DSLR + Big Lens vs a Bridge Camera (photoshop, optical zoom, shots)

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by chet everett

The combination of image rendering and capture is not complete unless you also factor in the effective view / magnification. My iPhone has 1136 x 640 pixel for a total of 727,040 pixels -- well under even a full megapixel. My HDTV on the wall as 1920X1080 pixels for a total of 2,073,600 but since those 2MP are spread over 58" diagonally vs about 4" for the phone the pixel density is far higher on the phone. That phone is often well under 12" from my face too, whereas if sit any close than about 10' from the HDTV I'd get a headache.

Pixel density is about the output display and impacts how "crisp" the image looks. Not sure what that has to do with how much detail is captured in the input data. If you're capturing an image of a vertical stick with 1,080 individual marks, with 1920x1080 pixels you'll capture each mark individually (assuming you fill the frame); if you capture with 1136x640 pixels, then those 1,080 marks on the stick will be mashed together into 640 lines (because it can only capture 640 distinct "blocks"). Result = lost detail at 640. How crisp the output looks on what kind of display is irrelevant to the level of detail actually present in the captured image.

[Poncho_NM]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I am aware that not all pixels are equal, which is why I said...

And that page explains in easy to understand terms why they are not equal. But it did not get down to the age old argument of whose sensor is really better, which is better the type, CCD or CMOS, color-separation methods Bayer filter, Foveon X3 sensor, 3CCD...





So to your original question:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I shoot the same scene (forget zooming, cropping, magnifying) with more and less pixels, won't more pixels = more detail?

You are wrong. More pixels do not always equal more detail...

[mathjak107]

yep more pixels do not always mean more detail.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Poncho_NM

You are wrong. More pixels do not always equal more detail...

My bad in not stating "all else being equal" in my first sentence, but clarified when I reiterated at the end of the same post (I incorrectly assumed that since we're talking about pixels and their ability/inability to capture detail, other variables (e.g. noise) were meant to be constant). So my point still stands -- ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL (theoretically), more pixels will capture more detail. Practically speaking, I have not seen a comparison of the same sensor with different megapixels to determine whether the increased noise from higher megapixels offsets the increased detail from higher megapixels -- I haven't seen samples of how the increased detail and increased noise play against each other.

From that same page you linked to:

Originally Posted by Cambridge in Colour

The more pixels your image contains, the more detail it has the ability to describe

The article ends with saying that while packing more pixels on the same sensor increases noise, the increased noise is usually offset by the finer spacing of that noise.

[Tarzanman]

Sensor is only one piece of the puzzle. No bridge camera with a non-replaceable zoom lens will be able to match the sharp image that even a cheap fixed 50mm lens can achieve with correct focus.

There is some misinformation on this thread.... more pixels do not always capture more detail. See diffraction limits/airy disks for more information, or get thee to a photography forum.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

Sensor is only one piece of the puzzle. No bridge camera with a non-replaceable zoom lens will be able to match the sharp image that even a cheap fixed 50mm lens can achieve with correct focus.

There is some misinformation on this thread.... more pixels do not always capture more detail. See diffraction limits/airy disks for more information, or get thee to a photography forum.

Well, define detail. Then we will look into whether higher resolution can help or not. For that matter what would be a good reason(s) for you to choose 16mp over 8mp camera?

[mathjak107]

cropping and printing. my zoo photos shot with the 36mp d800 have to be cropped so much to fill the frame I end up with 5mp files or even smaller sometimes..
the more pixels you start with the more you can crop without ill effects.

but there are other factors involved too like sensor size, pixel density etc.



Megapixels vs. Print Size – How Big Can You Print? | Digital Photography live

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

cropping and printing. my zoo photos shot with the 36mp d800 have to be cropped so much to fill the frame I end up with 5mp files or even smaller sometimes..
the more pixels you start with the more you can crop without ill effects.

but there are other factors involved too like sensor size, pixel density etc.



Megapixels vs. Print Size – How Big Can You Print? | Digital Photography live

Cropping is an excellent example of how higher resolution comes to the rescue... You get still get the details you would get pixelation for with lower resolution.

[Jesse69]

Originally Posted by Tarzanman

Sensor is only one piece of the puzzle. No bridge camera with a non-replaceable zoom lens will be able to match the sharp image that even a cheap fixed 50mm lens can achieve with correct focus.

There is some misinformation on this thread.... more pixels do not always capture more detail. See diffraction limits/airy disks for more information, or get thee to a photography forum.

I think my 50x zoom camera is a good alternative to a DSLR with a 300mm lens. Check out this posterized photo at wide angle:



Now check out this 50X zoom all hand held in sunlight:



I might keep my Sony DSC HX300 as my main camera until I can afford a $2800 dslr + lenses. Meanwhile I'll learn all I can on my bridge camera.

[mathjak107]

the above are no better or worse than my point and shoot. I am not sure just what it is you want us to see.