Would you buy a 6MP DSLR...

[Horatio]

now that Adobe Camera Raw can enhance resolution X2?

 

[Chan Tran]

I think millions of 6MP cameras were sold. So I thought they should be OK no? But surely I won't buy one thinking Adobe software will make it equals to 12MP.

 

[Horatio]

In terms of screen presentation I doubt it would matter, but would it not help making decent size prints?

 

[Down Under]

No. I waited until Nikon produced the D90 before I fell (literally) into the digital world. The D90 I bought in 2010 is still in use by my partner as a happy-snapper and gives surprisingly excellent color images of our wanderings and the cats at home.

I then bought two D700s and now have a D800. I use the latter on reduced image quality (24 MP) as it is more than enough for me. The D700s and RAW give me all the pixel power I usually need.

Using ancient cameras seems pointless at a time when D90s and their equivalent are so cheap on the secondhand market.

If I was restricted to 6 MP I would probably wear out the sharpen facility in my post processing software in a short time.

One thing I have noticed about many low MP posters is how much sharpening they do to their images. Either they do not know any better and too often oversharpen, or their images are too soft to start with. Whichever, this is rarely discussed, but it is most definitely an important factor in low-level digital photography.

 

[nickandre]

No. I waited until Nikon produced the D90 before I fell (literally) into the digital world. The D90 I bought in 2010 is still in use by my partner as a happy-snapper and gives surprisingly excellent color images of our wanderings and the cats at home.

I then bought two D700s and now have a D800. I use the latter on reduced image quality (24 MP) as it is more than enough for me.

If I was restricted to 6 MP I would probably wear out the sharpen facility in my post processing software in a short time.

One thing I have noticed about many low MP posters is how much sharpening they do to their images. Either they do not know any better and too often oversharpen, or their images are too soft to start with. Whichever, this is rarely discussed, but it is most definitely an important factor in low-level digital photography.

I still have my D90. Had it converted to infrared

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have an iPhone 7 so I have to ask "Why?"

 

[DonW]

I have an old D70s. The cmos sensor produces gorgeous colours and rendering. I love using it for flowers and portraits.

The 11x14 prints I've made from its RAW files are flawless. Of course using anything higher than base speed introduces noise.

I was thinking of trying the new PS AI enlarging on a few old files to see how they look.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

In terms of screen presentation I doubt it would matter, but would it not help making decent size prints?

It is 3000 by 2000 pixels. Don't know what means decent size prints for American region. I save all of my pictures as 2800 pixels at long side and have zero issues to print on Letter size. I don't print larger, don't own mansion sized home .

 

[Adrian Bacon]

now that Adobe Camera Raw can enhance resolution X2?

No. Even with the bigger sensel wells, it's sufficiently old enough that it's DR and noise levels were surpassed a long time ago. Also, many DSLRs from that era were only 10 or 12 bit ADCs instead of the 14-16 bits that are standard today.

 

[mshchem]

I have a Nikon Coolpix 990. 3.34 mp sensor. New they sold for 1300 USD. That camera is SLOW. but I have made beautiful 5x7 prints, even 8x10s

 

[Adrian Bacon]

It is 3000 by 2000 pixels. Don't know what means decent size prints for American region. I save all of my pictures as 2800 pixels at long side and have zero issues to print on Letter size. I don't print larger, don't own mansion sized home .

I generally output even smaller. I have mirrorless cameras in the 20-45MP range and my standard deliverable to most clients is 2048 pixels on the long side. When shooting with my 45MP camera, I turn off all the sharpening as once you scale down, you don't need it. It's razor sharp. The 45MP camera is 8192 pixels on the long side natively, so going down to 2048 pixels on the long side is a pretty significant downscale. All that being said, even the 20MP files look really sharp at 2048 pixels across the long side. It's plenty of resolution to display on a computer/phone, and for prints, at 240ppi, it's 8.5 inches. You could print at a lower resolution to get a bigger print and not really notice a difference.

At some point when 4K displays are the norm, I'll start delivering files that are native to that display resolution, but that's still a ways off, and by then, we'll be up at the 100+ MP mark for cameras.

 

[MattKing]

No, but if I had one already, I probably would make sure that I kept it in working order.
There are lots of things that it would be fine for, and the new software options do make its output useful in a few more instances.
I have a 12 x 18 print on the wall that came from a Canon 10D. That size of print strains the capabilities of that camera's sensor, but this particular image does work.

