Am I right in thinking

Discussion in 'General Technical Discussion' started by Bob the Spiderman, Feb 25, 2005.

  1. that 12 mega pixels is not thrice 4Mp and twice 6Mp. Somehow I think that I am right but cannot quite work out why.
    Could somebody please enlighten me .

    Thanks Bob F.
     
  2. It takes double in both dimensions to double the resolution, so 4x equals twice, if my math is correct. 16mp = 2xRes of 4mp. Of course it is early AM and I am barely awake.......

    A perfect example of 2 being equal to 4, or something like that.... :?
     
  3. I also think that this is the case,

    but then again I have been up much longer than YOU!

    BW. Bob F.
     
  4. Iliah

    Iliah

    Jan 29, 2005
    nowhere
    12 megapixels approximately are two times 3.5 megapixels :)- if we are speaking of resolution. D2x is less then two times D2h
     
  5. Bob, that you have been, but I'll just be crusin' when you are a-nodding off :wink:

    Iliah, I'll be darned, see, you HAVE taught me something along the way :!: And I even REMEMBERED it, a true miracle I say......
     
  6. Thanks Iliah. Well blow me down.

    So why is everybody mega pixel mad and why should I buy a D2X instead of a D2H?
     
  7. Iliah

    Iliah

    Jan 29, 2005
    nowhere
    I still use D1 original 2.7 megapixels pretty often. If I do not need to print huge, why to strain the shutter of D2h I have?

    Doubling the resolution allows to save a lot of money on lenses, can save you using tripod on some occasions. Think of this - 200mm lens with 12mpix sensor is equivalent to what focal length with 4mpix sensor?
     
  8. To answer your question specifically, the answer is "that depends". If the 12mp is Full Frame, then it is similar to shooting, well exactly like shooting, a 200mm lens on 35mm, given that "Full Frame" means the same size as 35mm film.

    If your camera is like some of those "C" cameras at 1.3x factor, then it is 260mm. If it is like our DX/APS sized sensors on our fine Nikon gear, at 1.5x, it is like 300mm. If we then add in the D2X which enables that 12mp to look lik 6 or so, then it becomes 2x, or 400mm.

    Of course you could look at it a different way, and simply note that it depends on how much you want to crop. Take that 12mp that give 2x in 6mp mode, I guess it becomes what, something like 4x if you just crop out 3mp worth?

    Man, this could get complicated, way too much math for me this early in the day......

    I would say, Bob, that in my opinion the reason for D2X over the D2H is having the ability to make those choices, which is what the extra MP's really get you. Aside from any other technical improvements in the new CMOS sensor that is.
     
  9. Phew!!

    That went straight over my head.

    My reason for asking, is that with the disappointment of receiving a faulty D2H has made me pause and take stock, especially as OSF are now part of photolibrary and their standard size is 50mb at 300dpi and they want therir photographers to use cameras with 8mp or more.

    That seems to be a lot more than either my D70 or the D2H.

    BW. Bob F.
     
  10. Re: Phew!!

    Simple answer is "it depends" on the sensor size, determines inital "crop factor" from 35mm, and then how much further you want to crop. The D2X gets the "2X" crop by taking only the middle bits of the sensor. You can shoot in 12mp mode and do exactly the same thing by cropping yourself. You can get your 8mp by shooting at 12mp and then cropping to the 8mp, which, in effect due to the crop, gives an apparent "increase" in focal length, just as it would if you crop a 35mm negative.

    In your case if you require 8mp minimum, then I don't see where you have any choice. The only camera in the current Nikon line that meets that IS the D2X, so this would, to me, seem to be a no-brainer.

    I hope that makes more sense, I admit I was being a bit obtuse with my reply to Iliah, but then the whole "crop factor" issue becomes confusing. To summarize:

    200mm at Full Frame 35mm Sensor, Canon 1Ds, Kodak 14N yields effective 200mm.

    200mm at 1.3x factor, can't remember which Canon bodies, yields 260mm

    200mm at 1.5x factor, such as all current Nikon cameras, yields effective 300mm

    A question for you, please, you mention OSF. Who, or what, are they? Most likely my brain is just in a fuzz and when you tell me I'll say, "Oh, yeah, how dumb :oops: of me to miss that" :lol: .

    Thanks,
     
  11. You would not be expected to know

    unless you had read my introduction, (which you might find interesting), to the forum. OSF stands for Oxford Scientific Films. This is the natural history photographic agency who take my work and sell it worldwide. I have been with them since about 1978.

    Thanks for the less obtuse answer. Now the penny is beginning to drop. I will now have to consider a D2x but it is a big big price. At least the dud D2H from Cameta has made me think again.

    BW. Bob F.
     
  12. Iliah

    Iliah

    Jan 29, 2005
    nowhere
    200mm lens, Nikon sensor, landscape orientation, shooting distance 30 feet, vertical field of view 2.45 feet, horizontal filed of view 4.43 feet.

    400mm lens, Nikon sensor, landscape orientation, shooting distance 30 feet, vertical field of view 1.2 feet, horizontal filed of view 2.2 feet.

    Nikon D2x 4288 x 2848 pixels

    Nikon D2h 2464 x 1632 pixels
     
  13. Iliah

    Iliah

    Jan 29, 2005
    nowhere
    and that means that given the same size of recording media 200mm lens will provide the same number of pixels as 400mm lens if resolution of recording media is doubled.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Am I missing something? General Technical Discussion Nov 2, 2016
Using EXIFtool by Right Clicking on image file (SOLVED) General Technical Discussion Aug 31, 2013
Scanning 35mm Slides on my V330, what am I doing wrong? General Technical Discussion Jan 25, 2013
10:00 am photosession with hardly any shade General Technical Discussion Jul 12, 2009
Am I Crazy? General Technical Discussion Jan 27, 2009