Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Megapixels. Nikon vrs Canon
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
Oct 16, 2017 22:15:05   #
tandac01
 
In the great Canon vrs Nikon debate one difference is the amount of pixels each mid priced camera captures. Nikon seems to be in the 24 mega pixel range while Canon is at 20 or 22. Do those extra pixels make a difference? I notice that many photos in the magazines that mention the camera used, Canon seems to be used more often.

Reply
Oct 16, 2017 22:52:26   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
tandac01 wrote:
In the great Canon vrs Nikon debate one difference is the amount of pixels each mid priced camera captures. Nikon seems to be in the 24 mega pixel range while Canon is at 20 or 22. Do those extra pixels make a difference? I notice that many photos in the magazines that mention the camera used, Canon seems to be used more often.

Nikon’s mid-priced camera has a 46 MP sensor. There’s little advantage of 24 over 20MP. Both brands are junk, can’t produce a 6 x 7 transparency with either one!

Reply
Oct 16, 2017 23:05:58   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
RWR wrote:
Nikon’s mid-priced camera has a 46 MP sensor. There’s little advantage of 24 over 20MP. Both brands are junk, can’t produce a 6 x 7 transparency with either one!

After this post?????? Reads like Nikon is build like a tank...

Reply
 
 
Oct 16, 2017 23:06:59   #
barbie.lewis Loc: Livingston, Texas
 
My mid-priced Canon 80D is 24 meg.

Reply
Oct 16, 2017 23:14:47   #
crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada
 
tandac01 wrote:
In the great Canon vrs Nikon debate one difference is the amount of pixels each mid priced camera captures. Nikon seems to be in the 24 mega pixel range while Canon is at 20 or 22. Do those extra pixels make a difference? I notice that many photos in the magazines that mention the camera used, Canon seems to be used more often.


No.
20 to 46 makes a difference if you crop heavily or want to do large prints without needing to stitch multiple photos....and you will need more harddisk space too :-)

Reply
Oct 16, 2017 23:27:48   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
Rongnongno wrote:
After this post?????? Reads like Nikon is build like a tank...

I have a Df, and it is well built, but it cannot produce a 6 x 7 transparency! (Actually, I don’t think one brand is “better” than the other, they’re just a bit different.)

Reply
Oct 17, 2017 06:38:08   #
blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire
 
RWR wrote:
Nikon’s mid-priced camera has a 46 MP sensor. There’s little advantage of 24 over 20MP. Both brands are junk, can’t produce a 6 x 7 transparency with either one!


Junk, that is very harsh...and narrow minded...

Reply
 
 
Oct 17, 2017 07:44:06   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
RWR wrote:
Nikon’s mid-priced camera has a 46 MP sensor. There’s little advantage of 24 over 20MP. Both brands are junk, can’t produce a 6 x 7 transparency with either one!


I thought the nearly $4,000 850 was the 46MP camera. New definition of mid-priced. The Canon equivalent would be the 5DS R at 50MP. Which is errrr more than 46??? RWR, please help me with the math here.

Reply
Oct 17, 2017 07:46:15   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
tandac01 wrote:
<snip> Canon seems to be used more often.


Depends on the kind of picture. I see a lot of Canon in action, sports, wildlife etc... Nikon in landscape. A mix of many brands in studio work.

Reply
Oct 17, 2017 08:49:17   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
dsmeltz wrote:
I thought the nearly $4,000 850 was the 46MP camera. New definition of mid-priced. The Canon equivalent would be the 5DS R at 50MP. Which is errrr more than 46??? RWR, please help me with the math here.

The D5 is about $6500, the D850 is about $3300. Pretty close to mid-way, I think.

Reply
Oct 17, 2017 08:53:01   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
blue-ultra wrote:
Junk, that is very harsh...and narrow minded...

Please expand your own mind and read my entire comment!

Reply
 
 
Oct 17, 2017 09:23:57   #
dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia
 
RWR wrote:
The D5 is about $6500, the D850 is about $3300. Pretty close to mid-way, I think.


But the OP referenced 20 to 24 MP as the set point for what was meant by "mid" for this discussion. Then you mixed Nikon's 46 without moving to the equivalent for Canon. Just asking for a little consistency and honesty.

Reply
Oct 17, 2017 09:32:21   #
boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
 
RWR wrote:
Nikon’s mid-priced camera has a 46 MP sensor. There’s little advantage of 24 over 20MP. Both brands are junk, can’t produce a 6 x 7 transparency with either one!


That.'s because they forgot to open the back and load the film.

Reply
Oct 17, 2017 14:04:24   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
blue-ultra wrote:
Junk, that is very harsh...and narrow minded...


I was surprised by that comment too. LOL

Reply
Oct 17, 2017 14:28:48   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
tandac01 wrote:
In the great Canon vrs Nikon debate one difference is the amount of pixels each mid priced camera captures. Nikon seems to be in the 24 mega pixel range while Canon is at 20 or 22. Do those extra pixels make a difference? I notice that many photos in the magazines that mention the camera used, Canon seems to be used more often.


You might be thinking of older low end models or perhaps the old 70D. All the newer models including the little SL2 are over 24 mp.
That said the small relative difference in actuality would be difficult to discern.
Many users here in UHH make incredible looking photos with less than 18 mp.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.