# Megapixels and difference between compact & DLSR



## Skodaw (Mar 19, 2006)

Righto so I have a Sony Cybershot camera that is 10mp - and for such a small camera gives great pictures - BUT its a nightmare trying to take anything than bogstandard pictures.

So I think I need to get a DLSR, I was wondering if the picture qaulity of a 6.0mp DLSR (Nikon D40) would be better or worse ( I know it will be smaller) or if I really need to go as far as a 10mp DLSR - the costs seam to increase very quickly.

Any ideas / recomendations ??


----------



## mouthyman (May 1, 2006)

wouldnt say a dslr is needed. i have a fuji s602 and its a 6MP camera which gives excellent results


----------



## Epoch (Jul 30, 2006)

The pixels on a digital SLR are physically bigger (or something like that i've been told).

So the 6mp digital SLR will be fine.

Our works camera is a Canon 300D and takes shots for full page adverts in national press!


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

Digital SLRs have one major advantage over Compacts - the size of the image sensor (aka CCD or CMOS chip).
The 6MP Nikon D40 will blow your cybershot into the weeds, click after click
and it's down to the aforementioned advantage. Of course, larger brighter lenses play a part too.
The Canon 400D is 10.1MP, and tbh it's not a great deal more than the D40.
Reviews of the 400D have been very good, my uncle (ex Motorsport Pro Photog) is really stoked with his...


----------



## Skodaw (Mar 19, 2006)

Epoch said:


> The pixels on a digital SLR are physically bigger (or something like that i've been told).
> 
> So the 6mp digital SLR will be fine.
> 
> Our works camera is a Canon 300D and takes shots for full page adverts in national press!


Yeah I think I read somewhere that the CCD units are bigger - and can take more detail into the shot ?

I need something that doesn't weigh a tonne and can still be used relatively easily, but allows full adjustment, as I said the Sony gives a great pic, but only in standard form, when you try and make adjustments half the time it wont focus the shot properly :wall:


----------



## Skodaw (Mar 19, 2006)

190Evoluzione said:


> Digital SLRs have one major advantage over Compacts - the size of the image sensor (aka CCD or CMOS chip).
> The 6MP Nikon D40 will blow your cybershot into the weeds, click after click
> and it's down to the aforementioned advantage. Of course, larger brighter lenses play a part too.
> The Canon 400D is 10.1MP, and tbh it's not a great deal more than the D40.
> Reviews of the 400D have been very good, my uncle (ex Motorsport Pro Photog) is really stoked with his...


Cool, my thought's were correct then. I suppose the best thing is to try and someone that stocks both and give them a try.

I know its gonna be a leap to get decent pictures, but hopefully worth the time and effort.


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

Skodaw said:


> Yeah I think I read somewhere that the CCD units are bigger - and can take more detail into the shot ?


That's precisely it.
I still say Canon 400D over Nikon D40, especially if you don't want to feel
like you need to upgrade again within 12 months...


----------



## Schnorbitz (Aug 18, 2007)

I'm pretty sure it will be give you much better image quality. Bigger and better lenses and sensors help. The megapixel rating is not an indicator of image quality, in fact more MP can mean the camera is forced to carry out more compression to make file sizes manageable, this leads to more 'noise' (speckles) in the picture.

Have a read of this to help you decide if you need a DSLR or compact, also see D40/D40X review:
http://www.cameralabs.com/features/DSLR_or_compact/should_you_buy_a_DSLR.shtml

Check out this thread for some great pics using a DSLR (Nikon D50):
http://www.detailingworld.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=41574

My brother just got a D40 and is very impressed with it. Definitely a 'proper' camera. The newer D40X has 10MP but otherwise the same only more expensive. Buy before tomorrow and get £60 cashback from Nikon.
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod267.html


----------



## megaboost (Feb 4, 2007)

You could consider going half way with something like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 or FZ30, it's got a lot of the DSLR functionality and styling but without the hefty price tag and temptation to buy lots of lenses 

I have the 30, takes great pics, good macro, plenty of auto features to get you going and a huge amount of manual stuff for playing around with, the 30 is 8.0 million, the 50 is 10.0 but I have mine set to 5.0 which extends the zoom from 12x optical at 8.0 to 15.3 by using the middle of the CCD instead of the whole thing, quite useful and a 5.0 is still plenty big enough for use on t'internet. There comes a point where our eyes can't tell the difference between the pictures above 6.0 I think but obviously the higher ratings are good if you do larger poster prints.

A couple of links:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/

Obviously the other makers offer similar stuff, I settled on the Panasonic for the zoom mainly, it has a bit of an issue with noise at high zoom and in the dark but the FZ50 irons some of this out.

What kind of pics are you wanting to take? Just general stuff?


