| Author |
Message |
|
|
#1330 2007-11-24 01:19 GMT |
I am looking to buy a new camera with the purpose of producing large images for print and i have no need of rapid shots or the ability for various lens and therefore i am tending to choose based on pixel volume. The cameras i came to consider are on the fixed lens side-Powershot 650 12.1 mp vs the Canon Rebel xti 10 mp or Olympus e510 10 mp.The problem is the slr's have Raw and i am led to believe that this is the format of professionals and does produce more detail. Question; Would the 12 mp image be as good for enlargement as the 10 mp in Raw format. Price is a factor since the slr's are almost twice the price of the 650? Do the lens's on these play much of a factor?
|
|
|
|
#1331 2007-11-24 01:56 GMT |
What size do you intend to print at?Don't be fooled by the hype that says more megapixels= better/bigger prints.Compact cameras have smaller image sensors than dslrs and the consequence of squeezing more pixels onto a smaller sensor is more image noise.The manufacturers then use in camera noise reduction to clean the image up and this results in loss of fine detail.DSLRS do not have to be used in raw mode, they have a jpeg option which is set as default and you have to choose the raw mode yourself.As for lenses they do ultimately have an influence but even the cheaper lenses are capable of producing outstanding image quality.I use the Canon rebel xti and shoot raw only because it gives me the opportunity to change many of the image parameters post capture.The image quality of this camera never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
|
|
#1332 2007-11-24 02:21 GMT |
You lost me with the "image parameters post capture" Maybe i don't understand the sensor technology too well,but you say that a 12mp sensor is not automatically physically larger than a 10mp? What about the the examples above(i guess i can do my homework and check sensor size as well as pixel)
To answer your question,..My images are mostly photomerges and therefore a common size is say 14mp in jpeg. I recently had one enlarged on an epson printer to 22"x54". Of course it had to be interpolated (whatever) with a computer enlargement program (Genuine Fractals)and both i and the printer were amazed at the detail that was maintained...and with only a 5mp camera, yet the quest for more detail and fidelity is in my questions so far. I realized the slr's had raw as option but apparently again,jpeg is lesser in that it is "always" a somewhat compressed file.
|
|
|
|
#1333 2007-11-24 04:25 GMT |
When I stated that I change the image parameters post capture, I was referring to settings such as white balance, contrast,saturation exposure and sharpening etc.If your are shooting in jpeg and either you or the camera get the white balance wrong then the chances of correcting it with jpeg rapidly diminishes sometimes to the extent of totally ruining the shot.Setting the contrast to high and/or overexposing can easily lead to blown highlights which are impossible to recover when shooting jpeg.Raw not only gives you more highlight headroom it also gives you the flexibility to take control over the processing decisions on your computer rather than leaving it to auto everything in camera. If you read my post again I stated that compact cameras have smaller sensors than dslrs regardless of the number of mega pixels. Generally speaking cramming more pixels onto a smaller sensor leads to a reduction of image quality at higher ISO levels especially. If you are not comfortable with post processing then it is best to stick with jpeg.Incidentally a 10 mega pixel dslr can produce exhibition quality 15 x10 prints and larger without the need for interpolation.
|
|
|
|
#1334 2007-11-24 20:48 GMT |
I am learning then. Raw is more than just a better image...it is a more flexible one.1 point for d-slr's. Also you sent me into my Digital Photography Buyers Guide and if i had looked, there it was..."The fact is smaller sensors cram pixels onto 2/3-inch or smaller pieces of silicon.D-slr's...larger sensors deliver improved picture quality." 2 points for d-slr's
Iam learning photoshop and do like the power to control the image "post capture" so raws' abilities would appeal to me. Probably this has given me a good push to reconsider what i knew to be a very good camera ( Rebel XTI) but was avoiding because of a wrong premise. Thanks
|
|
|
|
#1335 2007-11-24 20:51 GMT |
Guess i wasn't logged on so no name. bsmurray57
|
|
|
|
#1336 2007-11-24 22:53 GMT |
Another thing to consider is that RAW is no better than fine JPEG unless you are really good at manipulating them, in one of the many and usually expensive programs meant for this task. If you don't have a really good photo to begin with, you wont change it into a prize winner in Nikon Capture!
|
|
|
|
#1338 2007-11-25 02:20 GMT |
The camera that the original poster is considering is a Canon DSLR.All Canon DSLR'S are supplied with excellent Raw conversion software.Canons Digital Photo Professional also supplied for free, is considered by many to be one of the best out there.It is the converter that I use to carry out all my raw adjustments.Another point to consider is that you could set the camera to shoot raw+jpeg,this would at least while you are learning, provide you with a safety net.
|
|
|
|
#1339 2007-11-25 19:54 GMT |
KenRockwell.com The Megapixel Myth. May help.
|
|
|
|
#1340 2007-11-25 21:43 GMT |
I will definitely check it out. Thanks! For a free site, the payoffs came with the first answer so all the extras are much bonus. Hope i can return profits to the group someday.
|
|
|
|
#1353 2007-11-27 09:38 GMT |
I'm still struggling to get to grips with j-pegs.
