16 versus 24 mega pixels

[DanK]

I felt that full-frame would give a comforting and familiar field of view for the focal length,

That's a good point. I had been using crops for so long before I went FF that it had become second nature to me, but it's true, I did spend a lot of time at first dividing by 1.6, given that I grew up on 35 mm.

In any case, I agree: the most helpful thing is to spell out all the pros and cons.

[ajohnw]

Colin has already pointed out that more pixels isn't always as much an advantage as some one may think because of the square aspect.

Just taking landscapes dynamic range may be the most important aspect - sky - shadow etc. My son has an interest in buying a DSLR. He will make his own mind up but suggesting a few there seems to be more about that have a 14 bit raw now. It might even be standard on most Canon's. Many claim 14bit is an advantage. I don't know as haven't owned one. I also suggested a Nikon. I'm agnostic on that subject but from nosing around dpreview from time to time I still sometimes feel that Canon offer the best balance performance wise.

Having shot rather a lot of film and slide I didn't find crop much of a problem other than initially choosing which zooms to buy. After that experience I didn't have much of a problem deciding on primes. Same with my change to m 4/3 but was put of a little initially as the crop factor often wasn't stated and 35mm equiv's weren't given. One thing I would say about cropped sensors perhaps 4/3 in particular is that the very short equiv focal lengths tend to have more distortion than full frame. It can be removed with software and if the camera wasn't held square it's probably easier to do that manually.

What I do find disturbing after film cameras is "size". They are just not the same to handle especially some full frames and even more so with a battery grip on. I read a comment somewhere - am I mad, went out to buy a ......... and came back with an EM1 as it had the same feel as older film cameras. Not a camera I have used so can't comment on it. I am using an EM-5 but don't generally print and would want to take a lot more shots before I would even comment. The EM-1 uses a different sensor anyway.

John
-

[Old Veteran]

Hi John; I am looking at the Nikon 3100 and the Canon Tf5i Eos Rebel. Nikon has 16m pixels and the Canon has 18m pixels. I am just a beginner digital user and I've read that more then 14m pixels is too much for my nature and landscape hobby. The feature I would like to not have is video. Would it be wise to buy a factory refurbished camera that doesn't have the video feature? The lens or lenses would be from 35-70 and 70-210 or as close to that set up. My film cameras are still in very good shape and I am "itching" to get back into photography after a ten year break. I have a Minolta srt 202 with a 35-70 "two touch" zoom ( my favorite) and a 70-210 zoom. Both are MD lenses, and I have a Pentax 1000, looking to find the same zoom set as my Minolta. I will still be using slide film. I will have a lot to learn going into digital and maybe I will finally retire my film cameras. I've checked the stores that sell DSLRs and I will go get a closer look at them. I'm hoping the cameras are not so small that my hands will be too big. I will ask questions after I have studied the ins and outs, not all the tricks of good shooting are in the books.

Bob

[Colin Southern]

Hi Bob,

The T5i - sensor wise is fine, but the ergonomics of the camera itself aren't great; it lacks a QCD (Quick Control Dial) on the back, so you end up making a LOT of button pushes to make changes. As a starting point many (but not all) here will recommend starting with a XXD series camera for that very reason.

Video capability is built into most cameras now. I know what you mean about it (I don't like it either), but at the end of the day, you don't have to use it. The way my Canon 1D X is setup I can't even use it without re-programming one of the buttons; so I wouldn't let the fact that it has the capability hold you back at all. From the manufacturers point of view it didn't cost them anything to add that functionality, so they did it anyway.

[dje]

Hi John; I am looking at the Nikon 3100 and the Canon Tf5i Eos Rebel. Nikon has 16m pixels and the Canon has 18m pixels. I am just a beginner digital user and I've read that more then 14m pixels is too much for my nature and landscape hobby. The feature I would like to not have is video. Would it be wise to buy a factory refurbished camera that doesn't have the video feature? The lens or lenses would be from 35-70 and 70-210 or as close to that set up. My film cameras are still in very good shape and I am "itching" to get back into photography after a ten year break. I have a Minolta srt 202 with a 35-70 "two touch" zoom ( my favorite) and a 70-210 zoom. Both are MD lenses, and I have a Pentax 1000, looking to find the same zoom set as my Minolta. I will still be using slide film. I will have a lot to learn going into digital and maybe I will finally retire my film cameras. I've checked the stores that sell DSLRs and I will go get a closer look at them. I'm hoping the cameras are not so small that my hands will be too big. I will ask questions after I have studied the ins and outs, not all the tricks of good shooting are in the books.

