[bigshot]

Pixels aren't the issue any more. Most current cameras, even DX, have more than enough pixels to print an image four to five feet across. Functionally in terms of where the rubber meets the road, the biggest difference between FX and DX is that FX has a bigger, brighter viewfinder.
 
There is an advantage of DX in longer reach because of the crop factor. A 300mm lens on DX will reach farther than the same focal length on FX, which can be important for folks who shoot birds in flight. But there are lenses for both formats that do what one might need... they're just significantly more expensive for FX.
 
For most amateur photographers, getting a DX camera allows them to afford a wider array of lenses, which has MUCH more of a positive impact on their photography than any theoretical spec advantage that FX might have.

 

[Mattimis]

Quote:

Pixels aren't the issue any more. Most current cameras, even DX, have more than enough pixels to print an image four to five feet across. Functionally in terms of where the rubber meets the road, the biggest difference between FX and DX is that FX has a bigger, brighter viewfinder.
 
There is an advantage of DX in longer reach because of the crop factor. A 300mm lens on DX will reach farther than the same focal length on FX, which can be important for folks who shoot birds in flight. But there are lenses for both formats that do what one might need... they're just significantly more expensive for FX.
 
For most amateur photographers, getting a DX camera allows them to afford a wider array of lenses, which has MUCH more of a positive impact on their photography than any theoretical spec advantage that FX might have.

completely miss guided.
 
A viewfinder if generated based off of the mirror and prism which matches the size of the sensor meaning having a bigger view finder would not give an accurate representation of the image.. which is why it wont change in size and if it does thats a crappy camera. 
 
Also the brightness of a view finder is dictate by the speed of the lens (aka widest F stop) and the camera not the fx vs dx
 
The only time the size of the view finder or brightness would actually change is when you are using an improper lens like a dx on a fx body and then switch to a compatible fx lens, and that is simply because like I said dx is not designed for FX and thus crops off part of the image.
 
As for debating pixels I will just say you're being very obtuse and you should keep your silly opinions to yourself.
 
Loosing half of your image quality because you are using incompatible gear is very foolish, not only that but with a proper lens you can potentially get a wider angle with less distortion, aswell as having a larger viewfinder because the lens can actually illuminate the entire plane.

 

[Mattimis]

Not only that but Fx lenses give a better dof at the same view angle. Shooting at f2.8 on a full frame and then shooting f/2.8 on a DX with the same angle of view the FX will be shallower.

 

[Mattimis]

The great thing about image science is that it is true whether you believe in it or not.

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

completely miss guided.
 
As for debating pixels I will just say you're being very obtuse and you should keep your silly opinions to yourself.

 
Spelling counts, kid.

 

[Mattimis]

Quote:

 
Spelling counts, kid.

yes, and that is spelled correctly.
Maybe you should debate how the dictionary is silly and words should be spelled your way too.
it would make about as much sense as saying pixels dont matter haha

 

[Mattimis]

but thank you for basically admitting you were wrong and thus attempting to attack spelling. 
 
I suppose grammar is next!
 
All things that are much more important to photography than pixels... because as you have pointed out those dont matter at all haha

 

[bigshot]

I'm going to be honest here. You strike me as a college student who thinks he knows everything. That's fine. I was one of those once myself. But it's important to maintain a certain level of respect for the person you're talking with. You can strut around and act like a big man, but sometimes the respect you get yourself is the respect you give to others. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

 
Spelling counts, kid.

Just had to jump back in here. big shot, you and Mattimis basically run this forum, but before mattimis jumped in, you were elbowing your way around too much. If you just HAVE to be 'right' about pixels or anything else, you can do it nicely. Now you are reacting to someone who is obviously ticked off by your grandiose statements. If you feel that strongly about pixels, then feel strongly about it. There is no reason to argue someone into the ground. And spelling: you were wrong in that instance. But spelling - the pox on it. We all come from different countries. If you really looked at the English language, you'd find that much of it is incongruous. Americans use American grammar and spelling, obey American trends, and think like Americans. Ditto the Brits. Ditto the Canadians and the Aussies. But if you're going to take the approach of the pedant, make sure you are right.
 
Now, go back to waving your penis around. I just hope yours is as big as Mattimis'. 

 

[bigshot]

I always try to talk about the subject. I don't comment on the character of the people I'm talking with unless they step over the line first.
 
I'm happy to talk about pixels. An 8 x 10 image at 200 dpi is 1600 x 2000 pixels. I've printed images that size and resolution on a nice digital photo printer and looking as closely as the human eye can see, they look perfect. Compared to the same image printed at 300dpi, there is no difference. 200 dpi is the recommended resolution for things being printed on 1200 dpi imagesetters for offset printing in magazines. How many megapixels is a 200 dpi 8 x 10? It's 2 megapixels...
 
2 megapixels prints 8x10
12 megapixels prints 14x22
24 megapixels prints 30x20
 
By the time you get up over 10 megapixels, you're well into the range of overkill for printing at normal sizes. By the time you get to 24 megapixels, you're into overkill even for printing super large, because the viewing distance goes back as the size goes up. You could effectively print at 75 pixels per inch or less for a huge 7 x 5 foot image because you're not viewing it from six inches away from your face, you're standing 10 to 15 feet back.
 
Digital photo printers even don't print wider than 30 inches without stitching multiple prints together. I have a mural in my house that I had printed off a roll fed digital printer. It's about 8 feet tall and over 14 feet wide in three spliced sections. The largest image size the company would print from was 75 dpi because larger locks up the printer and outputs too slow. You can stand with your nose right up to the mural and not see pixels. Sharp lines are crisp and clean with no stairstepping. I know this because I've done it.
 
