• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

How important is the amount of megapixels in a digital SLR Camera?

Mugz

Mugz

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
15,449
Location
You fucking know, I post it enough
I've been looking at some DSLRs and quite like the look of the D70s for a beginners camera, the megapixel amount is only 6.1MP though when most DSLRs are at least 10MP.

I watched a DVD about photography earlier and they seemed to say it is more about mastering the controls and learning more about exposure and composition than the amount of megapixels available to you.

What are peoples thoughts here?

Would 6.1MP be sufficient for a beginner looking to get into photography with more than a click and shoot camera? Or would you recommend forking out some more and getting a camera with more megapixels. I don't really want to spend much considering I am just starting out but I don't really want to have a crap camera that I can't do much with.

Thanks,

Mugz
 
What are you going to use the photos for? If you plan on printing any of the photos you take at a large scale (I'm talking bigger than something you could print at home) then I would opt for something with larger mega-pixels. If you're only going to be using the photos on your computer, the mega-pixels aren't as important and I would consider other qualities above that. I've used the Nikon D70's and they are nice and easy to use as well.
 
I am in no way a camera snob but I would strongly advise buying a Nikon D90 as opposed to a D70! 6.1 is fine but for a few hundred bucks more you can get a serious piece of kit instead of something you buy only to want to upgrade (ASAP). Look at some of the bundles that are on offer and you could possibly pick up a bundle (Camera / mid range lens) for the same price of a bog standard D70!
 
I didn't know that one could get a camera with only 6.something MP anymore. Still, unless you're planning on blowing the image up past 8x10", anything above 5 MP will be pretty well the same for all but a pro's eyes. The key things to look into for a camera these days are the quality of the optics, the fidelity of the sensor (as well as the size, but that's mostly a concern for pro-level cameras) and the firmware.

I've heard great things about the D90. I have the D5000, and am pretty happy with it. Need a few more lenses so that I can properly start doing what I'd really like to, but even with the kit lens it takes a decent photo. Video quality is a bit lackluster, but I don't really use it for that.
 
I had a look at this and you can buy aon the D90 for 1000$. A great book to read is 'Digital Photography for Dummies' give you some great basic hints at getting started.
 
Last edited:
I'm with mu; I'd worry about other features a camera does or doesn't have rather than megapixels. My own camera goes up to 10 MP, but I keep it at 2 MP, which I find is a decent trade-off between quality and manageable file size.

Then again, if you're a pro and demand the highest image quality...
 
Hey BearLove - NO SOURCING!. jk.

I shot a bunch of photos of Machu Pichu at like 6.2mp in Raw and I can't even begin to blow them up all the way.

and I will see your Nikon D90, and raise you a.... Konica FT-1. huh?

101418.jpg
 
hmmm yeah, I have looked at a few D70s and even some D80s on ebay and have found them to be at least two hundred pounds cheaper than the D90s. I am assuming this is because of the megapixel price increase. Although as I have heard many times before, unless you want your picture on the side of a building 6 megapixels is fine.

I am only planning on using it for printing small photos and displaying on my computer so big amounts of megapixels are not the main thing that is on my mind. I am really just hoping to get a camera that I can practice with the aperture and shutter speed and composition with, so I think that maybe after looking on ebay the D80 looks best for the price as a D90 costs about 600 pounds with the lenses whereas a D70 would be nearer 200 and a D80 300.

I'm just a beginner with no experience so I don't really want to be forking out half of my monthly salary on a camera that might turn out to just be a fad interest rather than a genuine interest. I'm pretty sure it is going to be a genuine interest, but I can still play a whole lot I think with a D70 or D80 and not spend a fortune (in my world).
 
imo buy a film SLR.

the bodies are cheap as hell (or I was given my Konica by my girlfriends parents) and any money you spend on lenses is not money lost because you just move them to your dslr when you get one. My DSLR is not like a D90 which is a burly camera, but it does fine for me. Good lenses go a long ways. And knowing how to meter, set, and compose a photo is something that is best learned in film.

I tend to use my digital camera for every day shit, but when I want the crispest possible photos, i shoot it in film, too, and usually end up using those pictures more frequently for slower but higher quality work like photos of buildings for my portfolio, memories, etc. I use the dslr for business because it's quick, clean, generic, and professional. If you are doing this for pleasure, I find film way more satisfying. Something to ponder, especially because it is so cheap to start.
 
