Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
Megapixels versus Earthquakes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 303945" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>Yes, one way to look at it is that the D800 36mp calculates 205 pixels/mm, and 24mp DX calculates 255 pixels/mm.</p><p>I agree, this might seem important if comparing two DX sensors, but for FX, it seems not the right story to consider.</p><p></p><p>Regarding image shake (which may be there regardless of size), the smaller DX sensor has to enlarge the image 1.5x larger than FX. That enlarges camera shake too, Shake is 1.5x worse on DX than FX. This is why we say handhold shutter speed 1/focal length for FX, and 1/(focal length x1.5) for DX. Yes, I did have that advantage on the D800.</p><p></p><p>It is also true that to show say 1200x800 pixels on a monitor screen, the 24 mp image would be resampled smaller than 12 or 16 mp, which is lower resolution, which would help mask any blur. Should be the same result either way. Saying, the larger mp image can be called a plus in itself, to help hide camera shake that way too. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>I would maintain two things about bottom line...</p><p></p><p>that lower resolution is a crummy way to hide camera shake. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> We see less detail then. Setting it a little out of focus could do that too. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> There must be better solutions (like the common good practices).</p><p></p><p>and that 7360x4912 pixels (36 mp) actually offers greater resolution than 6000x4000 pixels (24 mp), regardless of the calculated pixels/mm numbers. </p><p>The DX also has to be enlarged 1.5x more too. So there are a few factors, but more mp is a plus, regarding resolution. Resolution is a fine feature.</p><p></p><p>Even for two DX cameras, lower resolution does NOT seem to be the proper way to choose the camera. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p>If you never intended or needed to crop extremely, or to print very large, then 12 mp seems like a lot, and the files are smaller to archive.</p><p>If only showing the image on 2 mp video screen, normal cases would not see any difference. I could see that argument, although it is not my argument.</p><p></p><p>But it really does not take very long to appreciate the greater resolution of larger images.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 303945, member: 12496"] Yes, one way to look at it is that the D800 36mp calculates 205 pixels/mm, and 24mp DX calculates 255 pixels/mm. I agree, this might seem important if comparing two DX sensors, but for FX, it seems not the right story to consider. Regarding image shake (which may be there regardless of size), the smaller DX sensor has to enlarge the image 1.5x larger than FX. That enlarges camera shake too, Shake is 1.5x worse on DX than FX. This is why we say handhold shutter speed 1/focal length for FX, and 1/(focal length x1.5) for DX. Yes, I did have that advantage on the D800. It is also true that to show say 1200x800 pixels on a monitor screen, the 24 mp image would be resampled smaller than 12 or 16 mp, which is lower resolution, which would help mask any blur. Should be the same result either way. Saying, the larger mp image can be called a plus in itself, to help hide camera shake that way too. :) I would maintain two things about bottom line... that lower resolution is a crummy way to hide camera shake. :) We see less detail then. Setting it a little out of focus could do that too. :) There must be better solutions (like the common good practices). and that 7360x4912 pixels (36 mp) actually offers greater resolution than 6000x4000 pixels (24 mp), regardless of the calculated pixels/mm numbers. The DX also has to be enlarged 1.5x more too. So there are a few factors, but more mp is a plus, regarding resolution. Resolution is a fine feature. Even for two DX cameras, lower resolution does NOT seem to be the proper way to choose the camera. :) If you never intended or needed to crop extremely, or to print very large, then 12 mp seems like a lot, and the files are smaller to archive. If only showing the image on 2 mp video screen, normal cases would not see any difference. I could see that argument, although it is not my argument. But it really does not take very long to appreciate the greater resolution of larger images. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
General Digital SLR Cameras
Megapixels versus Earthquakes
Top
