What aspects of DSLRs are the most important, looking to upgrade.

nellipope

nellipope

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Name
Penny
Edit My Images
No
A bit of a newbie question, be warned.

I studied photography eons ago (well it feels that way) there were darkrooms and manual lenses that needed focusing with bellows and all sorts. Chemicals, vats of the stuff, and only the students with a bit of extra loose change had motordrives. So when digital photography first came out I was really disappointed with the quality. However now it's great, I went on and did graphic design, got to grips with Photoshop and I'm now back into photography in a big way. But all this new fangled technology has me a little confused. To get me back into photography I was given a Sony RX100 (better than a point and click due to manual ability, well sort of) and a brilliant 21 megapixel resolution. Shoots ARW, which is obviously great for editing but it's still only a bridge camera. I'm looking to go back to SLR or DSLR. But I've noticed the resolution is sometimes around the 16 mark, is resolution really all it's cracked up to be or would quality of lens and camera override this?

As said I know my way around cameras, well old film loaders, but it's the digital quality I'm a little hazy on so advice recommendations would be great.
 
Ergonomics. Anything else is either genre specific or gravy.
 
The Nikon top of the range camera, D4s has 16MP, for half the price you can get a D800 with 36MP. They are both good cameras, which one you choose depends on what you will be photographing, how big you are printing it and your budget. Generally you cannot judge a camera by its MP count. Ergonomics, build quality, and lenses available would be more important for most people, IMHO. (Other makes and models are available!)
 
Pixels are important but not the be all & end all. I use two bodies, a Canon 1DX with 18.1 MP's and a 6D with 22MP's. The 1DX wins hands down on IQ plus as a pro camera it has many other features and benefits but that all comes at a price.

I'd suggest work out your budget and go from there. I wouldn't advise going down the 'what brand is best' route as all have their upsides and downsides. If you have a good photog shop I'd go there and try some out. Do you have anything in mind presently? If so print it here and I'm sure you'll get more sound advice.
 
16 Megapixels (MP) and above have enough detail for very large prints and can easily be printed at over A2 (420mm x 594mm) in size. They are normally regarded as Hi-Resolution. How big should you go really does depend on your budget. Also the more pixels, the more memory the images will use up.

Lens quality is important, there is no substitute for good quality optics but it's the pixel on the sensor that will ultimatley define the quality of the output.

If you're an old school, wet school photographer like me you may feel very comfortable with a Nikon Df or Fuji X-T1 as a suggestion.
 
Basically, anything over 12mp is more than enough for most people, unless you have specific applications which necessitates very high MP (and if you don't know why then you don't need them).

Good lenses are where it's at.
 
Thank you all very much. I suppose the main objectives I need to factor in is the ability to enhance the images in Photoshop. As I mainly deal with design I often need to to take images which then need to be processed digitally, would a higher MP count benefit me there?
 
Penny, can you define what it is you want to do? It makes it easier to give useful answers.
 
Yes - most designers. I know require a Hi-Resolution image. For example a photograph to support a quality brochure etc.
 
Nawty said:
No.

Low noise and high dynamic range will help a lot though.
Click to expand...

Low noise can be eliminated by using a low ISO in the first instance and HDR is a post processing technique which is not to everyone's taste.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Low noise can be eliminated by using a low ISO in the first instance and HDR is a post processing technique which is not to everyone's taste.
Click to expand...

Yep, but that assumes the subject is standing still and we don't know the intended use.

Megapixels and sensor size are all about magnification and if the lenses aren't up to the job then you are magnifying a blur, so I would always invest in lenses.

To look at it a different way, on safari I use the same lens (70-300 VR) on a D3200 (24mp) and a D700 (12mp) and someone else had the same lens on a D7000 (16mp) and the best pictures came off the D700, even when cropping to account for the fact eh animals were far away. The D3200 was worst at pixel level.

The thing to realise is that this result is nothing to do with the cameras, but the lens. The maximum magnification it could achieve before getting blurry was reached somewhere before 16MP on a DX sensor. Even then though, the images from the FF (least magnification from the lens) were the best.
 
Nawty said:
Yep, but that assumes the subject is standing still and we don't know the intended use.

Megapixels and sensor size are all about magnification and if the lenses aren't up to the job then you are magnifying a blur, so I would always invest in lenses.
Click to expand...

I understand the theory of Full Frame -v- Crop Sensor, magnification factors and aspect ratio(s). Whilst I agree that quality lenses are very important (as I perviously mentioned in post 5). At this stage it's important not to dismiss the sensor size completely or get too bogged down with the science behind it. Photography is all about compromise. Being able to get the best value, or the best features for your money, that fit your requirements. When investing in a camera, it's the whole system that needs consideration. It would be useful to know what Penny wants to achieve, she has already mentioned enhancing images in Photoshop and graphic design. Therefore this suggests to me that the ability to produce Hi-res images would be an advantage to her. A former, photography student who as she's states 'knows her way around a camera' would probably soon get bored with an entry level DSLR and require something at 'enthusiast' level. Whilst you can get away with something in the region of a 10MP which is considered to medium resolution, a 16MP offers more flexibility particularly to a designer. Ultimately it comes down to her needs -v- budget.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
HDR is a post processing technique which is not to everyone's taste.
Click to expand...
I agree with this if you are considering HDR as a post processing technique. However, I believe Nawty meant having a sensor with a high dynamic range (and if he didn't he should have ;) )
 
What are you shooting?
Does size and weight matter?
What is your budget?
Does it have to an optical viewfinder or would and EVF be OK?
Do you want minimal Depth of field or is maximum depth of field important?
Does have to be the latest kit?
 