 

[reddesert]

A 6 mp DSLR is way better than a 6 mp compact camera, for a variety of reasons (less noise, doesn't strain the resolving power of the lens+sensor combo, etc). Whether it is "good enough" for taking the photos you want, depends on what you want to do with it. I take all image enhancement software claims with a grain of salt.

I have a Nikon D70 and use it periodically because even unconverted, it has just enough IR sensitivity to take an image through an IR filter with an exposure of ~ 0.5 - 1 sec in daytime - enough that I can get good results from just resting the camera on a rock or whatever and using the self timer to fire the shutter. Later DSLRs have stronger IR-blocking filters and this doesn't work.

 

[DWThomas]

Today, no. But as mentioned upthread, a lot depends on what you're doing with the results. Right behind where I am sitting is a poster print (almost 18x24 inches, inkjet from Staples) made from a shot of a very contorted tree in an arboretum near me, taken with a 4 megapixel Canon A80 point&shoot and upsized in PhotoShop Elements. At arm's length it's obviously not from a state of the art high resolution camera, but it comes off surprisingly well. The office supply store was offering the prints at some dirt cheap price at the time so I just went for one as an experiment.

As a hobbyist I have, and still occasionally use, a 10 Mpixel Canon EOS 40D. But a couple of years back I acquired a Canon EOS M5 24 Mpixel mirrorless with the 18-150mm kit lens for serious travel and use a 12 Mp Canon G15 for less serious travel. I also have the adapters to use my EF and EF-S, as well as FD lenses on the M5. (I usually also take my Yashica 124G and/or one of my folders, occasionally Bronica SQ-A gear, with a batch of film on such treks.)

 

[juan]

Do you need it? How cheap is it?

 

[Down Under]

I still have my D90. Had it converted to infrared

A good idea! Infrared could be fun here in Oz as our light is so harsh. Sunlight all the time. Rain is a historic notion in some parts of this bone dry country.

I have had the same thought as my partner feels the need for a new digisnapscamera to play with but doesn't want to wreck our D90. A friend has offered us one for A$50 (we will probably buy it this week). There was a shop in Australia that converted them but I haven't seen any adverts by them for a long time. I will look more into this.

Have you thought about starting a thread on your experiences with using your D90 as an infrared shooter? I am sure it would be very useful to some of us.

 

[grat]

My 8mp 30D still takes great photos-- but it's slower, lower resolution, fewer features, noisier and has far less storage than my 32.5mp 90D.

Having said that, there are a couple of great photos I took with the 30D that I'd love to upsample if the quality's there.

 

[Lee Rust]

I still have a 6mp Nikon D70 and an Epson R-D1...both of which date from 2004. They have plenty of megapixels for most casual photos, along with that nice CCD color rendition. The IR sensitivity can be a plus and I use an IR/UV lens filter when it could be a minus. The smallish LCD screens on the back are big enough to check a photo but not so big that they get in the way of hands and nose like with most newer digitals.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Samsung GXL1 with the Sony 6MP CCD sensor, very similar if not a clone of the Pentax istDL color is very good, not very fast, but for casual shooting it's fine. It along with a Pentax K2000 are my travel kit, light use AA batteries, and if at some point should if anything happens no tears.

 

[gone]

A 6 mp camera is going to make prints just as sharp as a 60 mp camera. They'll just be bigger files. I don't understand why anyone would think that something could make a 6 mp resolution into 12. If all you have is 6 to begin with.......this is the definition of magical thinking.

 

[Wallendo]

For viewing on a computer screen or snapshot sized photos, 6MP is adequate. I have a 4MP IR modified camera which takes decent images.

That being said, there is no reason to buy a 6MP camera when so many higher resolution cameras are available.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I'd want at least 8mb for my 4K TV. 12mb would be better to allow for some cropping.

 

[benveniste]

Given the current prices on cameras like the 10mp Nikon D200, no.

 

[Chan Tran]

now that Adobe Camera Raw can enhance resolution X2?

I would buy a 6MP camera but not because Adobe can enhance the resolution. I think that's just a gimmick. Now the 6MP camera I want is the Contax N digital. It's a 6MP full frame DSLR. Very rare.

 

[Horatio]

Well, I bought a FinePix S2 Pro (in excellent condition) to play with. Native resolution is 6MP, but the jpeg fine resolution is 12MP. Huh? It must be the Foveon sensor interpolation at work The jpegs actually look pretty good, depending upon lens choice. For my present needs I find being able to adjust jpegs in Camera Raw a better feature.