Forgot to add this to the resolution thread below;

Many people think that a 6MP cam has twice the resolution of a 3MP cam......NOT SO!

To get twice the resolution, you need FOUR times the sensor size....so, in this case to get twice the resolution of the 3MP cam you would need a 12MP...assuming the same type of sensor in both cases.

So,for those of you with the 6MP DSLR's that may be tempted by the "new" 10MP versions....you probably won't see a great deal of resolution difference.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=20141594

Yes, thanks valouchufy...good link that shows very little difference between 6 and 10MP.

yes, i think too, but it's just a little difference....

Had the D100, now have the D200 - of course with the saem lenses. The image looks a little cleaner, but not Earth-shattering.

Yes, the resolution doesn't go the way numbers might imply on the surface - the D100 (6MP) had a native res of 2000x3008, and the D200 (10MP) has a native res of 2592x3872. Just over an inch and a half larger for a 300dpi print ad - nothing to write home about.

BUT, the D200 images up-res with the Nikon capture software to 3000x4500 MUCH better than the D100 (which came out looking softer). This is mostly where these numbers in sensor MPs shine - up-resing from camera RAW images.
-Lew ;-)

@T1...I have not tried up-resing....although I have heard some folks use Genuine Fractals or ACR.

How has your success been with Capture?....how much can you go up in size?..reasonably.

(wincing) "In theory"... Supposedly you can go up to 200% before you notice any degredation...

When I did it with the D100, it got noticeably softer, so I settled on 150% and it came out better while still being able to do a 2-page spread. Haven't tested out the D200 at 200% yet - I might play with that this week, I suppose, since I hadn't thought about it until you just brought it up.

Actually, the exact dimensions for the D200 are 3000x4481 (I was using the old standard that the D100 would hit when I typed 3000 for the short side) when I up-res with Capture. It's nice and clean, and I love the exposure controls (I'm sure this is common with all OEM software converters, but it's bizzarly extensive!) better than Adobe RAW - the only downside is that I'm in a 2-stage process where I have to re-save them out as TIFs and THEN open Photoshop for the complex editing.

Haven't really gotten into Lightroom yet, as I hear you can export directly into Photoshop, so that might save some time.
-Lew ;-)

I'm such a dunce sometimes. I never thought of upsizing in Canons apps. Just tried it (from 3456 x 2304 to 6000x4000) and there was suprisingly little degradation. Nifty. Course, first I have to start taking shots worth printing ::chuckle::

I still find Lightroom really slow, even the newest Beta. I like the idea, but I'm an impatient person sometimes.

-Melen