Megapixels?

[cgammonsjr]

Ok I am doing a lot of research before I decide my first camera and I see that there are some models that cost more with less MP's and models that cost less with more MP's. I want to earn money in photography after some time so I am looking for the best mid level cam to start with. Is it really worth the extra money for a cam with less MP's or are the MP's the least of my concerns when it comes to good photography. I have seen gorgeous pictures that were taken with many different models on this forum but the discussions seem to center more around lenses. So help me please.

[Taallyn]

The megapixil rating basically correlates to how big you can print. It doesn't really have anything to do with image quality per se. After the 6 megapixil mark, the image quality is generally good enough for most uses. You really only need more than 6 megapixils if you plan on printing large prints. More megapixils also lets you crop more and still have good sizes for prints. In other words if you screw up your composition in the field you will have more latitude to fix it during post-processing by cropping.

That said, certain professional level endevours do have megapixil requirements. For instance some of the microstock sites might not accept a 6 megapixil image as clients wouldn't have as much flexibility for cropping or print sizes.

Most of the mid-range DSLRs seem to be in the 10-12ish megapixil range, which should serve just about any use you might start out doing. If you want to start out shooting photographs for billboards, you might want to consider a medium format camera instead of a 35mm format. A good 36ish megapixil Hasselblad will only set you back around $30,000-$40,000 US.

[Elmo]

As was stated pixels are not everything. But I would like to make a comment about "going pro". The camera you buy now will likely be completely outdated by the time you gain the skills to do a whole lot of pro work. But if you are considering "going pro" soon I would suggest you stay away from the low end consumer bodies and lenses. I am talking about buying bodies in excess of a $1000.00 without a lens as the low end. Like Canon 40d or Nikon d300 as bottom line.

[cgammonsjr]

thanks for the info. I am in now way near the range of Billboard gear LOL. I have friends who make nice money doing portfolio shoots for models. Fine arts shoots etc. I want to go that route. But the constant discussion on lenses had me curious as to wether MP's really matter. Now I understand. Also seeing models where the MP's are lower but the prices are higher like the 40D over the XSi had me a little confused

[Laurence]

I am a Nikon person so I searched the internet for reviews and discriptions on the different cameras. Different features on many so it really depends on what you want.

[rediguana]

Originally Posted by Taallyn

The megapixel rating basically correlates to how big you can print. It doesn't really have anything to do with image quality per se.

Actually, that's not quite true.

There is a relation between the density of pixels on the sensor and how well the sensor handles noise. The higher the density e.g. cramming more pixels into the same space, the relatively more noise the camera will produce.

For example, take two camera sensors of the same physical size, and one is 6MP and the other 10MP. Everything else being equal, the 6MP should produce better quality images - especially at higher ISO - when compared to the 10MP sensor.

This is why DSLRs with a low MP count e.g. a 6MP (say a Canon 10D) can produce better quality images than say 12MP stuffed into a smaller P&S sensor, especially when you start shooting 200-400ISO or higher.

Just as there is an exposure relationship between aperture, shutter speed and ISO, there is an image quality relationship between megapixels, sensor size and ISO.

This is the reason that full frame DSLRs (Canon 5D, Nikon D3) have far better high ISO performance than most other cameras - they don't cram as many pixels into the same amount of space that a crop sensor or a P&S sensor has. The higher the density of pixels on the sensor, the more noise as ISO increases.

So, when purchasing a camera and considering image quality, the megapixels mean nothing without thinking about the physical size of the sensor, and what ISO speeds you're going to be shooting at.

For the original poster, if you want better quality, you want to balance the physical size of the sensor against the number of megapixels.

Some more info is available here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_s...f_sensor_sizes

Cheers Gav

[cgammonsjr]

so higher megapixels do not mean better quality. now I am somewhat confused. so if lower counts make better shots then why buy a more expensive model. or am I misunderstanding what was just explained?

[Elmo]

a few differences between xsi and 40d

descriotion xsi 40d
body plastic metal
shutter life 30,000 100,000
Focus type basic Intermidate
metering basic Intermidate

These are a few biggies the little stuff goes on and on

[Taallyn]

rediguana, I know all of that. I was just trying to keep it to a simple rule of thumb. Now you've gone and confused the OP again.

[cgammonsjr]

now is being an OP a good thing or bad. what is an OP?