canon 30D (or
350D) is not.

To me this is a very big difference. Am I missing something ?
Yes, the lens and focusing. What apertures were these shots taken at?
Since there is some depth in the target subject, where precisely was the
focus point? Was it autofocus, or manual, and if manual, on what exactly
was the lens focused? Was it even the same lens for both shots? There is
no exif data to find what lens, what aperture. Were the shots taken by the
same person? There are just too many variables to be able to put relative
sharpness solely down to the sensor. Any conclusions drawn from that
comparison are unreliable.

Colin D.
Actually I would be very surprised if the author making such a comprehensive
test would not know or would not care about the lens and other similar
factors.
I believe this is the same lens. In fact the difference between Canon 30D
and Canon 350D is much smaller than between 30D and 400D.

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that there is no EXIF
data--it's all there and according to the EXIF an f/1.4 50mm lens at
f/1.9 was used, autofocus in both cases.

Well, I didn't go to the trouble of importing the images into Photoshop,
but now I have done so, the exif data is there.

The aperture used was f/9, not f/1.9 as you quote, but I guess that was
a typo, and manual focus was used in both cases (scroll further down the
exif to Focus Mode), so the question is, what part of the subject was
focused on? There is considerable depth in the subject, from the Leica
to the wall behind, I guess probably about 10 or 12 inches. If you
don't know what was focused on, and it probably wasn't the vertical
writing on the bottle, then estimating relative sharpness other than at
the point of focus is bound to be invalid.

Just to put things in perspective, the image at 400% is 72/4, or 18 ppi.
That corresponds to a print *18 feet* wide.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Colin_D wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:05:18 GMT, "VC"
wrote:

Now compare the following two images from the same source.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...so0100_std.JPG

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Niko...0d_iso0100.JPG


Magnify the images to 400% and try to read the vertical text on the
middle bottle.
The text produced by Canon XTi's is readable the one from Canon 30D
(or 350D) is not.

To me this is a very big difference. Am I missing something ?
Yes, the lens and focusing. What apertures were these shots taken
at? Since there is some depth in the target subject, where precisely
was the focus point? Was it autofocus, or manual, and if manual, on
what exactly was the lens focused? Was it even the same lens for
both shots? There is no exif data to find what lens, what aperture.
Were the shots taken by the same person? There are just too many
variables to be able to put relative sharpness solely down to the
sensor. Any conclusions drawn from that comparison are unreliable.

Colin D.
Actually I would be very surprised if the author making such a
comprehensive test would not know or would not care about the lens
and other similar factors.
I believe this is the same lens. In fact the difference between Canon
30D and Canon 350D is much smaller than between 30D and 400D.

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that there is no EXIF
data--it's all there and according to the EXIF an f/1.4 50mm lens at
f/1.9 was used, autofocus in both cases.

Well, I didn't go to the trouble of importing the images into Photoshop,
but now I have done so, the exif data is there.

The aperture used was f/9, not f/1.9 as you quote, but I guess that was
a typo, and manual focus was used in both cases (scroll further down the
exif to Focus Mode), so the question is, what part of the subject was
focused on? There is considerable depth in the subject, from the Leica
to the wall behind, I guess probably about 10 or 12 inches. If you
don't know what was focused on, and it probably wasn't the vertical
writing on the bottle, then estimating relative sharpness other than at
the point of focus is bound to be invalid.

Just to put things in perspective, the image at 400% is 72/4, or 18 ppi.
That corresponds to a print *18 feet* wide.

Colin D.

Dammit, I sent it before I added that the writing in question is 7
pixels deep per letter, so in an 18-foot print, the writing measures
0.389 inches, or a little over 3/8ths inch. How much detail is enough?

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:23:22 +1300, Colin_D wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 06:05:18 GMT, "VC"
wrote:

Now compare the following two images from the same source.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Cano...so0100_std.JPG
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Niko...0d_iso0100.JPG

Magnify the images to 400% and try to read the vertical text on the
middle bottle.
The text produced by Canon XTi's is readable the one from Canon 30D (or
350D) is not.

To me this is a very big difference. Am I missing something ?
Yes, the lens and focusing. What apertures were these shots taken at?
Since there is some depth in the target subject, where precisely was the
focus point? Was it autofocus, or manual, and if manual, on what exactly
was the lens focused? Was it even the same lens for both shots? There is
no exif data to find what lens, what aperture. Were the shots taken by the
same person? There are just too many variables to be able to put relative
sharpness solely down to the sensor. Any conclusions drawn from that
comparison are unreliable.

Colin D.
Actually I would be very surprised if the author making such a comprehensive
test would not know or would not care about the lens and other similar
factors.
I believe this is the same lens. In fact the difference between Canon 30D
and Canon 350D is much smaller than between 30D and 400D.

I don't know where anyone gets the idea that there is no EXIF
data--it's all there and according to the EXIF an f/1.4 50mm lens at
f/1.9 was used, autofocus in both cases.

Well, I didn't go to the trouble of importing the images into Photoshop,
but now I have done so, the exif data is there.

No need to do that, there are plugins for most of the major browsers
that will report EXIF data.

The aperture used was f/9, not f/1.9 as you quote, but I guess that was
a typo, and manual focus was used in both cases (scroll further down the
exif to Focus Mode), so the question is, what part of the subject was
focused on?

The 1.9 was a typo and you are correct, it was auto exposure, not auto
focus. Sorry.

There is considerable depth in the subject, from the Leica
to the wall behind, I guess probably about 10 or 12 inches. If you
don't know what was focused on, and it probably wasn't the vertical
writing on the bottle, then estimating relative sharpness other than at
the point of focus is bound to be invalid.

Just to put things in perspective, the image at 400% is 72/4, or 18 ppi.
That corresponds to a print *18 feet* wide.

Colin D.

In article ,
Darrell Larose wrote:

VC wrote:
I am trying to decide if 10 MP is significantly better than 8MP. ( just
want
to decide whether to buy Canon XTi or 30d )

The difference is about 11.2%, big whoop! Go to the better built 30D, or
wait for the soon to be announced 50D

Actual increase in pixels per millimeter, is approximately the square
root of the total pixel ratio. If you already have an 8 MP camera and
have satisfactory results, an increase to 10 MP alone is NOT significant.

The real issue is not the increase in pixel count, it is the increase in
technology. Therefore, Darrell's recommendation is sound.

I have a couple older 6 MP cameras as well as the Sony Alpha 100 with 10
MP. All make images that are roughly equivalent. The Sony's built-in
image stabilization is the main factor that makes it superior to the
other two.

I can resist newer models like the 30D or 50D unless they happen to come
with significantly more pixels and a full frame sensor. I think a
light-weight full frame 22 MP body might sway me if my bank account
could stand the strain!

Fred