12.8 vs 8.2

[MALI]

I understand how 1DIIN is such a professional camera with lots 'n' lots of features and how it is difficult to compare it with 5D, which is also quite decent yet not in the pro-line. I read a lot about this comparison and more or less understand the choice is up to what you want to do with the camera. I have one more final question on that. How do you guys feel about the difference between these two cameras in terms of the megapixel count? At what point does this start to become an issue? Is more better and if yes, where and how and for what purpose? If one goes with the N, would he feel limited because of 8.2 mpxl? Thanks.

[Andy_T]

Mali,

the more important advantage of the 5D is the full frame sensor (like on the 1Ds or 1DsII). The sensor on the 1DII is smaller than a 24x36 mm film with a crop factor of 1.2, so your 20 mm lens will give you the same field of view as a 24 mm lens on film. The 20D and 350D have a crop factor of 1.6, so your 20 mm lens will only give you the width of a 32 mm lens on film. Might be good for tele work (you pay for a 200/2.8 lens and it 'behaves' like a 280/2.8 lens 8)), but not so much for wide angle.

As far as the MP are concerned, there are lots of working journalists who still use the 4 MP 1D to shoot magazine full page spreads. Unless you want to blow up your images really large, chances are you will not miss it much.

Best regards,
Andy

[reggie]

How do you guys feel about the difference between these two cameras in terms of the megapixel count? At what point does this start to become an issue? Is more better and if yes, where and how and for what purpose? If one goes with the N, would he feel limited because of 8.2 mpxl? Thanks.


The megapixel count equates to being able to print at 14.5 x 9.7 inches with the 5D and 11.7 x 7.7 inches with the 1D2 both at 300ppi.
That is not a great geal of difference at them sizes. Obviously, when you ramp up to a poster size or very large there is less "upsizing" to do with the 5D so once again, obviously, less destruction of the image caused by non existent added pixels.
I would think at normal viewing distances the difference is nothing more than very minimal if noticeable at all without unnecessarily close scrutiny.

Greg

[PaulB]

Not really fair to compare the 5D with a 1DMk2.
The two bodies are aimed at two completly different markets: FF v 1.3x; 3fps v 8.5fps; built like a 20D etc. v built like a tank/weathersealed; bolt on grip v integral etc. etc.
Now compare the 5D to the 1DsMk2 and the situation changes but still insn't clear-cut - both FF; 3fps v 4fps; build quality, grip etc.

Price is not the same (at least in the UK) so that comparison doesn't work.
The difference in the resolution isn't all that important in Mp terms either, it's the FF sensor that is the important bit against a !DMk2.
If you NEED FF on a budget buy the 5D, if you NEED speed and durability buy the 1DMk2 and if you NEED FF AND durability you buy the 1DsMk2.

[Hellashot]

The 1D 2N has the exact size pixel size as the 5D, so you can consider the 1D 2N being a crop of the 5D sensor, but it has more features, functions, and performance than the 5D.

[hickory]

....... How do you guys feel about the difference between these two cameras in terms of the megapixel count? At what point does this start to become an issue? Is more better and if yes, where and how and for what purpose? If one goes with the N, would he feel limited because of 8.2 mpxl? Thanks.

Ultimately the difference is in how you are going to view the final print. That should be where you are focusing your comparison. As has been stated for outdoor all weather photography extremes a 1D series anytime. Even in the studio shooting models I wouldn't feel like I was being short changed with a 1DMKII N or no N. But thats just me.

Megapixels, shmegapixels its the photographer that counts the most ;)

[Andy_T]

The megapixel count equates to being able to print at 14.5 x 9.7 inches with the 5D and 11.7 x 7.7 inches with the 1D2 both at 300ppi.


That limitation applies if you want to have a 300 ppi printed image.

I sincerely doubt that it would be possible to discern an image printed at 300 ppi from one printed at 150 ppi when viewed at normal distance without a loupe, considering that one pixel in print can have millions of different colours (48 bit colour depth in RAW, if I am not mistaken)

Best regards,
Andy

[reggie]

Yeah, Thanks AndyThaler, I know that but I'm not sure if the original poster knows that or even how much or what he knows at all, knoworramean ?

I just gave that as a starting point reference, something easy to quantify.

Cheers


Greg