[StarScream]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Why do you think so? I never heard F4 mentioned in Team-BHP before. There are very very few film SLR users here.

It was a little tongue in cheek Samurai carrying on from the discussion in this thread. Navin posted a eulogy to it and I think its a great camera and very good looking in a rugged sort of way. The Hummer of cameras!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Its not a fair fight. The APS-C sensor was never designed for such large sizes. When does one ever blow-up a picture that large?

Hmm, the blown-up image on the wall was originally shot in Sony DSC F-717 at 3MP (1536x2048) mode. It is pretty big, compare with the door size.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Hmm, the blown-up image on the wall was originally shot in Sony DSC F-717 at 3MP (1536x2048) mode. It is pretty big, compare with the door size.

No one is denying that you can't get decent sized prints from digital. All Im saying is 46 inches is pushing it.

[tsk1979]

What does APS-C sensor have to do with size of prints.
As long as you have a low noise image(read all APS-C cams at ISO800 or below you can push it depending upon DPI.
for example if you use a 12MP camera(4000x3000) pixels you can get prints at photo resolution with size 26.7x20"
At 72dpi which is the normal screen resolution and is often used for poster printing you get
55.6"x41.7"
If you are going high rez(300DPI)
You get 10"x7" prints.


Pentax K20D has a 14MP sensor, and gives very clean results unless you are doing ISO1600.
you can go to higher print sizes at that.

Also be aware that most labs will print 150dpi here which is normal resolution at which photos are printed.
300DPI is rarely used.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

What does APS-C sensor have to do with size of prints.
As long as you have a low noise image(read all APS-C cams at ISO800 or below you can push it depending upon DPI.
for example if you use a 12MP camera(4000x3000) pixels you can get prints at photo resolution with size 26.7x20"
At 72dpi which is the normal screen resolution and is often used for poster printing you get
55.6"x41.7"
If you are going high rez(300DPI)
You get 10"x7" prints.


Pentax K20D has a 14MP sensor, and gives very clean results unless you are doing ISO1600.
you can go to higher print sizes at that.

Also be aware that most labs will print 150dpi here which is normal resolution at which photos are printed.
300DPI is rarely used.

That's a disingenuous argument. Of course you can lower the dpi and increase size. But is that optimal?
Usually when one talks of the quality of an image and its rendition one is talking high res - at least I am.
Why does an 8MP p&s not compare with an 8MP DSLR - what changes? The size of the image sensor. Now if you were to take images from both and print at low res, up to a certain size they will look the same. The difference comes when you push the technology. Say you had to crop a small portion of the image from both 8MP cameras and then print at a high resolution. Which one do you think will look better? The same goes for full frame vs APS-C and more megapixels vs less megapixels within APS-C. Be aware, more megapixels and more image sensor real estate give you more headroom, more detail and lesser noise. In my book that translates into into better large, high res prints.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by StarScream

That's a disingenuous argument. Of course you can lower the dpi and increase size. But is that optimal?
Usually when one talks of the quality of an image and its rendition one is talking high res - at least I am.
Why does an 8MP p&s not compare with an 8MP DSLR - what changes? The size of the image sensor. Now if you were to take images from both and print at low res, up to a certain size they will look the same. The difference comes when you push the technology. Say you had to crop a small portion of the image from both 8MP cameras and then print at a high resolution. Which one do you think will look better? The same goes for full frame vs APS-C and more megapixels vs less megapixels within APS-C. Be aware, more megapixels and more image sensor real estate give you more headroom, more detail and lesser noise. In my book that translates into into better large, high res prints.

The problem with high MP P&S is noise. Even at low ISO, there is enough noise in the picture to show up in large prints. However there exist certain p&s cameras which at ISO 100 will give you the same LPH as a DSLR of similar megapixel spec.

