Camera Resolution?

[cheerful_deviant]

So I've saved up enough money and am ready to get a decent digital SLR. I've settled on the Nikons because of reputation and I've had good luck with their non digital cameras in the past.

So my question os this, I'm planning on getting a Nikon D40. But they also make a D40x that is higher resolution. The D40 is 6mpix and the D40x is 10mpix. Other than that they are essentially the same except the D40x costs sidnifigantly more. Most of what I've see says the casual user has no use for the higher resolution becasue it's only good for larger prints (which I probablly won't do). Anyone else go thru this or have either camera?

Thoughts?

 

[catalina_francisco]

I know someone who has the D40 and loves it. The only problem they found is they do a lot of sport/fast action work and find the Canon is quicker for those shots. He is thinking it out carefully as he has a lot of Nikon lenses, so to change over is going to be a huge hit in the wallet.

As to the 6 vs 10 mp, a lot is about the size you want to blow a pic up to on paper as you said. Quality increases slightly on screen if you look closely, but then one person can have a 6 mp and get a far better picture than another with a 10mp...IOW, it is a lot to do with the person behind the lens more so than mp's. Experimenting is fun, and remembering not to limit yourself by what someone else thinks is the right way to do it. LOL, I love shots in overcast/stormy conditions and yet I do get comments from some people such as 'It would have been so nice if the sun was shining'. While it might have also made a nice picture, it doesn't makae the same picture nor create the same mood. Some people get stuck on such things as well as the rules they get out of photo tutorials and books..sometimes stepping away from that is healthy. Whichever you decide to buy, I am sure you will love playing with it and hopefuly post some pics here.

Catalina

 

[AZChaos]

I love my canon 40D!! Hope you enjoy your new Nikon!

 

[RudeNastyAssBitch]

Go With The 10mp.

You Can Choose How Many You Want To Shoot With, So If It's Something Awesome, You Can Go Full Tilt, But If Yer Just Taking Pictures Of Ebay Shit You Can Change Down To A Lower Resolution

Make Sure You Can Change Lenses, Because That Is Where You'll Probably Want To Go In The Future

Have Fun!

 

[Weird Harold]

...they are essentially the same except the D40x costs sidnifigantly more. Most of what I've see says the casual user has no use for the higher resolution becasue it's only good for larger prints (which I probablly won't do).

If you don't think you'll have a need for the higher resolution, it probably isn't worth the additional cost. 6MP is more than you'll need for typical uses of computerized images because it's bigger than most screen resolutions -- you'll never actually see the true resolution of the image and the whole image at the same time.

However, I would get the higher resolution if you plan to do any image manipulation -- cropping, blowing up sections (digital zooming,) color corrections, etc. When you're manipulating images, the more information/resolution you have to start with, the better the end result will look.

 

[Singularity]

Read This (if you haven't already bought it)

Ken Rockwell gives excellent, no-BS advice. Here's his page on the D40.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40.htm

An excerpt:

NEW: Nikon D60 and Nikon D40x, slightly downgraded versions of the D40, but with more pixels and a higher price. I prefer my D40 over the D40x and D60, even for the same price, and since the D40 costs less, the D40 is the deal of the past two years!

If you spend a bit less on the D40, you can invest a bit more in some (more) good lenses.


Sin.

 

[tolyk]

I don't agree with Ken Rockwell as far as the D40 vs the D60. The D60 has much newer technology put into it, including a newer processor and features such as D-lighting (which he doesn't like, but can actually be rather beneficial)

My major problem with the D40(x) and D60 is that they can't autofocus with prime lenses. Even though the D80 is older than the D60, I'd go for it over any of the low-end entry levels. Or hell, I'd wait for the D90 to come out, which should be soonish.

Megapixels mean nothing really. They're just about print size, not about image quality. I'll just agree with Harold about all of what he said.

 

[Weird Harold]

Megapixels mean nothing really. They're just about print size, not about image quality. I'll just agree with Harold about all of what he said.

I wouldn't say that megapixels have nothing to do with image "quality" -- just as with conventional films, finer(higher) resolution results in sharper pictures.

But...

If you can't see the difference in quality, does it really exist?

 

[impressive]

I wouldn't say that megapixels have nothing to do with image "quality" -- just as with conventional films, finer(higher) resolution results in sharper pictures.

But...

If you can't see the difference in quality, does it really exist?

Yeah, it does. I agree with what you said earlier about manipulation.

While I'll never use a full-size print from my 10mp camera, when I downsize the image, I can get a 300dpi photo that's suitable for use on a 6x9" (1800x2700 pixel) cover.

So, I guess it depends on what you plan to do with your photos.

I read an interesting blog post about SLR recently -- saying that it no longer offers much benefit over the true-image LCD displays. If I can find it again, I'll post the link.

 

[tolyk]

I wouldn't say that megapixels have nothing to do with image "quality" -- just as with conventional films, finer(higher) resolution results in sharper pictures.

But...

If you can't see the difference in quality, does it really exist?

Well, it's all based on sensor size too. The more pixels they cram into the same sized sensor, the less detail each pixel has. Sometimes less megapixels is better. So, I generalized with the overly broad statement that it doesn't equate to quality. I was refering to the digital image, not the printed product.

I printed a 13*16 image from my 8 megapixel camera a couple weeks ago and it looked fantastic. Megapixels aren't the definitive answer to what's best, is what I was saying. Look at sensor quality and optical quality over which has more megapixels.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

You may want to hold off a bit. Nikon has been throwing some new techs out there in the way of cameras that keep their own sensors clean for you, as well as better imaging features in both their mid (D40s & D60s) and high-range cameras. There's rumors floating all over the net about the possible D4 announcement, and a lot of those rumors are being generated because of the new features being tested out in their lower-range D-series cameras.

Buying a D40 now could get you an obsolete camera in the very near future. Just with the sensor cleaning feature that may easily become an industry standard, you could easily save yourself hundreds of $$$ in maintenance down the line. No matter what your MP count is, a sensor that gets screwed up for any reason could mean an entirely new camera anyway.

Aside from all of that, those D40s are a nice deal for the casual and amateur shooters.

 

[Weird Harold]

Well, it's all based on sensor size too. The more pixels they cram into the same sized sensor, the less detail each pixel has. Sometimes less megapixels is better. So, I generalized with the overly broad statement that it doesn't equate to quality. I was refering to the digital image, not the printed product.

I think you've got that backwards. The closer together the sensor elements are, the sharper the picture should be -- assuming of course lenses capable of providing a sharply focussed image to capture.

The whole point of having more pixels in a digital image is so that each pixel represents a smaller portion of the image so that there is less amibiguity to the chroma and luminance values for that particular point of the image.