Roy Lewis |
|
|
|
#1357 2007-11-27 20:10 GMT |
jpegs are perisheble formate, when you open it several times, modify and close - you have a picture quite different from the original, it is better to transfer any pictures to TIF and store in this form. Megapixels are definetly not a major issue, you van compare mark1 with 6mp and any of 10mp small cameras - the difference is striking, not in a favor of 10mp. Another thing - what kind of lense you are using. If you use a lense with 20 lines on mm resolushion- and enlarge it - you will have a milky way does not metter what camera you use. DSLR - gives you a possibility to use some brilliant old lenses with fantastic sharpness for panoramas. Another thing - powershot has quite small distance between lense and sensor, adding to a small sensor size - you have less defined DOF and the pictures look different (less 3D) then DSLR. If you talk about something like sony cameras with zeiss lenses - it is a reasonable alternative.
and in a conclusion there is a very interesting baby Panasonic DMC-LX2 - look it up it has 16:9 sensor, and an excellent leica lense, sharp as a razor - I saw panoramas from this pocket camera - they are amaising. And I saw recently another panasonic prodaction, that is manufactured without lcd, without viewfinder (have to buy it separatly with bigger sensor and the gay who show it to me told that it does so good panoramas that he can not believe it. It came on the market ~ a year ago, and, if you call adorama - they can identify it for you.
|
|
|
|
#1358 2007-11-28 18:16 GMT |
Based on the info shared ,i will not likely be buying the Powershot. Test will be to see what.Will look at the suggestions and still consider the Rebel. Should buy the Fuji S5 Pro..get the megapixels i want, D-SLR and raw too i suppose.Only hitch is the $. bsmurray57
|
|
|
|
#1359 2007-11-28 18:21 GMT |
Wish i could figure out why i keep getting logged off or whatever, and coming up nameless. By the way, AndreyG,are you really 104 years old?
bsmurray57
|
|
|
|
#1360 2007-11-28 20:18 GMT |
not yet, a bit more then 1/2. but it somehow stays. Fuji has special sensor, with orientation for high dinamic range pictures and it works very good, if you can tolerate high level of noise (better not to use anything higher then asa200) and painfull slowness - this is very good, I can say excellent camera. Pentax is very good, but majority of people taking tthe body not only by the body quality but by the lenses that available to this body.... By the way if you do scenary and looking for SLR - look for Mir-1b (or 1V) 37mm 2.8 lense. - one of the best from coach range (I am not sure that some players from business class can beat it).
|
|
|
|
#1363 2007-11-30 04:48 GMT |
bsmurray57: you are appearing anonymous because you are not checking the remember box when you sign in.This happened to me several times before I realized what was going on.
|
|
|
|
#1366 2007-12-02 08:29 GMT |
Check out the Canon G9. it has all the benefits of a rangefinder but is fairly fast and produces very nice images wich can be shot in RAW.
Sensor size is important mostly for it's ability to gather light. The larger the sensor regardless of 'megapixels', the greater the surface areas and thus the better job it does in collecting light.
The megapixel race is great, but it does have its limits. A thumbnail sized sensor will do well with 4 megapixels, but in order to get 12 megapixels you need to take the same surface area and subdivide it. The net result is that less light reaches each pixels. A single pixel subdivided in half will produce four small pixels which each get 1/4 the light once reaching the single larger pixel. This means the sensor performs more poorly in lower light situations and more noise is introduced.
If you don't do a lot of low light shooting, or have decent lighting gear you can get very similar results for something like the G9 vs. Canon Rebel. Of course, you can't shoot with a $2000 macro on the G9, but within reason the G9 can compete quite nicely with a DSLR and has the added perks of being small, good on batteries and inconspicuous. It's the very best way to shoot people on the street.
Good luck
PS - images taken with the G9 if you be curious:
"help, help, I got ions all over me!"
IONclad |
|
|
|
#1616 2008-03-27 19:37 GMT |
Dude how big are you intending to print?
The other thing you should consider is having a good lens to use with your camera body which costs more money yet again.
Last of all most photo printing places only accept .TIF or .JPEG so RAW isnt that much of a deal unless you need to edit the photos.
--editted for inaccuracy--
"Time goes on, things change from moment to moment, and a photo is all that remains of the moment past..."
mbaker.com.au |
|
|
|
#1620 2008-03-28 17:16 GMT |
Hello MBPhoto,who ever told you that you can print a 3 meter picture from a 10MP camera has either misinformed you or you have misunderstood what they actually said.To make a 3 meter print straight from a 10MP camera you would end up printing at a resolution of 33ppi and the image quality, when viewed from even a reasonable distance would be quite poor.Yes you could use software interpolation to resample the image but then you would only be adding pixels of similar colors instead of detail,again resulting in less than satisfactory printing output.It is generally accepted that when printing a file from a digital camera you should aim to use a resolution of between 150-300ppi to obtain fair to excellent image quality.
Regards,Les.
|
|
|
|
#1623 2008-03-29 04:26 GMT |
Looks like i was misinformed i tried to google it before i posted so stuck with what i was told, my apologies 
What was the formula that you used for the ppi davles, it would be good to have in the future.
But still i think the rest of my post still stands 
How large are you thinking of printing anyway?
"Time goes on, things change from moment to moment, and a photo is all that remains of the moment past..."
mbaker.com.au |
|
|
|
#1624 2008-03-29 20:49 GMT |
for sure you can not print from RAW, but you can make JPG that looks way too good from raw, then from JPG. You can make hdr, play with colors in more precise way. Raw simply has much more information and more possibility. If you want to print from your card directly on the printer without a computer, or in CVS - jpg is the file, the other situations - there is no alternative to RAW. The choice is simple - you can get whenever you get from JPG from RAW. but not tha opposit directions.
|
|
