12.3 MP vs 18 MP

rpsmith79

rpsmith79

Messages
1,796
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
This is a slight twist on the one camera vs another, but i am still a bit confused about MegaPixels, and whether bigger is always better and why

The reason i ask is that i'm looking to upgrade my Olympus E-520 and i'd pretty much decided on either a new Canon 600D or second hand 60D

Now ideally i'd prefer a more pro orientated camera (the 60D) but still struggling to justify the extra cost and finding it hard to find them second hand

Then i strayed into the Nikon classified on here to see what was available, and stumbled across the D300 which looks pretty similar in spec to the 60D, albeit with a lower MP count (12.3 as opposed to 18)

So my question is, would i be silly spending the same sort of money on a camera with a much lower MP count, or does it only really matter if i am wanting to print poster sized images

One thing i would say is that i do want to print some of my photos onto canvas, so i want a camera capable of printing in relatively large format
 
If you are printing onto canvas i can not see it mattering much, its hardly high resolution product.
 
I print images shot on my D300 at up to 4 foot by 3 foot canvases.
 
My opinion is that more megapixels are better when using primes in a none controlled enviroment . ie subject could be close or far away.. more megapixels give you more crop... Also in a low light noise situation more megapixels help reduce noice when resizing downwards.

More megapixels isnt the bee all and end all and I have never purchased a camera on the amount of megapixels.. but theres no denying there are advantages.
 
Another option you may not of thought about is a Pentax k-30. It has the best performing aps-c 16mp sensor on the market, along worth many pro spec features like weather sealing and 100% viewfinder, as well as in body stabilisation. This can be had for £600 new, the same prices as a used d300.
 
Thanks for the info, is there any guide/measurement as to what MP count will print up to what size

rjbell said:
Another option you may not of thought about is a Pentax k-30. It has the best performing aps-c 16mp sensor on the market, along worth many pro spec features like weather sealing and 100% viewfinder, as well as in body stabilisation. This can be had for £600 new, the same prices as a used d300.
Click to expand...

I'll have a look into it, but i was wanting to go with either Canon or Nikon due to the availability of lenses, the main reason why i'm wanting to move away from my Olympus is the cost of the lenses due to being a less popular DSLR
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Another option you may not of thought about is a Pentax k-30. It has the best performing aps-c 16mp sensor on the market, along worth many pro spec features like weather sealing and 100% viewfinder, as well as in body stabilisation. This can be had for £600 new, the same prices as a used d300.
Click to expand...

Um, a used D300 is more likely to be £400 quid.
 
I'd go n handle them both and see whether they feel ok in your hands.

D300 is an excellent camera (you can see pics from the links in my sig).
Entry Pro dx camera.

600d I have no idea, but the extra megapixels might allow for cropping more without losing details.

Depends on your style of shooting and lenses I guess.

Might be worthwhile seeing if there is a meet local to you and if there are nikon and canon users going so you can handle, compare etc...
 
The 60D is has a physically slightly smaller sensor than the D300 (1.6x crop on the 60D relevant to 35mm/full-frame, as opposed to the 1.5x crop on the D300) so more megapixels crammed into a smaller space.

Much of it revolves around how much detail each pixel captures and subsequently, how much noise is generated as the ISO goes up.

Physically, as bodies go, the D300 is larger than the 60D and is geared toward pro users as opposed to the enthusiast market that the 60D is aimed at. The main differences in handling are the functions of the controls on each camera, although both are very good cameras to use.

Anyway, there's a tipping point where cramming too many pixels into a crop sensor starts working against you. There have been numerous threads on here about these cameras and most users will tell you that both cameras perform well in terms of fine detail, especially as the ISO is increased.

As a basic guide it could be worth looking at this comparison to see how each sensor performs:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/stu...n_d300s&slot1Sample=nikond300s_iso100&x=0&y=0

(it's the D300s featured in the comparison, but it's the same sensor as the D300. Because the 60D is a 1.6x crop, it uses a tighter crop, hence why those test images aren't exactly the same on the close-up views)
 
Last edited:
The23rdman said:
Um, a used D300 is more likely to be £400 quid.
Click to expand...

Yeah you might be right. I only had a quick look at ebay and they seem to be £500 body only, so would be £600 with kit lens like the k-30, but i'm just giving him something to think about.
 
