10 megapixel Help?

>
would be do I really need 10+mp?
>
<<<<<

no better 8 MP but good lenses!

>

Hi all,

I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info out
there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.

I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?

Thanks

"Newsguy" <News@guy.com> wrote in message
news:46ba08bb$0$3704$a82e6bb9@orc.meganetnews.com. ..
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
> don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
> speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info
> out there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.
>
> I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?

http://www.ephotozine.com/ has a wealth of info that can answer your
questions.

"Jacobsen" <pippo@fdgf.it> wrote in message
news:YSnui.21112$pd1.9833@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
>
>>
> would be do I really need 10+mp?
>>
> <<<<<
>
> no better 8 MP but good lenses!
>
>>

Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.

>Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.
>
>
I don't understand this!

My 7 MP camera has a resolution of

3072 x 2304

so printing at 300 ppi gives

3072 / 300 x 2304 / 300

gives a print size of

10.2 x 7.7 inches


to get 12x18 you would need to printing at about 170 ppi

surly this is not going to give prints of the same quality as printing
at 300 ppi.


--
Nospam

In article <rrSas4Dp4iuGFw1e@nospam.demon.co.uk>, Nospam
<nospam@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>>Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.
>>
>>
>I don't understand this!
>
>My 7 MP camera has a resolution of
>
>3072 x 2304
>
>so printing at 300 ppi gives
>
>3072 / 300 x 2304 / 300
>
>gives a print size of
>
>10.2 x 7.7 inches
>
>
>to get 12x18 you would need to printing at about 170 ppi

I think your arithmetic is in error.

3072 / 12 = 256 ppi
2304 / 8 = 288 ppi

3072 / 170 = 18.1 inch
2304 / 170 = 13.6 inch

Simple inspection told me that since 170 ppi is about half 300 ppi 12
inch can not be about twice 10 inch.

>surly this is not going to give prints of the same quality as printing
>at 300 ppi.

You don't really need 300ppi, 200ppi is usable if you are viewing at
about 14 inches.

--
Ian G8ILZ
There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer.
~Ansel Adams

>>>Actually 6MP is plenty to print up to 12x18.


>>>
>>>
>>I don't understand this!
>>
>>My 7 MP camera has a resolution of
>>
>>3072 x 2304
>>
>>so printing at 300 ppi gives
>>
>>3072 / 300 x 2304 / 300
>>
>>gives a print size of
>>
>>10.2 x 7.7 inches

Not 12 x 18

So this is what u get if u print a 7mp image at 300 ppi (approx.. 10 x
8)

the op was actually talking about a 6mp printed to 12 x 18

I am assuming inches here and not cm!

>>
>>to get 12x18 you would need to printing at about 170 ppi
>
>I think your arithmetic is in error.

No its not.

We are talking 12 x 18 not 12 x 8!
>
> 3072 / 12 = 256 ppi
> 2304 / 8 = 288 ppi

But I was talking about 300 ppi not 256 or 288

and a print size of 12 x 18 not 12 x 8

my calculation shows that at a print density of 300 ppi you can only get
10 x 8 approx. from 7 MP

if you print a 7 MP print at 12 x 18 the it's approx. 170 ppi - 192 ppi


3072 / 18 = 170 ppi
2304 / 12 = 192 ppi


which is what u show below
>
> 3072 / 170 = 18.1 inch
> 2304 / 170 = 13.6 inch
>

The original comment was about the 6MP image printing
at a size of 12 x 18

this would be about 170 / 192 ppi

>Simple inspection told me that since 170 ppi is about half 300 ppi 12
>inch can not be about twice 10 inch.
>
>>surly this is not going to give prints of the same quality as printing
>>at 300 ppi.
>
>You don't really need 300ppi, 200ppi is usable if you are viewing at
>about 14 inches.
>

It may be 'usable' but why spend all that money on good quality
equipment to ONLY get 'usable' prints.

Each to their own.

--
Nospam

> It may be 'usable' but why spend all that money on good quality equipment
> to ONLY get 'usable' prints.
>
> Each to their own.
>
> --
> Nospam

I have prints on my wall that will pass as close an inspection as you like
and it is from a 6MP D-SLR and they are 12x18 inches, the detail is
excellent.

On Aug 8, 2:24 pm, "Newsguy" <N...@guy.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
> don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
> speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info out
> there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.
>
> I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?
>
> Thanks


Nikon D80 or Pentax K10, ignore a lot of the bells and whistles, just
shoot manual or aperture priority. RAW processing will get the best
out of your camera, not to say jpegs are bad, but to get the best
shoot RAW. This just means learning Photoshop Elements or any
equivalent image editor.

Tom

Newsguy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for a good 10+megapixel Digital SLR. I'm a total amature and
> don't need a lot of professional features. Just Aperture adjust, shutter
> speed, etc...the simple things. I'm getting overwhelmed by all the info out
> there. Any advice? Oh, btw, price is important.
>
> I suppose another question would be do I really need 10+mp?

At the risk of starting a flamewar, what are your reasons
for wanting a SLR (as opposed to a "bridge" or "compact"
for example)

BugBear