Eric,.
Well written question. You seem to have done your homework..
I'm a vocal opponent of megapixel wars. I find 6mp more than enough for 8x10, although I normally print much smaller. The downside of excessive MP are:.
1. Increased noise and reduced high ISO performance (ie. Sony A-100)2. Added memory required3. Added processing time.
The benefits are:.
1. Increased detail2. Better cropping capability.
So the SSS anti-shake on the Sony is offset by it's poor low-light performance. I bought the KM 5D for the same use (lowlight indoors) and it a great solution. Buying a KM used is a risky bet of course, but worth considering if you really really want to shoot in the dark. Read the Sony / KM threads for more opinions on this..
I don't find SSS to be a two stop advantage. Maybe one stop. But I don't have much to compare it to...it's my first SLR. Also remember than any anti-shake doesn't stop SUBJECT motion, so unless you are shooting still life or cooperative subjects, anti-shake will not allow shutter speeds much below 1/60..
Greg..
Regarding the MP issue..
I commonly print excellent 8x10's at 5MP resolution. In fact, I have a slew of 8x10's in my house right now that'd knock your socks off! I have before printed very good 20x30's at 5MP resolution as well. For 20x30's, it is difficult to tell any difference unless you are about 2" from the print and/or are using a magnifying glass..
This is similar to an HDTV. Do you watch your TV at a distance of 6," where you can see each pixel? Do you look at your pictures from 2" away or do you enjoy them at a non-eye-straining distance?.
6MP is surely enough, especially considering you feel you are an amateur, which suggests you won't do much cropping, etc..
IS is worth every penny, get it if you can..
Final advice: learn RAW.Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..
Also rememberthan any anti-shake doesn't stop SUBJECT motion, so unless you areshooting still life or cooperative subjects, anti-shake will notallow shutter speeds much below 1/60..
First part I agree, but the second part is so-so. Depending on the camera and/or IS system (lense-based or CCD-based), you can very commonly achieve 2 stops, though this may not be the case with your camera, as I don't own or use it..
Side info for OP:.
A "stop" means "double/halve the shutter speed" when referring to usable shutter speeds. So if you gain 2 stops with IS, this would halve the usable shutter speed twice..
For example, if you're using a 200mm equivalent lense, generally you'd need 1/200s shutter speed to achieve a crisp hand-held shot. With IS and the 2-stop advantage, you could use 1/50s for a 200mm lense (half of 200 is 100, half of 100 is 50)..
In some cases, IS can provide more stops of advantage, and allows the use of longer focal lengths at lower shutter speeds..
Perhaps a great explanation is when using a lense of say, 600mm. You'd need 1/600s to get good handheld shots, and this will only happen if outside in very good sunlight. If the clouds come out, it aint gonna happen. If you've already opened the aperture all the way, you can either increase ISO (and add noise) or use IS (and use a slower shutter speed). On my 560mm lense I rarely shoot below ISO200, and commonly use ISO400/800, which gets fairly noisy on my camera. If I had IS, this would help tremendously..
Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..
Eric_1 wrote:.
On a purely mathematical standpoint, you need at least an 8mpcamera to print 8x10s at 300dpi..
The only thing "magic" about 300 ppi is that you probably won't be able to find any way to print at a significantly higher resolution than that. At least, not that you can afford. For that reason, it's considered the "gold standard" for resolution..
Most people are quite satisfied with 200 ppi. 150 ppi gives good "snapshot quality" prints, which look fine unless you scrutinize them. 100 ppi is, well, usable I guess. .
Bear in mind that megapixels are also useful for cropping..
Would a 6mp DSLR (say the D40, D50, or 300D) be able to produce nice8x10s? How about larger sizes than that?.
If you're viewing at a reasonable distance, anything 8x10 or above has the same megapixel requirements. The bigger the print, the farther away you'll stand from it...
Eric_1 wrote:.
How important is the megapixel count? I plan to print photos at 8x10and possible a little bigger on rare occasions. This website saysthat, on a purely mathematical standpoint, you need at least an 8mpcamera to print 8x10s at 300dpi..
I wish the reviewers would do tests of the maximum PPI input that will give an improvement in the photo. I have done tests with two photo printers and sent test images to be printed on a Fuji Frontier system. I cant see any improvement even under magnification above around 240 PPI. Maybe different brands and models of photo printer would give different results. But Im fairly confident a normal photo finisher doesnt give improvement over around 240..