Last edited:
K30 is great, getting a K5II soon and so looking forward to it.
 
Been reading up on the D300 over lunch time, think my mind is pretty much set on one of these now

Looks like i am a Canon deserter before i even started as i was all up for getting a 60D or 600D
 
If you are looking at the D300 then why not consider the D7000?
16.2 MP and much better than the D300 in low light situations.
Can be picked up for around £500 used or not much more new from the likes of Panamoz etc.
 
I would go for the D7000 too. It's about the best DX format bang for buck out there. The D300 is better built, but that's about it. Both great cameras, but the D7000 will kick ass in the ISO performance comparisons.
 
whatever you go for, any recent APS-C sensor will be far superior to old 4/3 - more DR, more colour latitude, less noise. Sony sensors (also in nikon and pentax) do have an edge over Canon APS-C offerings though.
 
Hmm, looking on ebay it looks like the D7000 is closer to the £600-650 mark, the D300 closer to the £450-500 body only

I wasn't really wanting to go over £500, so the D7000 might be a stretch too far as i will still need a lens with either of these 2 options
 
If your not going to go for silly high ISO get the D300. It's a good camera for what it is. I had one but found it too heavy and bulky but I don't have massive hands.
 
I would say the Pentax K5 has one of the best sensors and features out there.

But the Nikon D7000 would be my choice if that's your choice of brand.
 
ian-83 said:
If your not going to go for silly high ISO get the D300. It's a good camera for what it is. I had one but found it too heavy and bulky but I don't have massive hands.
Click to expand...

OK, here we go again. It weighs about as much as a loaf of decent bread, but is smaller :D

Try wearing a dual harness with 2x 1D bodies, 24-70mm, 70-200mm and 2x flashguns. Now that is fun considering I have to also carry a few spare lenses around.
 
Adam_M said:
5D mk1? Well in budget, amazing quality images.
Click to expand...

that's true, IQ will trump any d300, considering primitive AF and no weather sealing are acceptable (this is no different to olympus in comparison)
 
if you can handle usuable shots upto iso 1600 built very well and one of the top af syatems on the market go for the d300 the d7000 and canon 60d will feel like toys in comparision. as for cropping
heres a shot from a canon 5dmk 20 something mps.
E5D2INBI00100.jpg

crop
E5D2INBI00100c-1.jpg

and from a nikon d700 a mesly 12.3 mp
D700INBI00100.jpg

crop
D700INBI00100c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Ahh cool cheers, yeah i've never really had to go above ISO 800 on my Olympus, i mainly shoot landscape and still life sort of stuff

And i can hardly tell any difference in those comparison shots, looks like the D300 might be right up my street (and my budget too)
 
rpsmith79 said:
Ahh cool cheers, yeah i've never really had to go above ISO 800 on my Olympus, i mainly shoot landscape and still life sort of stuff

And i can hardly tell any difference in those comparison shots, looks like the D300 might be right up my street (and my budget too)
Click to expand...
Well going back to the original question and in light of you shooting mainly landscapes the extra MP would come in handy.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry about piddling little differences between the camera bodies - they'll all be out of date in a few years anyhow. Lenses, however, are forever.

When you pick a 60D or a D300 you're not just buying a camera, you're buying into a system. Decide what lenses you want and how much you're willing to pay for them. Then check to see what lenses are available to fit on the different camera systems. That may force you in one particular direction. Or it may not, but at least you won't find yourself stuck with the wrong system in 5 years time.
 
i've just made 30x20" prints for an exhibition, on a 10mp camera

the difference between 12 and 18 is almost nothing- you have to quadruple the mp count to get double the difference, so 12mp vs 48mp would be a big change, 12 to 20 not that big

it's why i'm still shooting with 10mp and not really feeling the need to go up to 21 on a 5d2


maths says that as long as you get 180 ppi on a print, you're good for super sharp prints at any size, so with 10mp (3888 x 2592) that's 21.6 x 14.4 inches
but wisdom says that the size of the print is proportional to the viewing distance- so wisdom says that 6mp is enough for everything from magazines to billboards

getting the shot in focus, with a sharp lens, and with good technique is more important than more megapixels- and if your picture is boring no one will want to look at it anyway, even it is shot with a 200mp hassleblad
 
rjbell said:
Well going back to the original question and in light of you shooting mainly landscapes the extra MP would come in hand.
Click to expand...