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

Schnorbitz said:


> The megapixel rating is not an indicator of image quality, in fact more MP can mean the camera is forced to carry out more compression to make file sizes manageable, this leads to more 'noise' (speckles) in the picture.


This DOES NOT apply to images shot in RAW format.
No compression is carried out in-camera, and mild noise can usually 
be suppressed in processing software or Photoshop.


----------



## Skodaw (Mar 19, 2006)

See, I knew this place would be able to help me out - just minutes after posting the thread I have loads of helpfull feedback. 

Thanks guys, going off to read some reviews, will probably have more questions later


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

I know nothing of photography, but have the Canon 400D and it's a fantastic bit of kit. It usually stays on Auto, which does give great pics, but when using manual, you can really get "stuck" into it! :thumb:


----------



## megaboost (Feb 4, 2007)

I haven't got any web friendly "raw" shots from the FZ30 but here are a few snaps from holidays and days out that have been seriously reduced in size and quality, they give you a vague idea of the results possible with no talent at all 

http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/cyprus-dec2005/P1030400.html
http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/cyprus-dec2005/P1030639.html
http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/cyprus-dec2005/P1030546.html

These ones are on full zoom:

http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/santapod/P1010657.html
http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/santapod/P1010688.html

Freezing the tyre flex with a fast shutter:

http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/santapod/P1010392.html

And more car snaps:

http://www.megaboost.co.uk/supra/mine/harewood-15-04-07/P1080070.html
http://www.megaboost.co.uk/supra/mine/harewood-15-04-07/P1080076.html
http://www.megaboost.co.uk/supra/mine/harewood-15-04-07/P1080284.html
http://www.megaboost.co.uk/supra/mine/tv2005/IMG_3707.html

And so on... I'm boring myself so apologies to you 

I had some nice macro ones too but I seem to have misplaced them...


----------



## Skodaw (Mar 19, 2006)

megaboost said:


> I haven't got any web friendly "raw" shots from the FZ30 but here are a few snaps from holidays and days out that have been seriously reduced in size and quality, they give you a vague idea of the results possible with no talent at all
> 
> http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/cyprus-dec2005/P1030400.html
> http://www.megaboost.co.uk/photos/cyprus-dec2005/P1030639.html
> ...


Some cracking photo's there - thanks for that, how mad does that kart look ?? proper handfull I bet.


----------



## Versoman (Jan 6, 2006)

i'm after the new canon g9 lots of MP and raw facility as well (not that i have a clue what that means just fancy one:lol: )


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

Versoman said:


> i'm after the new canon g9 lots of MP and raw facility as well (not that i have a clue what that means just fancy one:lol: )


Looks good, i always did think they screwed up the G7 by not offering RAW capture, which is why i hung on to my Lumix LX-1. As pocket cameras go, it will be one of the best out there, but tbh the step up to DSLR is about 
so much more than the physical feel of the camera and the sensor size.
Not being constrained by a fixed lens, a brighter, larger viewfinder image 
and the added stability that a slightly larger camera brings are all part of it.

Megaboost - great pics mate. RAW images never make it onto the web, because it's not possible to view them
in a web browser. Only dedicated software can handle certain RAW formats, of which there are quite a few.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

As stated above it is to do with the size and cramming more pixels into a sensor without increasing it's size will probably degrade the image rather than help it. 

If you are looking into a DSLR do a lot of homework and check out what they do and don't do for example. Also the trap that a lot of newbies to DSLR fall into is to spend £800 on a camera and stick a £100 lens on the front of it. Where as if you spend £500 on a body and £400 on a lens you will have much better photos and when you do upgrade the body then you will still have a decent bit of glass to go with it.

In photography the order of importance is:

Photographer>Light>Lens>Camera.


----------



## Tyke (Jul 25, 2006)

I'm no expert, but the Megapixel war between manufacturers is getting silly. Unless you're intending blowing you images up to poster size, there's no need for such daft resolutions as 10 MP.

Far better to worry about the quality of the optics in the camera over the number of pixels it has IMHO.


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

Tyke said:


> Unless you're intending blowing you images up to poster size, there's no need for such daft resolutions as 10 MP.
> Far better to worry about the quality of the optics in the camera over the number of pixels it has IMHO.


This is true to an extent, but remember that as manufacturers develop
higher-resolution sensors, they also carry out a great deal of R&D on
noise suppression, colour depth and in-camera sharpening & processing software - technology is moving incredibly fast, and in my experience every
new generation of sensors brings a host of improvements, only one of
which might be an increase in resolution.

Lenses are indeed the cornerstone of a good camera system, which is why
wherever possible i use Prime (fixed focal-length) lenses as opposed to Zooms.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

190Evoluzione said:


> *This is true to an extent, but remember that as manufacturers develop
> higher-resolution sensors, they also carry out a great deal of R&D on
> noise suppression, colour depth and in-camera sharpening & processing software - technology is moving incredibly fast, and in my experience every
> new generation of sensors brings a host of improvements, only one of
> ...


