GF concerned about only 6mp on D40

[Xandernfs]

My gf and I are looking to buy a DSLR and I am really interested in the Nikon D40. The GF doesn't like the fact that the D40 is only 6MP. She'd like to get the D60 because of the higher MP. I've read that megapixels doesn't really matter that much on this site: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

So, is the GF rite? Should we spend the extra money for the more megapixels?

 

[Misled]

Really depends on if you want to crop the pictures alot or blow them up quite a bit. Here's some I shot with a d40.

 

[nickb]

Have a read through this site: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1034 There are many active discussions about eh relative merits of the D40/D60/D80/D90. There are many excellent photographers who swear by the D40. As the photos from 'mislead' show, you can get great photos. The extra megapixels are needed most if you want to do a lot of cropping of print very large prints.

 

[Misled]

Some more. The glass is more important than the body. That and the person behind the camera.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

6mp is pretty low, I'd go for the 10mp D60. Beyond that is overkill but on an 1.5 crop SLR I think you would notice a difference from 6mp to 10mp. On the recent thread where I said MP wouldn't matter, the OP was using a low quality point and shoot camera and expecting a sizable sufferance between 8mp and 10mp. More MP's make sense for larger, high quality image sensors...such as that of an SLR.

I think Misled's images are great and he uses the 6mp D40. You can do so much more with a DSLR. The photographs in this link were taken with one of the original Canon DSLR's, the 3mp Canon D30.
http://photography-on-the.net/gallery/list.php?exhibition=1

So I think a D40 would work great and cameras go obsolete faster than computers. Even the D60 is an old camera.

 

[nickb]

A bit more information to follow up on my previous post. In the Nikon world, the recommendations usually come down to D40 or D80/D90. The D60 doesn't seem to 'get much love'. I don't have a D40 but as I said, people who have are highly positive about the picture quality (especially if you aren't into a lot of post-processing) and high ISO ability. One big advantage of the D80/D90 (over both the D40 and D60) is that the camera has an internal autofocus motor which lets you more easily use older lenses from film cameras, etc.

Here a couple of threads over on the other board I mentioned:

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3

 

[melev]

What is your goal? What is your girlfriend's goal? Are you printing out posters? If you plan to share your images on the web or you plan to make normal sized prints, you don't need need higher megapixel cameras.

I shot a bunch of beauties over the years with a 3 and 6 MP camera. I'm currently using the D70s, and posted some pictures in this thread:
http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1516853


Here are a few pictures taken with the Fuji S602Z, which was barely a 6MP:

 

[Xandernfs]

She is concerned with clarity and if it will be too grainy (Noise if i'm not mistaken). She is also concerned if she blows up a picture it won't turn out good or look somewhat grainy.

 

[melev]

What is her plan for the images she takes? Without that information, we can't answer accurately.

From the above pictures, you can see that a 300k file (not 15 meg) can turn out beautifully. That image of the Lionfish is printed 11x17 and hanging up in my home. I took the 72 dpi image, put it in Photoshop and resized it to 11x17 at 300dpi, and the camera shop did the print.

 

[Xandernfs]

Wow, those are nice. How much quality, did you lose any (or any) when you went bigger? BTW...what is DPI? Noob here.

 

[melev]

You said that at 1:21pm already.

 

[Xandernfs]

I edited it.......sorry

 

[melev]

The images looked amazing, to be honest. I'd never printed any of my pictures professionally before, only using my home printer. The quality was as perfect as I could imagine.

300 dots per inch is a printing term, and the higher the dots (300), the better - in advertising print, of course.

 

[IPT]

melev - what was the original image size at 72DPI? That seems like a big jump. You must have been starting with a very vlean and sharp image.

I started with the Canon 10D and it was 6mp. I got great prints up to about 11x14. After that I could do it but the quality started to suffer at close viewing distance.

Jumping to 12mp (5D) gave me much better clarity and the ability to crop if I happened to not be able to achieve the compsition I wanted in camera.

Like most said depending on how big your prints (at the standard 300 dpi) are going to be you may be fine with 6mp. Not sure what the price differnece is, but if it were me I'd go for more MP assuming all other variable remained the same (regarding quality of noise etc). I like to have the option to print large (16 x 30 on an Epson 4000) - but that's just me.

 

[melev]

Yes, the original was 72 DPI, because I save my files as JPEG-FINE. And I'm pretty particular (almost demanding like any other perfectionist, right?) about images, so if they looked less than stellar, I'd post it. I was very impressed.

Then again, I chose 17 of my favorite shots, and they were already pretty darn perfect in the first place.

I do shoot at a low ISO and f/2.8, so images are in great shape... already.

 

[BlueCorn]

I print everything at 180 dpi; stuff for sale, stuff for shows, stuff in galleries. If you're starting with a clean file there's almost no perceivable benefit to printing at 300 dpi. 6mp @180 dpi gives you a roughly 16" x 11" print. If you want to go bigger than that I'd go for more pixels, otherwise I wouldn't worry about.

 

[IPT]

Hey Doug - it is my understanding that ALL printers work from a 300 DPI set point. If you are not sending it inbound at that resolution than you are allowing the printer software (verse the more capable software like PS) do the upsizing and interpolation.

If I remember correctly I learned this from Tim Grey a digital darkroom guru with several books out. If you know otherwise I'd be interested in reading about it. Things may have changed but that is the last I remember about the issue.

 

[BlueCorn]

My Epson has several print "quality" modes that are all a different DPI. The only difference that I can see between the two is a drastic reduction in the amount of ink that I use.

You might be able to tell the difference with a magnifying glass but that's not how folks view prints.

 

[IPT]

The printer choice of quality (DPI) is totally independant of the file resolution sent to the printer. I could send it a 32 dpi (or technically PPI) 16x20 inch image and it could still lay down 300 or more DPI to make the print. I'll just have a really smooth print of a pixelated image.

What printer are you using Doug?

On my Epson 4000 even at the "speed" setting, my lowest quality available is 360 DPI. It goes up to 720 and then 1440 from there for "superfine". I agree there is limited benefit from going to the higher levels unless you're using a loupe to inspect it.

Xandernfs - have you made a decision yet? What size prints do you realistically think you'll be making? It's been a long time since I worked with 6MP's. Though now there are some really good softwares to upsample that for a large image to be made.

Melev - beautiful images

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Even if you don't want to make large prints, having the ability to crop your images can be very useful. You will be hard pressed to cut the unwanted sides off the image with 6mp. If you get it right the first time, good for you. But if your lens doesn't zoom in far enough or you just didn't zoom the lens in as far as you should have...more MP would be nice.