Bob

Hi Bob,

In your situation, I wouldn't worry about the number of pixels. It won't be an issue for you. Just go for the camera you like the feel of and that has controls that make it easy to use.

As for video, as Colin says, simply don't use it. I believe it would be a mistake to restrict your choice to models that dont have video. I shoot quite a bit of video but I have never shot 1sec of footage on my DSLR.

Dave

[ajohnw]

Hi John; I am looking at the Nikon 3100 and the Canon Tf5i Eos Rebel. Nikon has 16m pixels and the Canon has 18m pixels. I am just a beginner digital user and I've read that more then 14m pixels is too much for my nature and landscape hobby. The feature I would like to not have is video. Would it be wise to buy a factory refurbished camera that doesn't have the video feature? The lens or lenses would be from 35-70 and 70-210 or as close to that set up. My film cameras are still in very good shape and I am "itching" to get back into photography after a ten year break. I have a Minolta srt 202 with a 35-70 "two touch" zoom ( my favorite) and a 70-210 zoom. Both are MD lenses, and I have a Pentax 1000, looking to find the same zoom set as my Minolta. I will still be using slide film. I will have a lot to learn going into digital and maybe I will finally retire my film cameras. I've checked the stores that sell DSLRs and I will go get a closer look at them. I'm hoping the cameras are not so small that my hands will be too big. I will ask questions after I have studied the ins and outs, not all the tricks of good shooting are in the books.

Bob

You can read about all sorts of things Bob. That often is a bit of a problem. Information overload and advice that might not be even accurate. I'm pretty sure many on here shoot landscapes with more than 14mp.

As far as zooms go you shouldn't have any problem. One point on these is that ones with a 3:1 range in other than the very wide angle ones tend to have better performance but don't worry about things like say a 70-300mm, around 4:1 if you must as a shorter range isn't available. You will find that the standard zoom that usually comes with any make of camera starts at 28mm in full frame terms. They are often referred to in disrespectful terms as kit lenses. Actually they are usually decent lenses these days. I think that both makes you have mentioned can be bought with an 18-55mm lens and both are decent lenses. Where on Canon for instance some one goes to the more expensive L series the only justifiable reason really is for a faster aperture.

It is possible to use even Minolta MD lenses on Canon EOS's. There are adapters about that even cause the camera's AF confirm to work. Minolta lenses need ones with an optical component in them though and that would put me off The adapters are cheap and I feel that they don't put enough effort into the optical part.

Colin makes a point about camera control. Manufacturers mess with the software in them and alter the price accordingly. Taking my ancient Canon 300D for instance it will shoot raw or jpg but not both together. The next model up would shoot both at the same time. Canon software has been extensively hacked so firmware can be loaded and kept on the flash card and then it can shoot both jpg and raw at the same time. Also one or two other features become available and some which appear in menu's that don't do anything as that aspect is different between the 2 models. If you search a say canon Tf5i hacks your likely to find a site that provides the firmware and tells you what it adds. As these do not finish up stored in the camera and remain on the card there aren't any warrantee problems.

Not so sure about choosing a camera via a camera shop. It's best to download the manuals and spend some time reading them. There are always several ways of controlling a camera. A mode is set on a dial, eg Aperture priority, speed priority, auto etc and also P for program mode which I use a lot. When in these modes a thumb wheel controls the setting. Aperture, speed or in the case of P mode a series of apertures and speeds that maintain the exposure. There will also be a manual mode. Match the meter style and maybe a button to switch between setting aperture or speed. Maybe 2 thumb wheels or even the multi way control on the back of the camera. I find the latter a bit awkward. Which ever mode the camera is in it's a good idea to have easy access to ISO settings. Take me in P mode. I have a set of aperture or speeds. If these wont do the ISO needs to be changed. On an EM-5 I press a button and the thumb wheel turns to ISO settings and if I fairly quickly select with the thumb wheel all ok. Initially the time they allowed before it dropped back to it's normal function was a wee bit fast. Also on an EM-5 another thumb wheel allows exposure compensation as well. When the camera has taken a shot over and under exposure are shown instantly in the preview. This is for a jpg exposure but raw can soon be judged from that after a bit of use.