Whatever aspects that are important to the purchaser and most people's needs/wants are different! To a large extent, MP counts are adequate for most people in any new DSLR. 12MP is enough to print at A3 and at normal viewing distances, even bigger. It could be argued that huge files are a disadvantage when it comes to PP, slowing things down and needing more processing power in the computer. Dynamic range and low noise is more important - or at least it is to me, the OP's needs are probably different.
 
check out the sigma merrill cameras, if you want quality at low iso, then they are the most affordable, and they do have quirks, but they are amazing :), makes other stuff look soft and mushy
 
It depends on what you are going to use it for, the requirements for different genres are very different, as a quick example:

For my landscapes I want ultimate IQ coupled with a high dynamic range and no anti aliasing filter, for optimum sharpness. The camera system I use offers that but the AF is slow, the frame rate is terrible and it just doesn't do high ISO. It is slow, heavy and a touch cumbersome.

For travel I want high ISO capability together with weather sealing and light weight. For that I use a Canon 5D MK3 system which offers all that I need.

If I was shooting sports or wildlife I might want a crop body to get some extra reach out of my lenses, very quick AF and a high frame rate.

As you can see your requirements will dictate the best kind of camera system to buy into.
 
To go back to your original questions, not all mega-pixels are created equal. Dynamic range has already been mentioned - some sensors will cope with a wider range of light intensities than others - and some manufacturers write better software to eliminate noise & other artefacts than others too. Sensors are still being developed, and my feeling is that you'd get cleaner, more detailed, less noisy images from a more modern sensor than you would from an older one *of the same pixel density*. Worth remembering that, depending on what you shoot, you may not always be working around base ISO, so it may be worth looking at cameras with lower high-ISO noise if that's likely.

In terms of image quality, I'd put my Sony Alpha 58 (20Mp sensor) as being very similar to the Bronica ETR I used to use with roll film.

Have you also considered whether you would prefer an optical or electronic viewfinder, and whether a rear screen that can be angled or swiveled is important? Both those factors are also a significant change from your film cameras, and could be important. Personally I'd hate not to have an articulated rear screen, and most of the time love having an EVF too. Others hate EVFs, and if you're a bit of a film camera purist then this may be a big deal for you.
 
TBH the RX100 is a pretty damned good camera and should be able to do pretty anything you ask of it. The quality is equal to most smaller sensor cameras, is great at high ISO and the lens is very sharp indeed. Its certainly no bridge camera, its a professional and very good compact.
 
nellipope said:
A bit of a newbie question, be warned.

I studied photography eons ago (well it feels that way) there were darkrooms and manual lenses that needed focusing with bellows and all sorts. Chemicals, vats of the stuff, and only the students with a bit of extra loose change had motordrives. So when digital photography first came out I was really disappointed with the quality. However now it's great, I went on and did graphic design, got to grips with Photoshop and I'm now back into photography in a big way. But all this new fangled technology has me a little confused. To get me back into photography I was given a Sony RX100 (better than a point and click due to manual ability, well sort of) and a brilliant 21 megapixel resolution. Shoots ARW, which is obviously great for editing but it's still only a bridge camera. I'm looking to go back to SLR or DSLR. But I've noticed the resolution is sometimes around the 16 mark, is resolution really all it's cracked up to be or would quality of lens and camera override this?

As said I know my way around cameras, well old film loaders, but it's the digital quality I'm a little hazy on so advice recommendations would be great.
Click to expand...

Do you print? If not, and you have no intention of doing so, then resolution is pretty unimportant. Even the highest resolution monitors are less than 3mega pixels.

Do you often crop heavily? Then it starts to become important, but again, if you never print what you've cropped, less so.

Pretty much it so far as resolution is concerned. If you don't print at all, and don't usually crop into images, then anything over 6 megapixels or so is actually more than you need.

If you do print, then how big, and how often? Only up to A4, then again, 8.5 mega pixels @ 300ppi will give you A4. A3 needs only a little over 16mega pixels, and good post production can tease an image into the next size up without too much loss of quality. Only if you regularly print at A3 or larger would I suggest you need to start paying attention to resolution. The other thing to consider is will you print in the future, or would like to, or would like to sell prints of your work? If so, plan ahead. If you'd like to start producing A1 prints, then you're gonna need full frame and much higher resolution, or even medium format if you're critical of quality.

What should you concern yourself with?

Ergonomics are important - you have to be able to use it comfortably.
Dynamic range is important, as it allow better captures in high contrast situations, and high dynamic range sensors also have better noise characteristics.... so....

Low Noise: Allows you to shoot in a wider range of lighting conditions with faster speeds, or just shoot in the dark with low speeds. Incidentally, cramming loads of pixels into smaller sensors harms this characteristic, so again, sensible resolutions on smaller sensors has an advantage.

Shutter speed range is important. Want that ultra shallow depth of field by using f1.4 on a sunny day? Then you may well find yourself needing 1/4000th or even 1/8000th of a second.

Flash sync speed is important to me, and may well be to you if you often balance flash with daylight, or even overpower daylight with flash.

Auto Focus performance may well (and usually is) of importance. What kind of stuff do you shoot though? If you never, ever shoot fast moving action, then you may not need the kind of AF performance you get with a D3s or D4, and something more pedestrian with fewer AF points may be fine for you.

Those are some of the things that concern me when buying a camera, but ask yourself what you shoot, and then look at the feature sets of various cameras and ask yourself whether they are actually going to benefit you or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top