More Pixels?....... Do We Really Need Them?

[MalcolmX]

i would like to offer a an opinion here. dpi for printing has no bearing n the pixcell count of your camera . if you attempt to print at a size inconpatable with the number of pixcells on your ccd and you set it to 300 dpi then you will either get a very small picture or the programme will interpolate on the best fit principle and you will get an odd picture .
for most viewing of pictures on photo quality gloss paper the print resolution should be set at 1440 or 2700 and the size without interpolation at 300 dpi to give an a4 print is a camera with a ccd of at least 8.6 meg.ccd on compact are smaller than ccd on dslr and have less light so the detail on a dsl will be better

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by MALCOLMX

i would like to offer a an opinion here. dpi for printing has no bearing n the pixcell count of your camera . if you attempt to print at a size inconpatable with the number of pixcells on your ccd and you set it to 300 dpi then you will either get a very small picture or the programme will interpolate on the best fit principle and you will get an odd picture .
for most viewing of pictures on photo quality gloss paper the print resolution should be set at 1440 or 2700 and the size without interpolation at 300 dpi to give an a4 print is a camera with a ccd of at least 8.6 meg.ccd on compact are smaller than ccd on dslr and have less light so the detail on a dsl will be better

you say that pixel count has no bearing on DPI then go on to demonstrate that it does - or a least it does if you want a reasonable sized picture.

what point were you making

[Roy C]

More pixels on your sensor equals greater crop ability.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Roy C

More pixels on your sensor equals greater crop ability.

true , though the sensor pitch on the 5D is such that if you crop its fullframe shot to the same angle of view as that of the 8MP 20D you only wind up with 5MP - so if your going to crop in a lot to mimic high mag you'd be better off with a cropped sensor in the first place.

[FungiJohn]

Originally Posted by glsammy

The most important part is the lens you use

Yes, it's that simple and entirely down to the quality of lens used. Mind you, the user can make all the difference

John

[eeyore]

When I was at marwell with andy rouse last year, we tried a very simple "experiment". basically we both photographed the fossa - a very difficult fast movingsubject - with our own cameras and with each others and compared the result.

With his 1DS mk2 the shots were virtually identical - he actually said that some of mine were better than some of his, however with my (at the time) 300D his shots were still decent where as I struggled to get anything sharp.

which goes to show that the camera does play a part too, or looking at it from the other side lack of experience is much more noticeable with the more basic gear.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

Yes, it's that simple and entirely down to the quality of lens used. Mind you, the user can make all the difference

John

Your so right John. The user is by far the most important part of the kit! The lens comes second.

[Wild-Woman]

Ahh! That's why mine are rubbish.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Wild-Woman

Ahh! That's why mine are rubbish.

I'm sure they're not that bad julie - why not post a few so we can give you some constructive advise ?

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by FungiJohn

Yes, it's that simple and entirely down to the quality of lens used. Mind you, the user can make all the difference

John

I agree with this - my photographic skills/knowledge are almost zilch but now I have got a few half decent lenses my images have improved a lot. I have noticed on other forums that most people who claim the kit has nothing to do with it are those with the best gear!

Roy