[stepmac]

It's really nice to have those extra dots for cropping.

Conversely, I never hesitated to print at 16 x 20" with my 10MP K10D.

But with the 12MP Q, it would really have to be a clean image to print very large.

The quality of the pixels matters more than the quantity.

While reading all of the kind responses to my original post I pretty much understand what is being said, however; your post is a mystery to me. I know nothing about the "quality" of the pixels.

I am about to go on a two month long road trip all across the US from Oregon to New York. Won't go until late Summer. I'm taking my new K-01, the pancake lens and probably a Tamaron 28 to 200. I might toss in my old Pentax 2.4 x 35 prime and the K mount adapter. I'm also taking a Canon T1i with a 50 prime, and 100 to 300 zoom. We have no camera shops here, but I'll find one on the road and buy a good quality monopod. I also need a few hoods. I have a remote shutter release, so I'll take a tripod. I'll keep my new little Canon P&S in my pocket... I'll also walk around with the K-01. Might take my 8 mp Sony P&S. All of this stuff will fit into two medium camera bags.

I'll try to post dailies, if you'd like to see some. I won't bore you with them all, only the good ones. Assuming I get some!

I'd like to eventually buy a really fine quality DSLR, so I don't have to be concerned about having the right camera, but not for a while. As for glass? I don't know good from bad. I do know cheap from expensive tho. Is there such a thing as a good and inexpensive lens?

If I get a great picture I'll enlarge it to maybe 18 x 24 inches and frame it. The rest I'll print at Costco and make an album. We plan to go to Mt. Vernon. I want to take pics of Washintgon's digs. West Point also...I'm a retired soldier.

Steve







I like to visit historical sites and so does my wife. I plan to take a few thousand shots We'll also do art galleries, junk shops and crowds

[jatrax]

I do know cheap from expensive tho. Is there such a thing as a good and inexpensive lens?

In lenses (as in much else) you can get cheap, good, or fast. Pick two.

[UnknownVT]

General rule of thumb is that for any handheld print for close scrutiny (eg: nose to paper)
the ppi requirement is 300ppi -
and the largest handheld print is normally taken as 10x8 -
anything larger than that the viewing distance increases -
such that generally if the image can produce a 10x8 print that stands up to critical close scrutiny -
ought to be mostly satisfactory at larger enlargements (for normal viewing distances)

So from that if one could print full-frame
300x10 by 300x8 pixels = 7,200,000 pixel = 7.2Mp

Most modern dSLRs exceed that by quite a margin -
which would allow for fair amount of cropping.

When digicams first came out the general consensus including many authoritative sources including Popular Photography -
was that 200ppi would give good satisfactory prints (size not given) but most probably 4x6, 5x7 and 10x8 since those were the most popular common sizes
that brings the requirement down to 200x10 by 200x8 pixels = only 3.2Mp!!!

Canon even sets its out of the camera photos to 180dpi another 10% lower than the early 200ppi requirement.

Basically this tells us/me that often it is the subject that matters and obviously how critical the viewer.

I was quite happy with some of my 2.0Mp images -

original 2Mp Canon Digital ELPH S100

one of which even made it to a CD cover:

original 2Mp Canon Digital ELPH S100

Personally I think that almost any of the modern dSLRs are more than capable of taking technically good photos -
any Mp count greater than about 8Mp is more than adequate for most general usage -

and although many will say the lens matters -
even the most humblest of Pentax kit zooms do acquit themselves well -

6Mp Pentax K100D + 18-55mm kit zoom wide open - EXIF attached


K-5 + 50-200mm kit zoom wide open - EXIF attached
this is the lens that got a mediocre review at PhotoZone.de

Just to put things into context -
this shot:

was taken on a <$80 Canon A1200 almost auto-everything p&s
Please see: $80 p&s compact thread ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)

[stepmac]

Nice pictures, all. TFS.

I'm going to take pictures with the cameras I have and not be concerned about MP count anymore. It looks to me, that a good enough camera works okay for the average photo bug. He be me. I think the mega pixel worry was more of a confidence factor than a visual one. Taking pictures is where it's at. I need to take more and more of them. These wonderful digital cameras allow us to do just that. The next challenge is going to places where there are interesting views to photograph. The other challenge is to find interesting views where, at first glance, there are none, and that's the fun of it.