If I am doing an upsample from an image that is just too small I use 300 PPI since I have to do the upsample anyway and I know it is more than enough. But Im not sure 300 PPI photo output is a proper resolution to determine the Mp you need in a camera..
More pixels give you more latitude for cropping. And your occasional large prints would benefit from more pixels..
All large prints arent viewed from a distance. Put a large group shot on the wall like a team photo and people will look quite closely to see the individuals better. A pastoral scene will usually not be looked at from close distance in a large print..
Would a 6mp DSLR (say the D40, D50, or 300D) be able to produce nice8x10s? How about larger sizes than that?I've been looking a lot at the Sony A100, which has a CCD-shift styleimage stabilization that works for all lenses (DPreview's review saysit gives an extra 2 Fstops). I like to take photos in low-lightconditions, so I think this may be important. What do you think?.
8 X 10 isnt a very efficient format for a 3:2 image, but you still get 255 PPI from a 6Mp DSLR image printing 8 X 10. I think that would be about as good as it gets if you dont have to crop much. 11 X 14 takes you down to 186 PPI which isn't bad. Larger than that and more pixels should noticeably improve the image...
Timskis6 wrote:.
First part I agree, but the second part is so-so. Depending on thecamera and/or IS system (lense-based or CCD-based), you can verycommonly achieve 2 stops, though this may not be the case with yourcamera, as I don't own or use it..
Of course, as I said, that's MY experience, and to each their own. If you are shooting long focal lengths in good light, yes, you may see more benefits as you are shooting at high shutterspeeds anyways. But in my usage (and the OP's, by the sound of it), I'm shooting low light where the kids are faster than the shutter. So it may just be subject motion that is the problem..
But head-to-head, I've never seen a visible benefit. I can't imagine it's 2 stops if it's that subtle, and I'm not a steady hand. I turn mine off to get higher 1/160 x-sync, and usually forget to turn it back on..
So your example of going to 1/50 at 200mm, while mathmatically accurate, may not be that useful unless his subject is pretty stationary..
Greg..
Eric_1 wrote:.
Would a 6mp DSLR (say the D40, D50, or 300D) be able to produce nice8x10s? How about larger sizes than that?.
It depends on the subject. You could easily print a 6MP portrait, for example, at 10x8. Other subjects, landscapes for example, crave detail..
It also depends on the viewing conditions. With a modicum of skill you could print a 6MP image at 16x10 to mount on the wall for viewing from a few feet away. For a double-page spread in a magazine, to be read from 18 inches away, 10MP wouldn't really be enough..
One thing to understand is that the 300 dpi figure has been handed down from the reprographics trade. It was based on scanned images, which are rarely as clean as digital, and it was deliberately higher than necessary to give page layout monkeys like me some flexibility to use images larger than planned - rescanning was *very* expensive and often impossible due to deadlines. It was widely recognised that 150% of the litho screen (which was typically 150 lines per inch) was enough, at a pinch. So 225 dpi. And last but not least, modern photo printers are very good at retaining detail so nothing is wasted..
300 dpi is still a good rule of thumb, but it is a 'safe' figure...
As a general rule, with a half decent camera, you can get a nice 8x10 print from a 3MP camera, a nice 11x14 print from a 4MP file..
Put an 8x10 in a frame and put it on a desk and peole will love it..
Anything more than these numbers is a bonus..
Image stabilization only matters in poor light with subjects that are still, and no tripod or other camera support..
We liveed without it for 100 years..
BAK..
Don't confuse dpi (dots per inch) for a printer with the pixel size of files. And don't use your computer to "pixel peep" or examine a digital file at enlarged sizes... the real test is what does it look like on printed paper (or I suppose projected on a large screen)..
I have seen beautiful 40 inch x 60 inch poster prints enlaged from an image file from a 3mp camera (fuji s20)..
I worked one summer for a national chain photographing babies and small children with a 6mp camera, but the file sizes were at or less than 1meg... (15-16 images on a 16mb CF card)... this means a lot of jpeg compression. They cropped and printed prints up to 11x14 and occasionally larger with no problem..
For a test, take an image and pull it into photoshop (elements is ok). Resize the image to about 900 x 600 pixels (3:2 ratio); this yields a size print of about 6 inches x 4 inches at 150 pixels per inch. Upload the image to a lab and print that image file at 4x6, 5x7 (cropped center) and 8x10/12. Let the lab do any auto resizing, color correction, sharpening, etc. You will be amazed at the quality of all three prints. If the image is a portrait style pic, you just might like the slight softness of the 8x10/12 better than the sharper 4x6!..
Thanks for the many responses!.
