Jed said:
Why no count? The D1x is a 5.2mp camera, period. In fact, it's not even a true 5.2mp camera, it arrives at its final resolution using technical wizardry, but that cannot invent pixels. In terms of vertical resolution, it is really only a 2.7mp camera. The 10mp is not real pixels at all. Half of that is completely interpolated.
14mp no count? Why not? And I am fair, I didn't compare it to 35mm film, I compared it to 645.
Oh, you were only talking about "common consumer affordable DSLR (less than $2.8k) strictly with 6mp output?" Really... now where in your original post did you say this? If you meant that, you really should have said it. Mindreading is sadly not one of my skills, nor do I presume the other readers out there to be particularly skilled mind readers.
Speaking of strictly 6mp output, a DSLR with strictly 6mp output should outperform a D1x. Which renders my test actually disadvantageous to 6mp class DSLRs.
Also, why is "going thru some enlargement s/w to increase pixels also not counted"? Interpolation doesn't add anything to an image at all, so it doesn't add any quality. You can also interpolate film.
ok, let me apologise for not making it clear in the 1st place. by looking at the thread starter, i presume he is using consumer grade (>$2.8k) equipment here. ok, u can bomb me about presuming.
let's move on. next, if interpolation doesn't add anything to the image, can u explain the file size? to be fair, did u interpolate the film that u had enlarged? can u also explain why after interpolating, the print outs are no longer pixelated?
anyone who reads the D1x brochure will know that its horizontal pixels are more than its vertical, & the pixels are elongated, so lets not get too technical about what u know. i said not counted becos the D1x is of a different class on its own, when u use D1x, u are looking at a machine with very advance image manipulation technique. btw, if u really want to be technically precise, don't process the image & leave in its original distorted proportion. why i say this is becos, u seems to be very precise about that 2.7MP. anyway, i've seen a 3.3 MP cam print 8x10 & its pixelated, i can't accept such quality. again, i must stress that D1x is a different class on its own, so lets not argue about why a 2.7MP vertical resolution can make perfect 8x10 prints.
next, i must apologise for not making myself clear about the cost. i m refering to the cost of equipment in order to get a 16x20 print of good quality, ie, no pixelation.
since u are the moderator, lets be a bit more objective. a nikon F55 with 28-105 cost less than $1.5k. a D1x with the same 28-105 , i presume again, is around $7k. don't bomb me of i get the pricing wrong. the 300D with a 28-105 is around $2.5k, i presume. so which is more cost effective? image quality wise, how much is the F55 lagging D1x? & what are their equipment price different?
with the price of D1x, anyone can get a basic M.format & print 20x30 like u mentioned, but again, Mformat is a different class, so i m leaving it out too.
anyway, this is a friendly discussion so lets not get too worked out.
cheers!