6mp?

C

carlito

Member
Local time
9:15 AM
Joined
Mar 9, 2009
Messages
15
I'm researching the R-D1(s) and am curious. How does everyone feel about 6 megapixels? Is that enough? How large can you print?
 
i don't print for sales, just for my walls. i prefer small prints, i use a pro lab, and normally get 5x7 with the occasional 8x10.
i hang them gallery style throughout my house.

6mp seems to work fine for me.
 
one of my other cameras is 4.1 mpx, and i've made posters from its files. depends on what you shoot, whether you'll up-rez (and how), and on your standards.

axiom, nice avatar!
 
Most times, I wish my digital cameras were "only" 6MP. I have never printed anything more than A2 in size.

For my 35mm negatives, I scan them at 2400 dpi, which surprisingly turns out to be just over 3000 x 2000 pixels in dimension :)
 
Last edited:
I only recently sold an RD-1 and a Nikon D100, which has the same sensor. Used with a reasonable level of skill, both cameras are more than capable of making exceptional files. The only lick on the Epson IMO is that the RF calibration is somewhat fragile. Otherwise it's a very, very useful and usable camera today.
 
My Panasonic LC1 produces some very lovely images with, I think, a unique signature. I don't print any larger than 8x10 with these files and they are great.

Best regards,
Bob
 
My DSLR does OK to 8" by 10" with only 6 megapixels. I've seen results from the RD-1, and I'd buy one if I had the chance and the money at the same time.
 
from 6mp files I have printed 16x24 images and gotten very sharp images by using Alien Skin Blow Up.
 
I can explain the 300 dpi better than that website.

300 dots per inch refers to the screen used on printing presses. Unless you are printing 100% and leaving pure white, you have to use a dot screen to simulate gray. The finer the dot screen the finer the gradation will appear to the eye. When you print in colour the screens have to have different patterns so that the 4 basic colours (cyan, magenta, yellow and black or often called CMYK) can occur next to each other an blend in the eye to make millions of variations.

Likely, there is a limit to how much gradation the eye can distinguish. There is definitely a difference between printers and methods. A colour laser printer will not render at the sharp resolution that you will acheive with a four-colour printing press on high quality paper.

Printing is a balance of variables.

Printers us a 150 dpi screen when printing on newsprint because the paper is so absorbent they bleed and can not render a finer screen. Photos are often adjusted for printing on newsprint so that the shadows do not block-up. Everything between 100% and 90% is often lost unless adjusted for.

300 dpi is the traditionally the finest screen for four colour printing on suitable paper. Finer screens often blocked-up with ink. You can definitely see the different in an off-set printing process between 150 dpi and 300 dpi.

There have been advancements in printing processes. There is a finer screen now that is mostly used for reproduction in artwork books. I think it is either 400 dpi or 500 dpi. They are printing with spot colours that either reproduce certain colours (particularly and orange that yellow and magenta can not reproduce but also some reds and blues). As you know, you can also print black and white with light greys to better represent the tonal range than the screen of dots can.

Now, most people are not using off-set presses. There are colour laser prints, dye-sublimation prints (a film is used with heat bonding for each CMYK colour), and the very common injet printer. Inkjet is a spray process and is acheiving remarkable sharpness these days.

I'm not an expert in these technologies, but my inkjet printer instructions recommend 300 dpi. In general I think photoshop and it's algorithms are better at expanding a low res into a higher res. Photoshop uses a better process to expand pictures rather than just blending neighbouring pixels.

Now for cameras. Remember, megapixel is not the same as megabyte and is not the same as dpi.

I notice a difference between an 8mp file take with my Canon 20D with a good lens and a 8mp point and shoot. As well, now that I have a medium format camera, if I scan a 6x6 negative at equivalent size and I notice a difference. The larger camera seem to be capturing more information: tones, edge contrast, colour depth, sharpness. An epson RD-1 photo taken and resized as an 12 x 18 file will look different than one from a Canon 5D at the same size. I find them a little more flat and a little soft. However, those are not necessarily bad qualities.

Is it enough "quality"? This is the important question and depends on who is judging. If you want to sell your prints to Getty images. Then, no, it's not on their list of acceptable camera. However, RD-1 does a beautiful job of taking pictures and makes a very film-like grain. From an artistic stand-point it can produce satisfactory enlargements. Lomos and Holgas and 50 year old flare prone lenses are capable of taking wonderful images. I'd take a photo from Eugene Smith taken on an RD-1 any day over one from my neighbour with a digital hasselblad.

I understand your nerves about buying a camera that is now out-classed in megapixels by most point and shoot cameras, and an M8 will blast the thing away in terms of quality. Buy it for other reasons, cheaper than an M8 but still lets you get the RF experience and M-mount lenses. Try it for while and sell it if you don't like the results. You can do this with very little loss---the beauty of the used market. Subscribe to Reid's reviews to hear all the thoughtful and good things he has to say about the RD-1. Before the M8, he used to use the RD-1 in conjunction with his 5D for weddings.

Good luck and good light!
 
Last edited:
After using a Panasonic DMC-L1 for a few months, I am convinced that large pixel sensors just aren't necessary. The L1's sensor is just 7.4 megapixels, low by today's standards. But I can print images that look great in prints as large as 13x19 in. So for my purposes, I have decided not to include the number of pixels as an important metric in buying gear. I just want to know image quality.
 
@back alley...I would attribute it to a bigger sensor as well as resolution. Perhaps the thinner filter over the sensor helps too.

But I have seen that M8 vs RD-1 thread and don't want to go there...Let's just say the M8 has more of a medium format fingerprint and captures more information. Which is better is more of a religious conversation ;)
 
Last edited:
sirius said:
@back alley...I would attribute it to a bigger sensor as well as resolution. Perhaps the thinner filter over the sensor helps too.

But I have seen that M8 vs RD-1 thread and don't want to go there...Let's just say the M8 has more of a medium format fingerprint and captures more information. Which is better is more of a religious conversation ;)
Click to expand...

not looking to go there either.


i was curious because we were talking about megapixels and wondered if the extra 4 made much of a difference.
i am thoroughly satisfied with my rd1 and happy i managed to get 2 of them. that being said i would like to try an m8 someday and see what i might see in terms of differences.
truth be told if/when i win a lotto, i will probably head to the local pro shop and buy the one they have on display.

joe
 
No joke! The RD-1 is really a fun camera to use and rivals my Leica-M-joy, almost. :p
 
Last edited:
I've had prints taken with my K100D (6mp) blown up to 10 feet (about 3+ meters?). Some were even extreme crops, effectively making them about 2-3mp I reckon, but still held well being printed that size. I'm trying to look for the shots I took of those posters I did... but to answer the original question, yeah, 6mp is enough...(which was why I was confident getting an RD-1 just a couple of months ago, knowing full well that 6mp can handle most of what I do).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom