Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2006, 2:04 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

I agree with most of what everyone else is saying.

You really don't need more than 150 dpi. That means that 2 MP is a little more than you need for 8 x 10" prints.

I've taken a lot of pictures with a 2 MP camera and printed them on 8.5 x 11" paper (141 dpi). They came out pretty well. The only real faults were with other aspects of the camera and the phographer, not the megapixels.

Like other people are saying, the biggest problem seems to be when you start cropping things. With one picture, I went and cropped 1600x1200 down to 1344x1008 (only a 16% crop), so now you're down to 119 dpi, which still isn't that bad. The problem is that now it's easier to see the noise from it being a crappy camera, and when I try to smooth things out and sharpen it up a little, it's hard to do without bringing out some jagginess.

To me, high megapixels can be a crutch. It can somewhat make up for problems by giving you more leeway in post processing, but it's no substitute for just having a better camera.

I most people if given the option between a 3 MP version of the world's best CCD vs. a 12 MP version of a middle-of-the-road CCD, they're going with the 3 MP one.

I guess I also see stabilization as a bit of a crutch. There aren't many situations where I'd actually care about it, but it can make up for poor performance in other areas or lack of a tripod.

Tostada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 24, 2006, 6:44 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 28
Default

Tostada wrote:
Quote:
I agree with most of what everyone else is saying.

You really don't need more than 150 dpi. That means that 2 MP is a little more than you need for 8 x 10" prints.

I've taken a lot of pictures with a 2 MP camera and printed them on 8.5 x 11" paper (141 dpi). They came out pretty well. The only real faults were with other aspects of the camera and the phographer, not the megapixels.

Like other people are saying, the biggest problem seems to be when you start cropping things. With one picture, I went and cropped 1600x1200 down to 1344x1008 (only a 16% crop), so now you're down to 119 dpi, which still isn't that bad. The problem is that now it's easier to see the noise from it being a crappy camera, and when I try to smooth things out and sharpen it up a little, it's hard to do without bringing out some jagginess.

To me, high megapixels can be a crutch. It can somewhat make up for problems by giving you more leeway in post processing, but it's no substitute for just having a better camera.

I most people if given the option between a 3 MP version of the world's best CCD vs. a 12 MP version of a middle-of-the-road CCD, they're going with the 3 MP one.

I guess I also see stabilization as a bit of a crutch. There aren't many situations where I'd actually care about it, but it can make up for poor performance in other areas or lack of a tripod.
All I ask of a camera is for it to perform. My camera excels at 432mm and here, a hand-held, availablelight marco shot of my Canon F1 Booster T Finder: the image being sharp enough to pick out individual grains of dust and otherdetritus.
Attached Images
 
AlAsaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2006, 6:21 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
msantos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 561
Default

According to Kodak-Mexico, 2 Megapixeles are enough for a good quality 8x10" print.

http://wwwmx.kodak.com/MX/es/consume.../tamanos.shtml


msantos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 25, 2006, 8:19 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

Not trying to "poop in anybody's mess kit" (an old militay saying, cleaned up a little). Megapixels are over-rated. I have several great 13X19 pictures framed on my wall taken with my old Canon Pro90 IS camera, printed with an Epson 1270 (how's that for last generation?).

My 20D does a little better, but unless one presses the nose against the glass, it's hard to tell the difference between 2.6 and 8.2 megapixels (at least in landscapes).

Good photography wins the day, almost always.

Don't chase the technology. Expend your efforts in learning to be a better photographer.

I gave my old Pro90 to my son, and alas, he's making better photos than I do with my 20D.


Wildman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 AM.