Quote:
Originally Posted by scollins
One thing I think your pictures illustrate is that more MPs don't necessarily make for better pictures. The D2SH is a 4MP DX sensor, and look at those shots! Very nice.
If I'm doing my math right, you are using a 400mm prime with a 1.4x tele on a 1.5 sensor, so that is an "equivalent" to 840mm, yes?
|
Hi Scott,
Correct, my effective focal length in these shots is 840mm/F4.0
That's right. I use 4MP. I have two Nikon D2HS bodies. As you know it's not about mega pixels.
But some people keep going on about getting the highest M/P D-SLR body. This way of thinking is largely driven by consumer advertising campaigns.
The majority of the buying public believe if they just buy the best body a camera manufacturer makes then that is where it stops. But that's not where it stops. That's in fact just where it all starts.
D-SLR bodies are cheap compared to the cost of the ultra fast lenses you need to make your images look like the ones you see in the magazines. This goes especially for sports images.
Most Pro's know the client will never know or care what camera took the image they are paying for.
Almost everyone on here has a D-SLR with more mega pixels than me, so I guess they should all be getting better images right....
I could get a Nikon D3 and have used one before but it does not suit my purpose and I don't like the AF point layout.
For my printing requirement that is up to 20"x30", the D2HS is more than enough. If you saw the printed quality at this size you would be amazed.
I have found it is not the number of pixels but the quality of the pixels that matters. It's like saying all 8 cylinder engines are superior to 6 cylinder engines. We all know that is not true.