5 ms·

except the sensor isn't a CCD, and your argument is complete nonsense. Of course a 5D mkIII is a better camera, of course it will produce better results, but my

by hnriot 13y ago

except the sensor isn't a CCD, and your argument is complete nonsense. Of course a 5D mkIII is a better camera, of course it will produce better results, but my point was that if you're going to down sample, why not save yourself a boat load of cash and just use a Rebel. I guarantee you'd never see or know the difference. It's not until you make a large print that the difference would be apparent, and since you've stupidly downsampled you've lost that advantage. You might want to read this, it will help you understand how sensors work. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.htm http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-sensors.ht...

theflyingkiwi42 13y ago
Actually, faster focusing, better lenses (and thus better bokeh) do make a difference. I recently compared a Nikon D3200, D5200, D7100 and a D700, all using the same (or close to same) lower megapixels count of around 10. The higher end cameras made a huge difference in quality. The lower end also could not support higher end flashes. I own a proofing company with thousands of users, and ran a print lab for years. You don't need more than 200PPI for larger prints and thus can save a lot. In fact, considering most people order prints 11x14 and smaller, having the larger megapixels actually hurt quality because the printers (Fuji, Durst, etc.) downsample the files and you lose sharpness if you send them the large file (which most photographers do). For my wedding shooting, I never need a larger file than 12 megapixels as that's large enough for a 30x40 at 300 dpi. I prefer to save the hard drive space.
- hnriot 13y ago
  of course better cameras make better photos, that was never in question, and the 5D mkIII is one of the best out there. My point was that shooting that wonderful camera in 5mp mode is stupid. "The higher end cameras made a huge difference in quality" - even when you down-sampled them to 5mp? And I think you're being ridiculous when you say "huge". There will be more intra-shot difference in quality than between any two modern DSLRs. The light will make far more difference to whatever it is you think is quality. For weddings of course you don't need much. That was my point really. You do realize right that you can put those same better lenses on the entry level canon right? You, and everyone else, it seems, misunderstood. My point was that down-sampling to 5mp a canon 5dMkIII's images is a waste of that camera, and any entry level DSLR will produce indistinguishable images at that down-sampled level. Also the standard for lab work is 300PPI, not 200, so I am not sure if I lend very much credibility to your comment.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by hnriot 13y ago

theflyingkiwi42 13y ago

Actually, faster focusing, better lenses (and thus better bokeh) do make a difference. I recently compared a Nikon D3200, D5200, D7100 and a D700, all using the same (or close to same) lower megapixels count of around 10. The higher end cameras made a huge difference in quality. The lower end also could not support higher end flashes. I own a proofing company with thousands of users, and ran a print lab for years. You don't need more than 200PPI for larger prints and thus can save a lot. In fact, considering most people order prints 11x14 and smaller, having the larger megapixels actually hurt quality because the printers (Fuji, Durst, etc.) downsample the files and you lose sharpness if you send them the large file (which most photographers do). For my wedding shooting, I never need a larger file than 12 megapixels as that's large enough for a 30x40 at 300 dpi. I prefer to save the hard drive space.

hnriot 13y ago
of course better cameras make better photos, that was never in question, and the 5D mkIII is one of the best out there. My point was that shooting that wonderful camera in 5mp mode is stupid. "The higher end cameras made a huge difference in quality" - even when you down-sampled them to 5mp? And I think you're being ridiculous when you say "huge". There will be more intra-shot difference in quality than between any two modern DSLRs. The light will make far more difference to whatever it is you think is quality. For weddings of course you don't need much. That was my point really. You do realize right that you can put those same better lenses on the entry level canon right? You, and everyone else, it seems, misunderstood. My point was that down-sampling to 5mp a canon 5dMkIII's images is a waste of that camera, and any entry level DSLR will produce indistinguishable images at that down-sampled level. Also the standard for lab work is 300PPI, not 200, so I am not sure if I lend very much credibility to your comment.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]