How many pixels is enough for you? When was the last time you printed larger than 11x14? How many is enough for the average amateur photographer that reads these forums?

 

[Frank I]

Quote:

 ake the approach of the pedant, make sure you are right.
 
Now, go back to waving your penis around. I just hope yours is as big as Mattimis'. 

LMAO Too funny

 

[shigzeo]

Bigshot, like I said, I've never printed larger than A2 with a 10 megapixel camera, the D200. It looks okay, but I had to shoot at 800 ISO at f/2,5 because Sweden is dark in the winter and I didn't have a tripod. I don't know inches very well, so I had to look up 14*22. A2 can be found here. It is 23*16 inches. It might be easier to mention paper size in an international forum as paper size is standardised across the world. I know that in north America, there is a tendency to say things by inches, but overall, that is an anomaly. 
 
But it doesn't matter that a print can look good at 200 dpi at 10 megapixels or whatever dpi it is for A2. What matters in my case is if the magazine will BUY the image. In my case, they want a minimum of 15 megapixels. I don't argue. For web viewing, who cares? For personal prints, who cares? Sharpness is never ever something I gun for in personal images, and even if it was, I'd be happy with the results I got at 10 megapixels on A2. I'd go larger. But to pretend that more isn't better, or in some cases, even necessary, is ingenuous. Personal vendettas are one thing, professional dictates are another. I only really work for magazines and for the odd manufacturer or jewellery designer. I never have to give higher than 15 megapixels. But if I was asked for more, I'd not argue with the magazine that they could print just as well at x megapixels. No, I'd give them what they want.
 
I don't know if Mattimis really shoots professionally, and honestly, I don't care. He could - and probably does - represent another aspect of 'average' reader of these forums, who not only are gear heads, but also manufacturers, and professionals in many areas. He seems to disagree with you. I agree with you - when shooting for myself. But that isn't to say that I'd not be happier with more megapixels. Telling someone to be happy with a 6 megapixel camera when what they really want and have the dosh for is a better camera, is strange, especially here at Headfi, where constantly we are spending more money on earphones and amps and cables. I use a D800, which despite horrible ergonomics compared to the already crappy D200, is better in every other single way: much better light performance, easier to focus, better battery life, live view, etc. and so on. If all I were concerned with was iso 100 shooting and tripods and shooting on post cards or stamps, the D200 would get away with being my last camera (until it breaks, and Nikon's cameras get worse every year). But, technology moves on. The D800 is not a camera I like at all, but its imaging is second to no other 35mm camera at the moment. Amazing. And no, I don't use it for fun. It is only for work and will likely remain that, as there is nothing fun or convenient about it. 
 
Fun for me is something light, with a great viewfinder, something that has external controls that don't necessitate the camera to be 'on' in order to suss. The likes of a Nikon FE or better yet, FM3. Those days are gone, though. Now, we have cameras that get bigger every generation, with worse ergonomics, poor viewfinders, and poor manual focus screens. It's the way of the world as dictated by Japanese camera makers.

 

[bigshot]

The magazine asks for larger than it needs so it has room to crop or use it as a two page spread. Your 15 megapixels (4752 x 3168) is enough to more than cover a two page spread at 200 dpi. When they actually go to print it on film using an imagesetter, it's 200 dpi image / 1200 dpi dot screen. Text is usually bitmap at 1200 dpi. I believe that imagesetters can go to 2400 dpi, but that is VERY costly because it makes the output time much longer and requires bromide paper. I've done work for output. The figures I'm giving you are pretty standard, at least they were about six or seven years ago when I last did prepress preparation. As for super large format printing, the figures I gave you were standard as of about three years ago when I made the mural in my living room.
 

 

[shigzeo]

So, are you completely happy with your 1970 Audio Technica headphones? 
 
There is no point being RIGHT here, bigshot. Just be reasonable. Manufacturers are supplying cameras with great performance at insane ISO settings for good prices. You can Rockwell around as much as you want, but that won't change the fact that the technology exists and is good. If you want to argue that everyone should carry around a point and shoot, go ahead. PAS cameras are fully automatic in every way, go up to 12 megapixels (way more than you or anyone will ever need) and often don't have that stupid and unnecessary function: RAW. 
 
I wonder if you are as objective about headphones/amps/cables.
 
The problem with bromide is that it doesn't spread well across life. We laugh at Bose users here, but ride Trek bicycles, or drink Heineken beer, or drive Toyota cars. There is NO way to satisfy the holier-than-thou in every niche. Shoot and enjoy. If you just happen to have a camera or lens or headphone or car that is too good for you because you'll never drive it well or wear it well or shoot it well or print it well or hear it well, then so be it. But don't destroy someone else's enjoyment of the hobby in order to be right. 
 
By the way: what steamer do you use for your veggies?

 

[bigshot]

I don't understand your point. It's flying off in different directions.
 
A good modern pocket camera is easier to use and is capable of capturing images that are just as good as with my old Nikon F2. Lenses are better, low light capability is better, noise is better, color is better. Technology has advanced to the point where even cheap is good. If you can't make a great image with an iPhone or Canon Elph, you never would have been able to back in the film days! That's a fact.
 
At some point, the specs and technical measurements dissolve away and photography becomes more about composition, lighting and color than it does ISO, focus points and megapixels. But some photographers never get past shooting focus tests of their feet or boxes of cereal on their kitchen table to see if they have a minute "back focus issue". It's perfectly fine to be a gear head and not shoot a single image aside from brick walls and resolution charts. But if you're all about numbers on a page, you really aren't the best one to tell folks how to make great pictures to hang on their walls and share with friends.