So it seems the consensus is yes, 6mp is more than enough for a good 8x10 so long as I take a well-focused picture and my lenses are good and I don't crop..
Quick follow up on image stabilization: I noticed the DPreview test of the in-camera image stabilization gave the Sony A100 better reviews than the Pentax K100d. Do any of you have experience comparing the two?.
(I've already posted this on the Pentax forum, but I thought I'd through this in this thread too. I hope that is acceptable forum etiquette...).
Thanks!..
Yes, you are right, I was merely pointing out a few things. True, there is no substitute for a high shutter speed to freeze action (except for the flash, which we'll forget about here)..
Tim'Be the change you wish to see in the world.' -Mahatma Gandhihttp://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/..
But not about the pixels! You're spot on there..
BAK wrote:.
Image stabilization only matters in poor light with subjects that arestill, and no tripod or other camera support..
Or the ability to use a lower ISO, or the ability to use a slower shutter speed to achieve greater depth of field, or the ability to grab a shot in adverse conditions and at least know that camera shake is out of the equation..
Or the ability to hand hold at shutter speeds you can't manage as well as you could 30 years ago .
IS/VR is a stunner as far as I am concerned..
We liveed without it for 100 years..
We lived without a lot of things for 100 years. That doesn't mean they're not valuable..
Now, if we were talking about some technology that selected the perfect subject and composition without needing any skill or vision from the photographer, maybe. But VR is just another tool that helps the process to get out of the photographer's way..
Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..
Why do you think you need in body IS?Don't wait for the Nikon D-whatever, have fun now!http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_wijnands/..
Eric_1 wrote:.
Hello,.
I'm an amateur enthusiast who's considering upgrading from a P&S withlimited manual controls. I'm thinking about an entry level DSLR..
How important is the megapixel count? I plan to print photos at 8x10and possible a little bigger on rare occasions. This website saysthat, on a purely mathematical standpoint, you need at least an 8mpcamera to print 8x10s at 300dpi..
Http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php.
But there are some interesting comments below the main graphsuggesting otherwise. This site blows up a 4mp shot to 24x36:.
Http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/printdogma.html.
Would a 6mp DSLR (say the D40, D50, or 300D) be able to produce nice8x10s? How about larger sizes than that?.
Ok question number 2:.
I've been looking a lot at the Sony A100, which has a CCD-shift styleimage stabilization that works for all lenses (DPreview's review saysit gives an extra 2 Fstops). I like to take photos in low-lightconditions, so I think this may be important. What do you think?.
Thanks!Eric.
Hi.
No offence but I assum(ed) this was a set up....No mention of K100d in your opening post....but a question about does megapixels matter with stabilisation and good at low light. No one replied at all about the K100d and then you have a post comparing it!.
Now I love my Pentax stuff (K100d and all) and yes the 6mp does not matter and the stabilisation is great ....for me roughly 5 stops with all lenses....and it is a seriously good low light camera....but I think thats what you are looking at..
Neil.
Looking at your other posts I have edited this and apologise..
Neil..
Neil holmes wrote:.
Eric_1 wrote:.
Hello,.
I'm an amateur enthusiast who's considering upgrading from a P&S withlimited manual controls. I'm thinking about an entry level DSLR..
How important is the megapixel count? I plan to print photos at 8x10and possible a little bigger on rare occasions. This website saysthat, on a purely mathematical standpoint, you need at least an 8mpcamera to print 8x10s at 300dpi..
Http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php.
But there are some interesting comments below the main graphsuggesting otherwise. This site blows up a 4mp shot to 24x36:.
Http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/printdogma.html.
Would a 6mp DSLR (say the D40, D50, or 300D) be able to produce nice8x10s? How about larger sizes than that?.
Ok question number 2:.
I've been looking a lot at the Sony A100, which has a CCD-shift styleimage stabilization that works for all lenses (DPreview's review saysit gives an extra 2 Fstops). I like to take photos in low-lightconditions, so I think this may be important. What do you think?.
Thanks!Eric.
Hi.
No offence but I assum(ed) this was a set up....No mention of K100din your opening post....but a question about does megapixels matterwith stabilisation and good at low light. No one replied at allabout the K100d and then you have a post comparing it!.
Now I love my Pentax stuff (K100d and all) and yes the 6mp does notmatter and the stabilisation is great ....for me roughly 5 stops withall lenses....and it is a seriously good low light camera....but Ithink thats what you are looking at..
Neil.
Looking at your other posts I have edited this and apologise..
Neil.
N/t.
Neil..