Another Example of Why Less is Often More

Whoa, the last three weeks have just flown by. Packing, organizing, painting and repairing, it’s been crazy. I’ll get back to my list eventually, but here’s something completely different to pass the time.

I’m looking in to buying a new digital camera in the near future. I’ve been slowly working my up from super cheap cameras into better and better ones as time goes on. My current camera is a Canon Powershot A630. It’s an 8 megapixel camera with just about every manual control you could expect from a point and shoot. It’s a great little camera, and it’s never let me down. The only thing I could ask from it that it doesn’t have is image stabilization (though the face detection, and even smile detection, that I’ve seen on some new cameras is neat). So why do I want a new camera? It’s not so much that I want to replace or upgrade this one, rather I want to take the next step and get myself a DSLR.

An SLR is what you might call a “real” camera. They’re the ones that have lenses that come off, allowing you to buy better or more specialized lenses. There are also some differences internally that allow SLRs to take much cleaner, sharper images. I won’t get into the details here, suffice it to say that if you are a pro, or aspire to professional level work, an SLR is what you want. A DSLR is simply a digital SLR, to differentiate it from a film SLR camera (I’ll just use “SLR” from here on out to mean “DSLR”).

My budget is quite limited (more than ever, now that we’re moving), so I am looking specifically at the entry level models offered by Canon and Nikon, the leaders in the field (though Canon is, far and away, the current camera juggernaut). In the case of an SLR brand is important, as lenses designed for one brand will not work with any other. Since lenses can potentially cost many times what the camera costs, this is a big deal.

Looking at the current offerings from both Canon and Nikon left me with the following options:

• Canon Digital Rebel XTi - $590 on Amazon.com, 10.1 megapixel, lots of manual controls and special features (including dust reduction), comes with a mediocre 18-55mm kit lens (soon to be replaced by the XSi, which will retail for closer to $900 with a lens, too much for me)




• Nikon D40 - $480 on Amazon.com, 6.1 megapixel, lots of manual controls but fewer features (no dust reduction), comes with a basic 18-55mm kit lens (the D40x is basically the same camera with a 10.1 megapixel sensor and a few minor additions, but it retails for $800 with a lens)

On paper it looks like the Canon is the clear winner. For about $100 more you get more megapixels, dust reduction, and some nice features. The only advantage the Nikon appears to have is a nicer kit lens. Still, I think I’m going to get the Nikon, and it’s not just because it’s cheaper. Ultimately, it comes down to the quality of the image captured, which is the most important thing after all. From what I’ve seen, the Nikon simply takes better pictures in real world situations.

You might wonder how a 6MP camera can best a 10MP camera, and I wouldn’t blame you. I still wonder that myself from time to time and have to check again to make sure I’m not remembering it wrong. The fact is, the size of the image captured has less of an effect on image quality than you’d think. Realistically, the average photographer, taking pictures of family and friends, doesn’t need any more than 6 megapixels. Really. A 6MP image can be printed at 12” x 8” and still look good. I doubt most people print their photos even that large. With a clear photo and a deft hand with the software, you can go even larger without a problem. More pixels gives you more freedom to crop, of course, but my point is that resolution above a certain point isn’t the most important factor in getting good looking photos.

What about sharpness, you ask, isn’t sharpness a direct result of resolution? No, it isn’t. Sharpness is a function of the quality of the lens and the sensor. Everything comes down to light. The better your lens, more more light will get in and the less diffused it will be for having passed through the lens. The better your sensor, the more of that light it will read, and the better job it will do interpreting it. This actually leads to a counter-intuitive phenomenon where a camera with a lower resolution but the same sized sensor will take better pictures. The reason for this is simple: All things being equal, a sensor of a certain size will have a certain amount of light hitting it. The more pixels that sensor is cutting the light into, the less light there will be for each pixel, leading to less light for interpreting by the camera.

I’ve had basically this discussion with several people recently, and I don’t think they believed me. That’s OK, I wouldn’t have either. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, so now I present my proof. Below are several pictures taken from the sample galleries found on DCResource.com, a fantastic site for high quality, unbiased reviews. Obviously these photos were not taken under controlled conditions, or even anywhere close at to the same time. These are far from definitive, but they are enough to prove my point, and to justify my choice.

These photos are especially important to me, since one of the reasons I want a better camera is the ability yo take low light photos without a flash. These images are crops taken from the center of larger photos. They were resized to fit inside my browser window, and the cropped area was exactly the same size on screen,

First, the Canon Digital Rebel XTi:

Next, the Nikon D40:

Already you can see that the D40 looks brighter and sharper, with more detail and less lens flare. Next we have crops taken from the center of these same images, but displayed at full size. Again, the crop area was exactly the same on each (note that the XTi creating a larger image accounts for the size difference).

First the Canon Digital Rebel XTi:

Next the Nikon D40:

Ridiculous. That’s what I think when I look at these together. The older camera, with lower resolution, takes a much better picture in low light. It’s plain to see, not subtle at all. It’s worth noting that this isn’t Canon’s fault, Nikon’s higher resolution cameras do this as well. It’s also worth noting that the Nikon photo is taken using the kit lens (the one that comes with it), while the Canon photo was taken using a Sigma 15-30mm lens, which retails for about $700 (bringing the price comparison for this photo to $480 vs. $1290 in favor of the Nikon).

For comparison, here’s the same picture taken using a Nikon D80, the latest version of the D40 (also using a more expensive lens):

Just look at the grain, that’s directly a result of the same sized sensor being used to create a larger image.

For further comparison, here’s the same picture taken with Canon’s top of the line point and shoot (non-SLR), the Powershot G9, which is about as nice a point and shoot as you can get right now (note that the G9 is a 12MP camera, thus the larger size):

The lighting is different (or is it really just picking it up that differently?), but I think the differences are still valid. This is why you use an SLR in the first place. Even with half the resolution, the Nikon D40 takes a much better picture (and actually costs less to boot).

When I look at these pictures, the choice is clear. Sure, I’d love to have dust reduction, bracketing, more autofocus points, and a bunch of other features, but it’s the image that matters most. Given that what I really want to do is set up, and then take pictures on the run (so to speak), the D40 should be exactly what I need. It’s going to take me a little while to save up enough to get the D40, a case, a good sized memory card, and the other random bits and pieces you need, but it’s definitely on the affordable side, so that helps. I’d love to have one of these before moving down to Georgia, to chronicle the journey, but I just don’t see that happening.

My birthday is tomorrow though, if anyone’s feeling especially generous…