Pixel Count vs Pixel Density - I bought a digital

[racingpinarello]

After spending the last three years shooting digitally with my cell phone (Nokia N95 8gb) 5mp camera I decided to buy an used digital camera. My budget is super low, but I found a Nikon D2H for less than $500. The pixel density is very low, versus a camera like a D90.

I am hoping bigger pixels and strong Photoshop file size management will make this a camera that will produce decent 16x20.

For some reason, I like the feel and weight of the pro Nikon chassis and cannot wait to get it. I've never like my D200 which i gave to my wife. It helps that my daughter just turned 3 and is more mobile so she can walk with me instead of carrying her. Plus, I miss taking pictures and plan to start shooting more.

Film is still my love but I still have 5 rolls of Velvia that need to be developed, and that's $60. Cannot afford to shoot film heavy anymore.

I'm back boys and girls...

Loren

[OldClicker]

Welcome back. If your username is still correct, I would like to see a shot of the bike. - TF

[havana_joe]

16x20 might be a slight stretch (close-up) from 4 megapixels… However, since the pixels should be big on the sensor they should produce a clear image with good colors, which can be enlarged reasonably well. In other words, a picture from a 4 MP DSLR will look better blown up than a picture taken on a higher MP camera with a smaller sensor, and therefore smaller pixels. I have a friend whose wedding was done some years ago by a photographer with a 4 MP camera (might have even been a D2H), and he has 8x10 and 11x14 prints which look perfect to me. I have a D40 (6 MP), and I've printed up to 8x10, with excellent results. Your prints won't be 300 DPI, considered the print density needed for a high quality prints, but I don't always agree with that. Technically an 8x10 requires 7.2 MP for 300 DPI (2398x3000), but like I said, I've printed great 8x10 from my 6 MP D40. In fact, I go to the D40 for shots I know I might print, even though I have an 8 MP point-and-shoot and a 10 MP super zoon camera. The D40 simply takes better quality pictures, which are able to be printed larger than pictures from the other cameras.

[drg]

A 16x20 is going to push that file size for most compositions beyond what you may really want.

12+ inches on the long side will work easily and well. 200dpi for printing on conventional photographic paper via digital printing is all that really gets resolved anyway. You can go bigger, but 20 inches on the long side is going to really stretch the limit.

The 300dpi 'myth' is built around certain types of separation based commercial printing and inkjets that initially had limited in-printer processing.

This camera was mostly aimed at newspaper journalists and their requirements for huge file sizes didn't really come into play.

Invest in post processing software to deal with the higher noise issues above probably 400 ISO. I used a Canon EOS 1D which was the same generation of about 4Mp camera and they had similar noise levels. Usable but still visible without some processing. Software is a lot better now than, what nearly ten?"? years ago!

[racingpinarello]

None of the photos from this camera will be used for my "real" work, which is still being done using a F5/F6, Velvia, a mightly tripod, and a drum scanner

I could get the D1X but I would rather have a CMOS sensor.

My printer has been able to get some amazing prints from files using as low as 160dpi. I use their software for printing. For noise reduction the software today is pretty good.

If I did an occasional wedding, this camera would still suit my needs. PhotoJohn used is 1D for a lot of work and I think the D2H would still beat the D1X..what do you think?


Loren