R-D1 only with 6 MP ... enough???

[zetablues]

YES! ... for "domestic use"
2 shots (ISO 400)

First: Epson R-D1 with Zeiss Biogon 2/35 ZM (Crop at 100% view)
Second: Nikon COOLPIX P6000 with 13,4 MP (crop at 66,6% view)

Regards

 

[Uwe_Nds]

Different focus points.
So, not really comparable.

Cheers,
Uwe

 

[noimmunity]

the R-D1 photo is more pleasing to my eyes.
Don't think! Just feel!

 

[notturtle]

both uploads are of such poor quality that it is a waste of time trying to compare them.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I don't guess I understand the point of the thread? I made some great photos with my old 3mp Canon D30, but I wouldn't want to go back to that camera again.

 

[zetablues]

No, Uwe, the focus was on the cactus at both (tried it ).
However, generally the resolution of the R-D1 seems to be not much behind IMO (without much artifacts and smearing, which reduce the resolution of the P6000 pic).
Cheers

 

[zetablues]

both uploads are of such poor quality that it is a waste of time trying to compare them.

those are tiny magnified crops

 

[zetablues]

I don't guess I understand the point of the thread? I made some great photos with my old 3mp Canon D30, but I wouldn't want to go back to that camera again.

exactly, 3 MP are too little (cower and away )

 

[MCTuomey]

wouldn't it be better to do some print comparisons rather than crops if you really want to discern the difference? i realized doing so would be more expensive than just working with images on a monitor, but you'd be much more certain of your conclusion.

at any rate, i was a short-term user of the R-D1 so my print experience with its files is limited. depending on the printer and your crop, the R-D1 natively supports up to 8x12. i have done a little up-rezzing and feel that 16x20, depending on the subject, wasn't out of its reach. but the sweet spot is probably 8X10 to 8x12.

by the way, i've seen 16x20 landscape prints from the D30 that were really nice. something about that camera's files supported heavy up-rezzing really well.