Not suggesting an EM-5 just using it as an example. Settings to look for when reading a manual and to try later with the camera in your hands if you can. I have big hands too.

Most cameras hold AF and exposure settings when the shutter is half pressed or allow something to be held when it is. It's handy to be able to hold either particularly exposure. On a landscape for instance you might want to include more sky when metering to avoid over exposing it and then focus on something in the scene before taking the shot. Matrix, evaluation style etc metering is pretty good but can still give too much weight to some part of the scene. On the other hand with easy exposure compensation you might just set - 1 EV or what ever.

Continuous AF when the shutter button is half pressed is pretty useful as well - I think all offer that now.


There are some on costs. Instead of a decent stabilised colour enlarger you need a calibrated monitor. The cheapest option that I am aware of is one from Dell that comes pre calibrated but even those can be improved with a calibrator. Many people who print work in Adobe RGB. Not all monitors will display that correctly and it needs a printer which definitely does covers that colour space. sRGB uses 8bit colour channels Adobe RGB 10bit. The software that comes with cameras can be used at least for a start. Probably not a bad idea initially as post processing software is and has to be pretty complicated to use well for a beginner.

Slides? I wouldn't be surprised if some projection TV's can be used to project HDMI images. Never looked into it so pass.

John
-

[Manfred M]

I am just a beginner digital user and I've read that more then 14m pixels is too much for my nature and landscape hobby.

This either absolutely correct (even 14MP can be a waste), if you only display the images on a computer screen or total nonsense, depending on your final output.

I have a 36MP full-frame camera and I do a lot of prints at 17” x 22” using my printer that has a native resolution of 360 ppi (pixels per inch). That gives me a 13.5” x 20.5” image at native resolution, so even with a moderately large print the image has to be upsampled. I also have a 12MP crop frame camera and print to the same size. People will tell me that I can get a great 17” x 22” print from it as well (which is true). I have done side by side shots with both cameras on a tripod, using the same lens. Yes, I can tell which camera was used; the 36MP image is simply better.

The feature I would like to not have is video. Would it be wise to buy a factory refurbished camera that doesn't have the video feature?

I have the same feature on both camera. I do virtually 100% of my video using a dedicated video camera. Video is essentially small cost add in (the cost of developing the video software), so all cameras have this feature. Answer is that you won’t be able to find a lot of cameras without this feature.

The lens or lenses would be from 35-70 and 70-210 or as close to that set up. My film cameras are still in very good shape and I am "itching" to get back into photography after a ten year break. I have a Minolta srt 202 with a 35-70 "two touch" zoom ( my favorite) and a 70-210 zoom. Both are MD lenses, and I have a Pentax 1000, looking to find the same zoom set as my Minolta.

These lenses won’t be much use on your new camera. In fact I am absolutely amazed at the improvements made in lens capability made over the past decade. I switched to digital about 5 years ago and was simply blown away with how much better lens performance has become. Low dispersion, high refractive index glass and aspherical elements were only found on some really high-end lenses in the past. With advances in manufacturing technology, these features are found even in the cheapest “kit” lenses. The only thing you will notice is that while optical performance has gotten better in leaps and bounds, the mechanical elements have gone the other way.

I will still be using slide film. I will have a lot to learn going into digital and maybe I will finally retire my film cameras. I've checked the stores that sell DSLRs and I will go get a closer look at them. I'm hoping the cameras are not so small that my hands will be too big. I will ask questions after I have studied the ins and outs, not all the tricks of good shooting are in the books.

I think you will find that most film cameras were actually fairly compact with regard to the size of DSLRs. I still shoot film from time to time with my old Leica R3 cameras. Even my D90 is larger than the Leica and my D800, especially with the battery grip is a veritable monster beside the film gear.

The only word of caution (and I echo Colin’s comments here) is that the cameras you are looking at are entry level, which means they require a lot of setting to be controlled through menu settings, rather than with on-camera controls. I bought a higher end consumer camera when I switched to a DSLR, which had a lot more on-body functionality purely because of the limits that the entry level camera had. Nothing is more frustrating than missing a shot because you have to fumble through menu to set up your shot.

Bob[/QUOTE]

[Polar01]

John from your post #26 could you please supply reference to your statement "Adobe RGB 10bit", as I have failed to find any reference to that. I have found reference to 8bit, 16bit, 24bit, 32bit, and even 48bit however no 10bit maybe the reference is a bit dated?

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

My mistake if it doesn't use 10bit per colour channel I have always assumed it does and I do not remember where I got that idea from. It would be some time ago, early digital, Dimage days. I would guess that the thought has been augmented by monitor reviews. A quick web search indicates that a different back light spectrum is needed for Adobe RGB and it simply has bigger tonal steps for each of it's bit steps in each colour space than sRGB. On the other hand I didn't find anything that stated that explicitly.

Looking at the sort of reviews I tend to look at for monitors you will see why some confusion is possible. When ever I see a monitor which is Adobe RGB capable it uses 10bit colour, usually 8 plus 2 dithered eg

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u3014.htm


Looking again I found this - straight from the horses mouth - 8 bit but also 16 and 32bit float.

http://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/adobergb.xalter

John
-

[inkista]

Bob, are you in the US? (there's a reason we like at least a country in a profile). In the US, both Nikon and Canon have factory refurbished gear online stores. (Canon, Nikon). If you can't quite swallow some of the hazards of purchasing used gear (although, again in the US, I've purchased used gear sight-unseen from B&H, Adorama, and KEH and had no issues with returns), factory refurbished gear is a good halfway point that can save you a ton of money.

There is, however, one chance you're taking. A great many of these cameras are simply bodies that can't be sold new: returns, overstocks, whatever. But some of them actually are repaired bodies. I lucked out on both of the refurbs I picked up from Canon (50D, 5DMkII, and both of them were essentially new cameras with less than 100 shutter actuations on each), though. And the equipment has been thoroughly checked out by the service centers--not something that happens with a new model off the production line. And most of these have the same warranty as new equipment.

I mention this because a new T5i body in the US costs (on Amazon) $599. A refurbished 60D body on the Canon USA website costs $518.39. It's one generation back (the current model is the 70D), but one tier up, and it costs LESS than the new dRebel. The sensor is still pretty much the same one; but the T5i has a newer processor, so it has a few more of the new-fangled features and a touch screen. But the 60D will handle better, and be a bit larger. (Frankly, I find dSLRs too large and bulky and prefer a smaller camera--my film SLR, an Oly OM-10, was far more comfortable to me--but I have petite ladies' hands).

And +1 on Manfred's comments. You'll want native mount lenses for whatever system you're going to. I've adapted manual focus lenses to my cameras (and the Minolta MD/MC are particularly problematic on dSLRs because of the shorter registration distance requiring elements with glass elements to act as short teleconverters), and the pain, hassle, and performance are enough that it may not be worth it unless you're a gear collector, into vintage glass, and mule-stubborn about getting mechanical things to work [I adore it, but I'm considered an eccentric, and I still own and use native lenses more]. If you were going mirrorless with Sony NEX or Fuji X, that might change the story a bit, but with the advances in lens features (e.g., stabilization, autofocus) as well as optical design, a native lens is just that much easier to use. Even cheap kit lenses deliver these days.


Panasonic DMC-G3 [2x crop 16MP sensor], 14-42 OIS kit lens [equivalent of an 18-55 IS APS-C kit lens].

And it's very handy to have a lens that communicates EXIF information back to the camera body, such as the lens name, focal length, and aperture setting you used on a shot. I agree, the Rokkors rock, and you probably won't find an equivalent to the 35-70/3.5 in the Canon lineup, but 35mm isn't going to be wide on a crop body (35x1.6 => 56mm FoV) and the 18-55 kit lens will give you 28mm equivalence on the wide end. And the EF-S 10-22?--that's 16mm FoV equivalency--not something you'd often find on rectilinear film lenses back in the day. And the 70-200 f/4L IS USM or 70-200 f/4L USM is unlikely to disappoint you.

As for video? As everyone says--hard to find a body without it these days [Df excepted], but there's nothing forcing you to use it. If you go back far enough to find an older non-video-capable body, you'll be forced to shop used gear, and you'll also be going back two or three sensor generations, and for digital shooters that's like swapping out to slower film with more grain. OTOH, used 50Ds are cheap these days...

[ajohnw]

Factory refurbs crop up in the UK as well but most usually on Ebay. If available I have always gone for them and never had a problem as a result. I suspect most are just mail order returns really. Listing usually state the manufacturers guarantee terms if genuine manufacturer referbs. This may be reduced. 2 years down to 1 etc.