When you take the current crop of APS-C cameras from canon and keep at ISO 400 or lower, you will not find any image quality hit.
Infact the extinction resolution(LPH etc.,) of these APS-C cameras is at par with full frame now if you stick to the lower ISO limits. In normal photography you rarely need more than ISO 400.
If you don't want to compromise print quality, print by all means at 150DPI, this is the standard photo print resolution.
But printing a poster also takes into account viewing distance. So if you are planning to view from a few feet away 72DPI(screen resolution) is enough.
If you want to have your poster the same rez at normal photo prints you can get 26" size prints from APS-C

Using the same lens, and keeping ISO low you will not find any different in image quality related to resolution if you keep Megapixels same.
However the FF may have other qualities such as higher dynamic range etc.,

So when a 20MP APS-C sensor comes and offers same noise levels(why not, 300D,350D,400D,450D have increased MP without noise), you will be able to print 40" posters at photo resolution.


And last but not the least, many normal lenses which we use(For example the kit lens) cannot reach the LPH capability of the sensor except at certain apertures.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

When you take the current crop of APS-C cameras from canon and keep at ISO 400 or lower, you will not find any image quality hit.
Infact the extinction resolution(LPH etc.,) of these APS-C cameras is at par with full frame now if you stick to the lower ISO limits. In normal photography you rarely need more than ISO 400.

What is normal? I push the limits of my equipment all the time. I like taking night shots - its hard to do that with low ISO. With film one never thought twice before taking a long exposure, with digital its not that simple. My point is all of us get different mileage from our equipment. Within the boundaries you've described - use low ISO, print large at low dpi, view from a few feet away - you're right.
The difference shows up when you push it, as I said in my earlier post, or you change any one of those parameters

Originally Posted by tsk1979

But printing a poster also takes into account viewing distance. So if you are planning to view from a few feet away 72DPI(screen resolution) is enough.

In my experience photo prints are blown up large and seen up close. It's kinda hard to stipulate a viewing distance for these things.

Originally Posted by tsk1979

So when a 20MP APS-C sensor comes and offers same noise levels(why not, 300D,350D,400D,450D have increased MP without noise), you will be able to print 40" posters at photo resolution.

sure, when that happens.....

Originally Posted by tsk1979

And last but not the least, many normal lenses which we use(For example the kit lens) cannot reach the LPH capability of the sensor except at certain apertures.

Some of my glass actually has higher resolution than what my camera body sensor can handle. A camera with more MP will capture more detail from that glass.
Anyway we are detracting from my original question to Navin. Why does he think his niece's full frame was better than his camera when viewed on a 46" TV? His answer may put to rest some of what we've been discussing.

[Akshay1234]

thanks starscream for clearing things up. will let you know what we have decided.

[Samurai]

StarScream,

Based on your posts, you seem to be a veteran photographer. How about sharing some of your images with us in the non-auto image thread.

[StarScream]

Samurai,
I didn't know there was such a thread. I just saw it. That is very good idea. I think will post some of my stuff.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by StarScream

What is normal? I push the limits of my equipment all the time. I like taking night shots - its hard to do that with low ISO. With film one never thought twice before taking a long exposure, with digital its not that simple. My point is all of us get different mileage from our equipment. Within the boundaries you've described - use low ISO, print large at low dpi, view from a few feet away - you're right.
The difference shows up when you push it, as I said in my earlier post, or you change any one of those parameters

Night shots and high ISO??? I always use ISO 200 for night shots. There is no subsitute for a tripod. Many exposures I take have duration in minutes.

I state my point again, as long as you are not pushing above ISO 800, a APS-C camera like the 40D will give you same image quality like a full frame like the 5D. Of course at ISO 1600 or ISO 3200 the 5D will have a cleaner image.
For day shots I have never needed to go above ISO 200. At night I use a tripod.

In my experience photo prints are blown up large and seen up close. It's kinda hard to stipulate a viewing distance for these things.

Again, with a full frame DSLR and a APS-C DSLR, unless you are pushing it too the limits(high ISO photography), it won't matter.


sure, when that happens.....

