Comparing 12mb resolution camera vs. 24mb, can I see different in "image quality" between the output of those cameras. If I print the same image one shot by 12 and another shot by 24mb camera on a 3A size paper, can I see difference in the final print in term of general look, sharpens, etc?
Please advice me as I am thinking to get a Nikon D3x instead of my D3 which suite sport, journalist more than nature/landscape photographer like me.
I know this my seems to be very basic question but I read somewhere (I think a review on the D3x on photo.net site) that image quality is not going to be difference between D3 vs. D3x cameras. And because I cannot print from a D3x and see the difference I am sure many people know well about this.
Thanks
Posted by Jim Bullard on January 21, 2010 at 8:10 AM
I assume you are referring to 12 and 24 Mega-Pixel images rather than Mega-Bytes. A 12 MP image on 3A should print at around 240 pixels per inch, quite adequate for all but the most detailed subjects. On average the human eye can't distinguish smaller than 1/100th of an inch. Remember that perceived sharpness involves more than just the pixel resolution. It is important to process the image for the type of paper it will be printed on. Images on gloss paper generally appear sharper than the same image on matte or textured paper.
I had a chance to shoot a D3X for a couple of weeks, comparing results against those with my familiar D2X and D300. The most significant difference I saw, and probably most important for your consideration might be called "enlargeability." By that I mean that due to the extra detail with the D3X, it has the potential without "ressing up" for much larger prints, I suspect.
On the practical side, I decided not to buy the D3X. For our commercial needs we simply didn't need such large files, and I ended up downsizing everything I shot, not only for client needs, but also for faster transmission times, and faster processing. That's a reflection of our commercial needs, and definitely not a measure of its utility for someone only making prints. As for visual impact in uses at 8x10 or smaller, I just couldn't distinguish between the D3x images and the others.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on January 21, 2010 at 5:01 PM
There are a few things to consider here.
First, 24MP cameras do not have twice the resolution of a 12MP camera, just twice the pixels. To double resolution, you must quadruple the pixel count on the same size sensor. You would need a 48MP camera to double the resolution of the D3.
Second, bayer pattern digital SLRs like Nikon's use anti-aliasing filters to smooth out high frequency details to prevent moire patterns. This reduces resolution. It is my understanding that the smaller the pixels, the stronger the AA filter needs to be. Some cameras do not utilize anti-aliasing filters. For most landscape photographers, this is good. For a bird photographer, Moire patterns may develop in repeating patterns such as feathers. Most SLRs also rely on the bayer pattern to determine color, so color resolution is only ~1/3 that of the B&W resolution.
Third, the lenses may also limit resolution.
Fourth, the enlargement from original capture still applies. Regardless of how you do it, you are still stretching an image 12X its original size to cover A3 paper and this always results in a certain amount of detail blurred. Digital may be a little better than film enlargement was in the past largely because the of the flatness of the capture medium. Enlargement is the true reason why larger formats were preferred in the past for professional work (when the task allowed for the larger format). While 35mm lenses generally have higher lp/mm resolution than medium or large format lenses, the much larger degree of enlargement stretches the image more.
Posted by Basil Greber on January 22, 2010 at 1:15 AM
> It is my understanding that the smaller the pixels, the stronger the AA filter needs to be.
I don't think so - it's the opposite, actually.
Posted by Larry Fischer on January 27, 2010 at 2:47 PM
There is a site which "Hot Rods" Nikon d300 and d700 by removing the AA filter and replacing it with less AA. They have examples of the increased clarity. Some say that moire (sp?) is not a problem as often as it used to be . If nyone is interested I can look up the site. But, is sharpness, 'resolution'??
E-Mail me and I'll post it here if anyone is interested.
the fisch
Posted by Larry Fischer on January 27, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Took the time to again find the site for AA filter removal.
Here they are for 3 Nikon cameras.
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d300HR.htm
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm
the fisch
Posted by David Bostedo on January 27, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Most SLRs also rely on the bayer pattern to determine color, so color resolution is only ~1/3 that of the B&W resolution.
That's true in absolute terms (well the green is 1/2, and the red and blue are 1/4). But the demosaicing in software makes this a moot point in practical terms. It does a fantastic job at interpolating what the actual color was at every pixel from the surrounding pixels in the image. You'd see very little color difference between a sensor with a bayer array and one that captured all 3 colors at every pixel.
Discussion
7 repliesPlease advice me as I am thinking to get a Nikon D3x instead of my D3 which suite sport, journalist more than nature/landscape photographer like me.
I know this my seems to be very basic question but I read somewhere (I think a review on the D3x on photo.net site) that image quality is not going to be difference between D3 vs. D3x cameras. And because I cannot print from a D3x and see the difference I am sure many people know well about this.
Thanks
I had a chance to shoot a D3X for a couple of weeks, comparing results against those with my familiar D2X and D300. The most significant difference I saw, and probably most important for your consideration might be called "enlargeability." By that I mean that due to the extra detail with the D3X, it has the potential without "ressing up" for much larger prints, I suspect.
On the practical side, I decided not to buy the D3X. For our commercial needs we simply didn't need such large files, and I ended up downsizing everything I shot, not only for client needs, but also for faster transmission times, and faster processing. That's a reflection of our commercial needs, and definitely not a measure of its utility for someone only making prints. As for visual impact in uses at 8x10 or smaller, I just couldn't distinguish between the D3x images and the others.
First, 24MP cameras do not have twice the resolution of a 12MP camera, just twice the pixels. To double resolution, you must quadruple the pixel count on the same size sensor. You would need a 48MP camera to double the resolution of the D3.
Second, bayer pattern digital SLRs like Nikon's use anti-aliasing filters to smooth out high frequency details to prevent moire patterns. This reduces resolution. It is my understanding that the smaller the pixels, the stronger the AA filter needs to be. Some cameras do not utilize anti-aliasing filters. For most landscape photographers, this is good. For a bird photographer, Moire patterns may develop in repeating patterns such as feathers. Most SLRs also rely on the bayer pattern to determine color, so color resolution is only ~1/3 that of the B&W resolution.
Third, the lenses may also limit resolution.
Fourth, the enlargement from original capture still applies. Regardless of how you do it, you are still stretching an image 12X its original size to cover A3 paper and this always results in a certain amount of detail blurred. Digital may be a little better than film enlargement was in the past largely because the of the flatness of the capture medium. Enlargement is the true reason why larger formats were preferred in the past for professional work (when the task allowed for the larger format). While 35mm lenses generally have higher lp/mm resolution than medium or large format lenses, the much larger degree of enlargement stretches the image more.
I don't think so - it's the opposite, actually.
E-Mail me and I'll post it here if anyone is interested.
the fisch
Here they are for 3 Nikon cameras.
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d700hr.htm
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d300HR.htm
http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm
the fisch
That's true in absolute terms (well the green is 1/2, and the red and blue are 1/4). But the demosaicing in software makes this a moot point in practical terms. It does a fantastic job at interpolating what the actual color was at every pixel from the surrounding pixels in the image. You'd see very little color difference between a sensor with a bayer array and one that captured all 3 colors at every pixel.