Well, when i say landscape, i should really say urban/architectural type landscapes, not so much the large sprawling scenery type landscapes
 
rpsmith79 said:
Hmm, looking on ebay it looks like the D7000 is closer to the £600-650 mark, the D300 closer to the £450-500 body only

I wasn't really wanting to go over £500, so the D7000 might be a stretch too far as i will still need a lens with either of these 2 options
Click to expand...

I have had a D7000, its a decent camera but I prefer the D300 that I use a second body now. If I was doing it again I would of skipped the D7K the focus system on the D300 is so much better.

Depending on what you shoot the extra fps on the D300 i.e 8 with the grip can be a big bonus.
 
Last edited:
I suppose i can go any handle a D300S in Jessops as i will struggle to get my mitts on a D300, i have already had a play with the 60D and 600D, the 600D did feel quite small and cheap compared to my Olympus E520
 
i got a d7000 yesterday and its great, i exchanged it for my pentax k-5 as after 3 weeks the pentax developed a sensor fault, came back with 3 big bogeys on the sensor so went straight back, then came back and the red focus point had moved to the left so went straight back again and guess what it came back exactly the same so i swapped it for a d7000
 
rpsmith79 said:
Thanks for the info, is there any guide/measurement as to what MP count will print up to what size
Click to expand...


Depends on how closely the print'll be examined and the medium of the print. My old D70 (6.1 MP) will print up to A3 with a little cropping onto glossy photo paper and I suspect it would go a fair bit bigger and still look good on canvas.

The number often quoted is a resolution of 300dpi for printing, so divide the pixel dimensions by 300 to find the print size. I n the real world though, you can get away with as few as 150dpi, although 200 would be better.
 
Cramming more MPs into a small sensor does create problems, its a proven fact.. google it, yes I accept manufactures are continually improving the incamera processes with newer chips, but its a fact although you gain more resolution with more MPs, the tradeoff is noise especially when you start to crop into the image. For ISO performance especially for low light conditions, the large sensor camera like the 5D/D700 series perform better than the cropped sensor camera.

Another factor with more MPs is that it will find flaws with the lens because of the quality of the optics. You will need better quality optics that can “resolve” the detail of the sensor as you continually increase MPs

So is more MPs good or bad, depends what you want, On one side of the aisle are those that will always recommend higher resolution sensors to pull the most detail and image resolution in their work. On the other those that prioritize ISO performance. Anyone who shoots in low light knows the power that good high ISO performance can bring.

Are we there yet, NO but technology is continually improving. Personally 12-14MPs is more than enough for most general users of a DSLR..... Are we there yet, NO but technology is continually improving. Personally 12-14MPs is more than enough for most general users of a DSLR.....
 
daugirdas said:
OK, here we go again. It weighs about as much as a loaf of decent bread, but is smaller :D

Try wearing a dual harness with 2x 1D bodies, 24-70mm, 70-200mm and 2x flashguns. Now that is fun considering I have to also carry a few spare lenses around.
Click to expand...

I know the D300 with a lens isn't the heaviest combo about specially when compared to what you have said you carry but for me the size of it made it uncomfortable in my hands to carry for long periods of time. As everyone says how a camera feels in the hand and where the buttons are laid out is just as important as megapixels and picture quality, noise handling etc. No point having a camera that has all bells n whistles if you don't like holidng it or can't find the right buttons when you need it.

From what the OP has said he has handled a 60D and a 600D, found the 600D too small for his hands. A D300 is similar sized to the 60D so will probably work well for him if he isn't worried about having extra megapixels and it is a damn good camera just wish I had bigger hands I would of kept mine.
 
Last edited:
A very valid point Ian, i will have to try out a D300S for size as i assume that will be near on identical to the D300 (apart from a few button locations as far as i can tell)

But i did feel the Canon 600D did feel far to small compared to how my E520 feels in my hand, so i think i would prefer a larger, heavier camera anyway
 
I have a A1 poster size landscape photo print, taken with a D300 and a 18-200m lens, and it's spot on, so i'm guessing with a dedicated landscape lens, i could have gotten a better print, i don't think you can compare 12mp with 16mp with any considerable difference, i think the D300 was one of Nikons best, and still is, considering you can pick one up for around £450ish :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top