I started with a used D40 (and am still using it) and have been very happy with it....and it's 6.1 MP. And I picked it up offa CL with the kit lens for $350 with only about 11k clicks on the shutter I believe. And while being considered a 'non-professional' camera it isn't properly rated, most are said to be good till at least 80k-100k clicks or even beyond. So I feel like I got a pretty good deal. Only downside is the D40 doesnt have AF in the body so it will limit your lens options a bit. Other than that its a highly regarded backup among professionals, one of the better low light cameras out there, and just a solid and lightweight DSLR imho. A lotta people will want to rule it out because of the AF caveat, but it's been a great entry-level DSLR for me.
 
muvolution said:
megapixels don't mean shit.
Click to expand...
eh? 8(

so... how do those 640 x 480 images or (320 x 240 video clips) from your very first digital camera look when printed or displayed on your 50" television or projector?

what a ridiculous thing to say. of course megapixels are important. (amongst other things.)

LOL at advising a photography noob to just buy a film SLR. the cost of processing film in the UK would overtake the cost of the kit in about 3 months.
 
Mugz said:
hmmm yeah, I have looked at a few D70s and even some D80s on ebay and have found them to be at least two hundred pounds cheaper than the D90s. I am assuming this is because of the megapixel price increase. Although as I have heard many times before, unless you want your picture on the side of a building 6 megapixels is fine.

I am only planning on using it for printing small photos and displaying on my computer so big amounts of megapixels are not the main thing that is on my mind. I am really just hoping to get a camera that I can practice with the aperture and shutter speed and composition with, so I think that maybe after looking on ebay the D80 looks best for the price as a D90 costs about 600 pounds with the lenses whereas a D70 would be nearer 200 and a D80 300.

I'm just a beginner with no experience so I don't really want to be forking out half of my monthly salary on a camera that might turn out to just be a fad interest rather than a genuine interest. I'm pretty sure it is going to be a genuine interest, but I can still play a whole lot I think with a D70 or D80 and not spend a fortune (in my world).
Click to expand...

The D70 has better shutter speed than the D80 so if that is more important to you then its the better choice!

May I suggest if your looking at the popular UK auction site - check out buying just the body and a separate lens.

I could see the body (new) for 129£ and a really nice 70 - 300mm lens for 80£.

Good Luck
 
6.1 MP is crap in my mind for any decent camera. I heard the iPhone 5, which isn't even a DSLR will get itself 10 MP.

I'm probably gonna get one and it's probably gonna be at least 20 MP. Not that MP are the be all and end all, but they are important because the higher than number the more detail can be preserved when you do post-procession or resizing for various mediums.

6.1 is quite low to that end imho for any serious person interested in photography.
 
Mugz said:
a beginner looking to get into photography with more than a click and shoot camera?
Click to expand...

btw im wondering why you want more than a PnS camera ?
now a days you can get top of the line compacts that can get better result than a dslr if you dont invest in good lense and stay in optimal condition (based on threads ive read in that forum ive linked too)

if you care about taking picture of moving subject or at low light or care about shallow depth of field then yeah go for a bigger sensor (which now a day can also be found in small body camera, cuz they ditch the mirror, be it a MFT or APS-C sensor)

i think you should not judge a camera by its size or its megapixel (as long as you got about 3mp) or its prize or even what people say about it
judge a camera by the picture it takes, you can find lots of those on flickr or elsewhere
go for what please your eyes and then consider the rest like price, size, ergonomics...

if you go with dslr you need to invest in good lenses and thats expensive and then you also need a bag to carry those lenses and that can be a pain in the ass
point and shoot are simple and can be a lot more convenient, and it doesnt mean you cant go in depth with them and it doesnt mean you cant get similar result with them either (depending on your needs)

as some people say : a good camera is a camera you have on you
and whats the point of photography if it aint fun anymore (unless its your job)
the technology is there so why go for a dslr if you can get good pic out of something cheaper (since you dont buy extra lenses) and a lot more convenient due to size (and they are silent too, i fucking hate the clicking sound from dslr)

and im saying that because that applied to me, i dont need good picture to be better some of the time, once you have a camera that can take good picture the fun for me is how you use it, what you can do instead of what the camera can do
but thats more of a artistic approach than a professional one, i dont want to end up taking picture at wedding....
ive got a guitar and its about the music not the sound, because the sound is good, its a good guitar, i could get a better one but i really dont need too because post a certain point its about you not the gear, most people buy into gear lust because we live into a consumer whore culture so they might say you need more more more if you want to be serious about it
and thats the case if you want to be a professional about it
but if its a hobby for the sake of having fun and getting good result my point is that a top of the line camera like a canon s100, panasonic lx5, olympus xz1, samsung tl500 are all good choice specially if you are in a situation where you dont even know how many megapixels you should need
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top