I'm an amateur but I go to places like New Zealand and Big Sur so the photos turn out good. I'm on a budget. I've been using the Kodak EasyShare cx7430 which has been great but there's a problem with it so I needed to buy a new one plus I wanted to upgrade anyway. Just bought the Nikon D40 which seems good - good ratings and the best value for an SLR. But I've now been reading about the Nikon Coolpix P5100 which is a lot cheaper - 300 vs 500 - and has double the megapixels - 12 to 6. Does It's also a lot smaller which I like, and it has movie capability. Any comments on which is better overall, and which is better for the money? Having second thoughts though I'm not sure if I can return the D40 plus the maintenance contract and all the accessories. the SLR justify the extra price, size, and fewer megapixels? Thanks.

I am not intimately familiar with either one of those cameras, but let me give you my general opinions...

In general, the relative value of anything over 6MP is not that much. Meaning for each MP you go up, the amount more per image you will earn is not really that much. I have a 6MP Canon 10D DSLR and a 20D DSLR. My father has a 12mp compact and I find that his images are not that good until he downsizes them.

I think you will find that the noise created by the 12MP sensor make it very hard to get things accepted. Yes, you are giving up the one Super XXXL sale every 4 months, but you will have more images in the portfolio that are better average quality

I am sure there are exceptions to this, newer camera are generally better overall, but as a general rule lookup the physical size of the sensor. Pulling 12 MP of data from a chip that is 60% the size of an SLR chip is going to create noise.

Hope this helps. If you haven't already, checkout DP Review, they have very good tests on cameras.

You're absolutely right here. I have an old Oly C5050 (5 MP) that I really liked. Good realistic color and good shots from Raw files. When they came out with the Oly SP 350 at 8 MP I bought that thinking the pics would be better. They weren't. Just more noise, more pixels being jammed into the same size space, more "sparklies" even when shooting Raw because the cam could not decide what to do with a particilcar pixel. What a huge disappointment - gave the cam to my dad. And even though I own a few DSLRs, I still pull out the old C5050 on occasion and have some fun with it.

Even though comparing Olympus to Nikon is a little like apples and oranges, it does exhibit some proof that jamming more pixels into a P&S size sensor isn't necessarily all it's cracked up to be.

If you are semi serious about the photography and will be submitting stock, you will thank yourself down the line for keeping the D40.

I found an article link here for you from Shutterbug magazine Nov 2007

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/c...igicams/1107highres/

I do totally agree with one of the wrap up opinions of the author. Not quoting, but it basically says the higher megapixel race has about bottomed out. Packing them into the small sensor follows the law of dimishing returns. And a lot of the megapixel hoopla is manufacturer response to consumer market pressure.

Hi everyone...

I want to weigh in on the megapixel discussion. I'm a commercial photographer and am looking to increasingly move my work over to microstock so that I may flee this country and live modestly with my family in Central America within the next several years. So I am quite serious about the business aspect.

With that context, I have found it makes sense for me to purchase "last year's model" of camera body. I buy used from commercial photographers that I know who are doing national and magazine work. For instance, when my friend moved up to a Canon 1Ds MarkII a few years ago, I bought his 1Ds. I used that, along with a 20D for a 5-month assignment that ended up with images used for PR and in a book. Very cool.

Of course time has marched on and the Mark III has hit the scene. So I moved my 1Ds back to "roustabout" status -- meaning I take it when I plan to really beat up my camera -- and I bought a Mark II from another photographer friend who was moving up.

On all three main cameras (1Ds, 1Ds Mark II and the 20D) I spent about 1/3 the original purchase price.

Currently I have the MarkII, the original 1Ds, a 20D and two snappy little Digital Rebels for shooting outside the country. I'm less concerend about the Rebels being stolen than my other bodies.

So based on my experience, here's what works for me on the megapixel question. get the most megapixels you can for your budget. If you aren't a pro or don't have the cash, the Digtal Rebel or similar is GREAT! Make sure you get at least one good , sharp lense.

However, more megapixels allows you to do a few things:

1. You can downsize your image if you weren't %100 sharp. The bigger image you start with, the more latitude you have to squeeze it down. By the way, I have a baseline of 1800 pixels by 2700 pixels that I won't either crop or downsize past. That keeps mine over 4MP in the final photo which works for everyone except Alamy, which seems to want huge files. So far, I haven't gone with Alamy for that reason.

2. You have a little more control over noise. This is the big bad wolf of microstock. "Noise" or "Artifacts" in the image. If you have a great big image that is a little noisy, you can often solve that by downsizing a bit. The artifacts dissappear into the general pixel field. Of course, noise-reduction software is useful...but it isn't perfect and can degrade the image. Sometimes dropping the size 20% can get you the same result...or better.

Finally, it's not only magepixels, but also clarity of the image that counts. The newer digital cameras with more megapixels are also improved in that regard. They are less noisy. So it's not just megapixel size, but also the improved clarity that comes into play.

For instance, I shot a half black/half white card with my 1DS and my 1Ds Mark II side by side. Here's what I discovered, noise-wise:

At 100 ISO -- Both similar and clean images

At 200 ISO -- Mark II definitely less noise, although both still acceptable for mictrostock.

At 400 ISO -- Mark II clearly better, less noisy. 1Ds probably not acceptable for microstock without serious noise reduction

At 800 ISO -- Mark II passable noise, would need noise reduction. 1Ds...no way.

At 1600 ISO -- They actually get closer together again...both too noisy.

Now, I understand that the Mark III is gorgeous up to about 1600 ISO.

So it comes down to a combination of economy, image size, clarity and noise in my opinion. I don't think there is one good answer...everyone will have a set-up that works best for them.

Oh. The original question was about whether to go with a DSLR or a compact. I'm a DSRL fan just because of all the control you have.

Cheers,

Scott/Creatista

All this megapixel talk is all well and good, but there are two important things here the first is a microstock issue:

What will you be taking while travelling to NZ and big sur ? I have lots of travel images and landscapes in my collection but not all that many of them sell well on the microstock sites?

The second thing is a matter of personal taste, the convenience of having something smaller than can fit into a large pocket, it means you will carry it everywhere you go and are more likely to use it. I personally have taken more images with my point and shoot than i have with my D200, the reason being is that i just take the point and shoot everywhere I go, I try to take the D200 with me if i can, but there are plenty of times when you are out and about where its just not practical to be carrying a large camera with you.