Newbie question about megapixels.

[Marka1620]

Looking to purchase a digital camera in the near future (Canon EOS digital Rebel) and I have the following question:
What megapixel amount would be required to rival 35mm film results. Thanks

[Scottes]

That question is likely to start an argument. Seriously. I won't even answer it directly, but rather move towards the end result.

What's your final product? 4x6 photos look great from 2 Megapixels. (Not just any 2 megapixel camera, but 4x6 at 300 dpi is about 2 megapixels.) You want 11x14? Just about 8 megapixels will look fine, but 14 will look better.

Again note that I am talking about the number of pixels in a printed image - this really has nothing to do with the camera. A fantastic 4 megapixel camera will probably make a better print compared to a crappy 8 megapixel camera.

There's more to the camera than just the number of pixels in the final image.

[Marka1620]

I would be looking to make 11x14 at the largest. Would the Canon EOS Digital Rebel be well suited for this task?

[Scottes]

I would be looking to make 11x14 at the largest. Would the Canon EOS Digital Rebel be well suited for this task?

Yes, it can do it. "Well suited" may be too strong, but "capable" certainly is not.

A DRebel can do an 11x14 at about 200 dpi. That's not great - most photos you get from Ritz/Walmart/etc are at 300 dpi - but you probably won't be viewing an 11x14 only a few inches from your face, either. And software does exist than can upsize and image with excellent quality.


Again, though, there's more to a digital camera than just pixels. Lenses can make a huge difference, for example. Camera features could make or break a shot. Pixels aside, will a DRebel do what you want?

[dn7elson]

A DRebel can do an 11x14 at about 200 dpi. That's not great - most photos you get from Ritz/Walmart/etc are at 300 dpi - but you probably won't be viewing an 11x14 only a few inches from your face, either. And software does exist than can upsize and image with excellent quality.

I used to print 13x19 prints from my G2 (4MP) with no problems. For the DRebel it's even less of an issue. I did upsize the "important" prints via Photoshop to 300dpi (big mother files :D ) before printing, but the native image files printed just fine as well.

[Jesper]

Hi Marka1620, welcome to the forums.

Your question is a common one on Internet forums, and there is no clear answer. Digital and film work differently, and you can't really say "to equal 35mm film you need X megapixels".

The resolution of most of today's digital cameras may not be as high as what you could get with 35mm film in the most ideal circumstances, but on the other hand digital cameras don't have film grain. Before I got my Canon EOS 10D (which has the same sensor as the 300D) I was scanning 35mm film with a Minolta Scan Dual III film scanner. The film scanner produces 11 megapixel files. Still, the images from my 6 megapixel 10D look better than those scans, because of film grain etc.

Here is an interesting website with a more in-depth description: Digital cameras vs. film (http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html) by Norman Koren

Norman Koren's website is quite mathemetical, and his conclusions based on simulations are that the 300D/10D has 82% the resolution of 35mm film, the 1D Mark II has 95% and the 1Ds has 116%. I wouldn't take those figures too literally...

Here's another interesting overview: Film versus Digital Summary (http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html)

[RichardtheSane]

As a small but significant spanner comes hurtling into the works....

The size you can output at depends on something else, the proposed viewing distance for the image.

If someone is going to betting right up to the image and looking at it from a few inches then it will not look as good as it would from a couple of feet away. I have heard it quited that printer manufacturers suggest the best viewing distance for an image is double the lengh of the diagonal.

Certainly up to the size you are looking at the drebel should have no problems :)

[PhotosGuy]

A DRebel can do an 11x14 at about 200 dpi.

Just as an aside, note that you can vary ppi in processing from RAW from 10 to 2000. Then, there are also 16 bit conversions, too. If you start with a nice, clean image which the 300D is capable of, and post process correctly, you will exceed a larger MP pic taken with a cam with an inferior sensor.

[BoySpot]

IMHO don't get to fussed about people looking at pixel count to reproduction size. As someone mentioned above, it is all about the distance at which you view the picture. The big adverts on the side of the road look just fine but if you press your nose to one, they look crappy. Then again, you don't often get out of your car to do that :wink: . If you are blowing something up big, you will look from further away.

I believe (be prepared for a good flaming here :shock: ) that the 300D will provide all you need, even if you print quite large. (Looked at a D2H image blown to A4 the other day from a guy at work. It looked fine at that is a smaller pixel count than your 300D.)