Another type also crops up in Europe but not so often these days. They are new and have a Europe wide guarantee which may be shorter than in some European countries. My EM-5 falls into that category but the retailers also sold a 2 year extension to the 1 rather than the UK's 2 that the camera usually comes with.

John
-

[Gord Jones]

So what is the difference in resolution between a 16mpx crop sensor (1.5 crop factor) and a 24 mpx full frame sensor?

[xpatUSA]

So what is the difference in resolution between a 16mpx crop sensor (1.5 crop factor) and a 24 mpx full frame sensor?

Welcome, Gord; that would depend on your definition of "resolution", there being several to choose from.

In a pedantic world, if the pixels are the same size (well, pixel pitch) there is little, if any, difference.

[edit] just noticed that this is quite an old thread . . [/edit]

[Gord Jones]

Thank you very much for replying to me. I'm trying to determine if it's worthwhile going to a 24mpx full frame camera from my current 16mpx aps camera. They are both Sony and they both have an Exmor sensor. Using my very basic math, it would appear that concentration of pixels is pretty much the same. Is that what you mean by pixel pitch? I found an interesting chart on Wikkipedia that shows the pixel size on the full frame version to be 5.97*μm but that same chart doesn't have a size for the crop sensor.

[Manfred M]

Gord - are you planning to print or are all of your images going to be displayed on a computer screen?

The reason I ask is that if you are displaying on a computer screen only, your images from both cameras are going to be downsampled considerably. A standard screen is around 1920 x 1080 pixels, i.e. about 2MP, so 16MP is massive overkill and 24MP is even more so. On the other hand if you are planning to print, the larger sensor (with about 1.5 x more pixels) will make a difference if you print larger images. Prints generally require upsampling and this ends up softening the overall image, so less upsampling from a larger sensor will have some advantages.

The type of photography you do might impact camera choice as well.

Just as an aside, I own 2x crop, 1.5x crop and full frame cameras. I also do a fair number of prints.

[Gord Jones]

I am planning to print (hopefully) a lot of my work. My printer can do 13 x 19 so I'd like to be able to trust that my camera can deliver a crisp image at that size. I get quite disappointed when I have to crop a lot of the image. Does the larger pixel count mean I can crop and still maintain sharpness?

[Manfred M]

A full frame sensor has an area of 864 square mm and a (Sony) crop has an area of 370 square mm; i.e. 2.34 times the surface area. This means a crop frame needs significantly more upscaling to create the same size of print. Both cameras will give you decent prints at the size you are looking at printing, but the full size sensor will give you a bit more flexibility to crop and if you are pixel peeping (and have a sharp image) you might able to see the difference between the two camera bodies. You are not looking at particularly large print size, so either camera will give you acceptable results.

The print size and sensor size do not have the same aspect ratio, so you are going to have to crop your images to the paper size.

[dje]

Thank you very much for replying to me. I'm trying to determine if it's worthwhile going to a 24mpx full frame camera from my current 16mpx aps camera. They are both Sony and they both have an Exmor sensor. Using my very basic math, it would appear that concentration of pixels is pretty much the same. Is that what you mean by pixel pitch? I found an interesting chart on Wikkipedia that shows the pixel size on the full frame version to be 5.97*μm but that same chart doesn't have a size for the crop sensor.

Hi Gord

The pixel pitch for a 16MP 1.5x crop sensor is about 4.8 microns and and for a 24MP full frame sensor is about 5.8 microns. However there is no simple relationship between pixel pitch and image sharpness. Rather the sharpness depends on a number of factors

Lens performance
Pixel pitch
The strength of the AA (anti-aliasing) filter (if there is one)
Sensor size
Viewing size (including print size)
Sharpening applied whilst editing the image

Upgrading your current APS-C camera to a Sony full frame may help with sharpness if you are printing large, but I suspect the main benefits might be more likely to occur in other areas such as better noise performance/dynamic range and better auto-focus performance, as a result of improved technology.

What model do you have now and what full frame model are you considering?

Dave

[Gord Jones]

I have an A37 and I'm looking at a used A99. The new A99II would be really nice, but I'd have to sell one of my kids to get it.

[Gord Jones]

This helps me a lot. Thank you very much. I know one of my problems is I'm expected too much of my images and cropping way too closely. I've learned that I can compensate by printing a smaller image (4x6 instead of 8x10). I checked out your portfolio page and I love the wolf. That was a very nice one.