Some of my glass actually has higher resolution than what my camera body sensor can handle. A camera with more MP will capture more detail from that glass.
Anyway we are detracting from my original question to Navin. Why does he think his niece's full frame was better than his camera when viewed on a 46" TV? His answer may put to rest some of what we've been discussing.

Yes, a 24MP full frame will will hands down sir. I concede that. MY point was with similar MPs.
Of course you missed a fatal flaw in my argument, which I now state.
I said that in 2 years time you will have APS-C pushing 15MP with clean images at ISO 800.
In the same time Full frame will push 30MP with same image quality at same ISOs(maybe even better).

But if you are going to print 30" posters even APS-C will do.

As for your glass, would love to see your images.
The best glass I own is the 74$ 50mm 1.8, and most of my photography is done by the 18-55 kit lens.

[reignofchaos]

Tsk its not just noise... you get much sharper images with a larger sensor too as compared to a smaller sensor, lens remaining the same. If one can afford a full frame sensor, by all means get it. Even the 12mp 5D produces images way better than my 40D.

[navin]

Originally Posted by StarScream

If it is the 80-200/2.8 get it serviced and continue to use it. You can safely buy the 18-200VR in addition to the 12-24 on a D300..

Originally Posted by akshay1234

thanks starscream for clearing things up. will let you know what we have decided.

akshay, given that the only usable nikon lens you have is the 80-200/2.8 I'd get the D300 and the 16-85/3.5-4.5 and maybe the new Tokina 11-16/2.8. Not that 11mm and 12mm is much of a difference but the f/2.8 lens when stopped down to f/4 (the 12-24 is f/4) will become much sharper.

For now the 16-85 and the 80-200/2.8 is a good start. See what you photograph if you need a wide then the 11-16 is a an option if you want to go tele in good light the 80-400/4.5-5.6 is a killer lens once stopped to f/8.

Originally Posted by StarScream

How so Navin? Does the 40D picture start to show its pixels at that size?...

in a daylght setting
The P&S was a Canon 870IS
The Canon 40D had the 17-55IS on most of the time
The 1Ds had the 24-70 on most of the time
the shots of the P&S were patchy, the 40D shots were very acceptable but when we saw the results of the 1Ds there were differences. The 1DS was shaprer and brighter.

in a indoor setting regualar 60W bulbs
the Canon 40D had the 16-35 and 17-55IS
the 1Ds had the 24-70 and 70-200 VR
here the differences were more clear. the 40D a very very slight grain the 1Ds had none.

I have now realised that most of my viewing will probably be done on a big (46"/52") TV. I wont be taking prints much. Hence a FF DSLR might be be soething I will graduate too once body prices drop to about $2000. Till then I'd have to live with the 40D. You dont realise the limitations of the 40D image untill you see the images on the 1Ds.

I know for a fact that I wont print most of my photos. I know I wont reduce them to post on the web (really all that photoshop stuff does not intrigue me). I will usually only watch the stuff on the TV. What I will do is: Take card out out of cam. stick card into PS3. Use PS3 controller to watch and rewind. Simple. When card is full empty it to a USB hard disk and reuse card.

[kb100]

Hoookay Folks!!... Thanks to all your advice my "P&S" woes seem to have sorted itself out - The snaps are back to what it used to be.

However all the gyan has set the dormant "upgrade bug" alight!

So now the argument's stuck at two levels...

First between Prosumer Vs DSLR

Prosumer its between Canon S5 IS and the Panasonic FZ18

In the DSLRs it gets a little more complicated...

1. Canon EOS 450D - with the IS 55mm Kit lens
2. Canon EOS 400D - with the same IS kit lens from the 450
3. Nikon D60 - with its 55mm kit lens
4. Nikon D40X - With the D60's Kit lens!
And the mother of all Q's - what ZOOM lens to buy/use along with this... without breaking my back - every which way!!

Pro's/Con's ... and CONs...
Confucius Rules!!!

[tsk1979]

For a beginner the best deal is to get a camera with in body IS. For example E-500. K10D. K200D. I am not a big fan of sony cameras(They are not bad, really).