This is correct increased resolution is only one factor, smoother gradients, less noise, etc etc are probably more important, the problem comes though when the manufacturers try to sell cameras to people who don't understand this and so have to put something quantifiable in the spec so that they can see a difference.

For example Nikon have just released a new pro DSLR body that is wait for it 12mp and their previous top of the range was wait for it 12mp, are the pictures going to be no better, not a chance, the problem is they can only do this sort of thing when they know their target audience understands it's more than just megapixels that contribute to image quality.


----------



## nortonski (Jul 10, 2007)

Your best bet is to go along to Jessops, try the cameras you like the look of & get em to print a sample off of each...

Buy the camera you prefer, try it under the 30day moneyback g'tee & return if req... (they also have a buy now pay later deal on which may help)

Note that they also price match web pricing so be sure to shop around! I bought an L class Canon Lense for £319, standard Jessops price was £449!!!

Over the past few years I've bought all my kit there with the exception of my studio equipment & had no complaints at all, bought a £1400 lense a couple of years back, had a minute bit of dust on the underside of the lense (which made no difference to image quality), & they changed, no quibble!

I would have a go with the Canon's, their DIGIC processors & ease of use is GR8 & will knock spots off the Sony's... Of course Nikon are good & worth considering, but I've bought into the whole Canon platform as I really like the image & build quality so would be HUGELY expensive to change now...

At the end of the day the point n shoot v's DSLR are a galaxy away...no more shutter lag & astounding image quality...you need to bear in mind that the sensor size of an Ixus II (wifes point n shoot) is only mm in size whereas a DSLR is around an inch & a half as a minimum... However, the trade off is size, volume of kit you'll end up buying & of course the image editing (ie unsharp mask/sharpen as DSLR's rely more on you the photographer getting the image right than doing all the work for you, but this can be really fun)

Go compare! :thumb:


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

^All good advice. Especially the bit about web matching, Jessops are no onger
good value - i'd never pay the ticket price on anything from there.


----------



## Skodaw (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks for all the advice chaps, gonna take a walk to Jessops in the morning and take a look.

Will let you know how I get on...


----------



## Wozza (Mar 3, 2007)

My other half is waiting to get the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 when its released in week or two. From all account its a very good camera inbetween compact and DSLRs, its also got an 18x zoom :doublesho 

I am not really into cameras as much as she is but from what I have read, then it is very good.


----------



## nortonski (Jul 10, 2007)

Wozza said:


> My other half is waiting to get the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 when its released in week or two. From all account its a very good camera inbetween compact and DSLRs, its also got an 18x zoom :doublesho
> 
> I am not really into cameras as much as she is but from what I have read, then it is very good.


Personally, having used & owned everything from standard p&s - prosumer - pro (higher end DSLR's) I would ALWAYS go for the DSLR for reasons highlighted in my earlier post.

I'm not saying that there's not a place for lower end camera's in my kit as there are times when you just cant lug around a DSLR, couple of lenses & flash...but the trade off's are many...

There are great lil newer models coming out that address shutter lag (to a degree) & have better lenses (the Lumix being one), they're typically geared up for someone who simply wants a 'bit' better than p&s with more functionality etc...however, for the cost of the Lumix (£329ish), you could start looking at the lower end DSLR's such as those from Canon or Nikon & get a) a camera with a good 'upgrade path' (ie new lenses, flash, studio kit...etc...) as opposed to throw away when you want to upgrade, b) far better functionality & control over images & c) FAR better residual values to name but a few of the benefits...

Just my tuppence worth really...:thumb:


----------



## 190Evoluzione (Jun 27, 2007)

Wozza said:


> My other half is waiting to get the new Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 ... its also got an 18x zoom :doublesho


That would have me walking away from that camera in an instant.
Why on earth do you need an 18x zoom? And just how do you expect to hold
steady a relatively small camera with what works out (against 35mm) to have
a 900mm lens on it?
So utterly pointless, there is no way a lens like that could be used effectively
without lugging a tripod about. Even then, you'll need a damn heavy tripod.
4x is the absolute maximum i'd ever accept on a digital compact, and even then it had better open up to f2.8...


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

190Evoluzione said:


> That would have me walking away from that camera in an instant.
> Why on earth do you need an 18x zoom? And just how do you expect to hold
> steady a relatively small camera with what works out (against 35mm) to have
> a 900mm lens on it?
> ...


The problem with an 18x lens is it is a jack of all trades and the distortion at either extreme wide or extreme zoom will be extreme, it will probably be at something like F8 at 18x so low light photos will be a no no. Unless you whack the ISO up then you will just have a photo full of noise.,


----------

