All pixels are not the same

[Mike McCarty]

The following is excerpted from this article.

Keep in mind that the Canon EOS-1D, a 4.1 megapixel SLR, has pixels that are 12 times larger than the pixels on Canon's own 4MP consumer camera, the G2. For a variety of reasons this makes a huge difference in image quality, but is not something that camera store salesman will mention. (They probably don't even know this themselves.)

[Garth Herrick]

Mike,

You are right. That's why I suggested (in my Introduce Yourself thread) comparing a Nikon D70 SLR at 6 megapixels with any of the new smaller 8 megapixel cameras. The pixels are so much bigger in the D70 that ISO 1600 looks much cleaner and less noisy than ISO 400 on the 8 megapixel cameras. That's one reason for bigger pixels.

[Geary Wootten]

This is great you guys. I'm still shopping for my first digital. My old favorite film camera of choice has been my "used to be trusty" Canon A1. It's an ol' 1978 body....basically the same as an AE "Program" w/ a couple more bells and whistles.

At any rate, this is so enlightening about the "big pixel/small pixel" thing. I had in my own ignorant head that BIGGER pixels meant a WORSE image. What the heck? Please explain, for my ignorance is only outmatched by my laziness to look up the answer on the internet.

I was looking at the new Rebel Digital as a strong contender. I'm really sporadic about what to get.

Gear

[Mike McCarty]

Geary,

I don't want to come down too strongly on one camera over another, but I would offer the following links which have had some sway on my thinking of late.

Comparison between the Nikon D70, Nikon D100, Canon Digial Rebel

Ken Rockwell review

I used to have an A1 and loved it. The good thing about the old film cameras is that the film they shot was always state of the art.

Personally, I try not to get too deep into the technical stuff. My MO has always been to do a flurry of investigation every decade or so and then read a few pages of the manual and get on with it. As with any type of technology, he who buys last wins.

[Geary Wootten]

G'mornin Mike,

Back to camera shopping this fine day.

I'm really liking the D-70.........today. <sigh> Lordy I hate fluctuating. However, my fluctuation is now in the range of the ONLY two contenders in this "under a thou" ring. But, for the bucks mentioned, I think the Nikon is SO strong. I mean the ability to have RAW+Jpeg at the same time, even less "shutter lag" than the D100, 1/8000 th shutter speed (over Canon's 1/4000), and the fact that it's got a stainless steel chasis w/graphite wrapped around it makes it pretty hard to not seriously consider the investment. I know, it is a few bucks more than the Canon.....but..... I guess it's especially hard for me to choose, since I've never owned any auto focus lenses. So....all of this will be a MAJOR step up for me.

Any further thoughts from your snooping around this one?

Thanks,
Gear

[Mike McCarty]

One other thing which seems to be a quantum leap is that the D70's flash will sync at 1/500 of a second compared to the D100 at 1/180. The quickest I have seen historically have been 1/250, and the majority at 1/125.

I don't know for sure what this will do for me since I try and swear off flash, but, maybe this very quick flash sync will open up other possibilities. I'll have to read the manual I suppose, I hate that.

Of course to get one you'll have to go on someone's wait list.

[Jean Kelly]

Okay, I'm trying to figure out what size pixel I have (coolpix 5400) and am now totally confused. I've read the articles referenced and gone to dpreview for more info on my camera and still don't really know what I have. I even read the book, help!

Jean

[Garth Herrick]

Originally Posted by Geary Wootten

G'mornin Mike,

Back to camera shopping this fine day.

I'm really liking the D-70.........today. <sigh> Lordy I hate fluxuating. However, my fluxuation is now in the range of the ONLY two contender in this "under a thou" ring. But, for the bucks mentioned, I think the Nikon is SO strong. I mean the ability to have RAW+Jpeg at the same time, even less "shutter lag" than the D100, 1/8000 th shutter (over Canon's 1/4000), and the fact that it's got a stainless steel chasis w/graphite wrapped around it makes it pretty hard to not seriously consider the investment. I know, it is a few bucks more than the Canon.....but..... I guess it's especially hard for me to choose, since I've never owned any auto focus lenses. So....all of this will be a MAJOR step up for me.

Any further thoughts from your snooping around this one?

Thanks,
Gear

Geary, I'll be so jealous of you if you get the D70. I love my D100, it's one of the best investments I've ever made. 50,000 pictures in a year and a half, and I'm still learning new ways to use it. A main reason I got it was the incredible absence of shutter lag. I have NEVER detected any!

At half the price a D100 was, and so many upgrades and improvements -go for it!

Garth

[Linda Nelson]

I can't afford it myself, but my dad's Olympus E1 is so awesome, I use it instead of my own E20, which is just the version older. The best part of the E1 is that it can take 12 - TWELVE! - continous shots before having to stop to put them into memory, and usually it has already put half into memory before you're done shooting the 12, so you can actually shot 15 or so shots in rapid succession. It's just great for capturing the right expression and keeping the situation relaxed.

Digital rocks.

[Mike McCarty]

Jean,

You might try the Nikon home page .

Linda,

I've held the Olympus E-1 in my hands and it is a serious piece of machinery. It has a lot of heft and doesn't feel plastic and light like some of the new cameras. However, I think it's going to have a hard time competing from this point on because it's price is $1799 body only.

The new competition D-SLR's with comparable features, like the Nikon D70 is $999 body only. And the Digital Rebel by Canon is $999 with a lens. The Nikon also comes optionally as a kit that includes a very fine zoom lens for a total of $1299.

This stuff is always in a constant state of flux.