I want to thank all of the experts who posted in response to my thread. I'm impressed by your skills and understanding of photography guys....and gals. Thank you very much. You did answer my question.

I'll do my best to reward you guys by posting beautiful photographs.

[MPrince]

General rule of thumb is that for any handheld print for close scrutiny (eg: nose to paper)
the ppi requirement is 300ppi -
and the largest handheld print is normally taken as 10x8 -

PPI has nothing to do with printing, at all. PPI has to do with screen display, DPI is for printing.

And the rule of thumb, as I indicated in earlier post, is an 8x10 held at arm's length, not nose to paper. I don't know anyone whose eyes can focus on a piece of paper held to their nose. Even in my youth I know I couldn't.

Great series of photos,btw.

[UnknownVT]

PPI has nothing to do with printing, at all. PPI has to do with screen display, DPI is for printing.
And the rule of thumb, as I indicated in earlier post, is an 8x10 held at arm's length, not nose to paper. I don't know anyone whose eyes can focus on a piece of paper held to their nose. Even in my youth I know I couldn't.

The "nose-to-paper" was not meant to be literal -
it was supposed to be only a colloquial saying meaning close critical examination.
But 300ppi does pass that muster.

Perhaps these references might clarify ppi & dpi?

DPI and PPI Explained – Andrew Dacey Photography
Design215 Toolbox - Photography Printing Guide - DPI vs PPI
A Real-World Problem of Image Resolution (How to Calculate Resolution for Publishing Photos)
How Many Pixels Do I Need for Printing Photos?

Pixel Density - Wikipedia

Pixels per inch (PPI) or pixel density is a measurement of the resolution of devices in various contexts: typically computer displays, image scanners, and digital camera image sensors.
PPI can also describe the resolution, in pixels, of an image to be printed within a specified space. Note, the unit is not square inches. For instance, a 100×100 pixel image that is printed in a 1-inch square has a resolution of 100 pixels per inch (PPI). Used in this way, the measurement is meaningful when printing an image. It has become commonplace to refer to PPI as DPI, which is incorrect because PPI always refers to input resolution. Good quality photographs usually require 300 pixels per inch, at 100% size, when printed onto coated paper stock, using a printing screen of 150 lines per inch (lpi). This delivers a quality factor of 2, which delivers optimum quality. The lowest acceptable quality factor is considered to be 1.5, which equates to printing a 175ppi image using a 150 lpi screen onto coated paper. Screen frequency is determined by the type of paper that the image is to be printed on. An absorbent paper surface, uncoated recycled paper for instance, will allow the droplets of ink to spread (dot gain), and so requires a more open printing screen. Input resolution can therefore be reduced in order to minimise file size without any loss in quality, as long as the quality factor of 2 is maintained. This is easily determined by doubling the line frequency. For example, printing on an uncoated paper stock often limits the printing screen frequency to no more than 120 lpi, therefore, a quality factor of 2 is achieved with images of 240 ppi.

[Omaha]

Does the megapixel sensor rating make that much diff to a guy who takes pics for his own pleasure and occasioinally blows one up to 8x10...or a bit larger?

No.

I've got 16x20 prints on my wall I took with my 6MP Nikon D70, and they look fine.

When you consider all the things that go into making a compelling and interesting photograph, pixels are about 824th on that list.

Which is to say that a slightly grainy image of something spectacular is a better photograph than a pixel-perfect, razor sharp, six-foot-wide print of something boring.

[kh1234567890]

You can never have too many pixels - BT Tower 360 Panorama of London

[Colbyt]

No.

Which is to say that a slightly grainy image of something spectacular is a better photograph than a pixel-perfect, razor sharp, six-foot-wide print of something boring.

Amen. +1. Or whatever.

[reeftool]

For me, there is no dilemma. The next camera body to come out from every manufacturer is going to have more megapixels, count on it. I bought a K5 a year or so ago but I still use my K10D and at least lately, the K10D has been getting the most use. IMO, low ISO shots from the K10D will stand up to anything. The more important improvements have been in high ISO shooting and dynamic range and the K5 sensor delivers and has remarkable little noise and is capable of keepers at up to 12800 ISO. It will shoot even higher. I plan to get around 5 years out of a camera. My purchase of the K5 however had more to do with my need for shooting winter sports events where having two cameras handy is a huge benefit rather than just to upgrade. I also came into a little extra money. I will probably stay with this setup for a while or until a camera body fails.