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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 10, 2003, 4:08 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 29
Default

Try equating amount of megapixels of a digital camera file like a photographic negative size.

A 35-mm camera negative can make an 8 x 10-inch print by enlarging tremendously the image but at quite a loss of quality. The final 8 x 10-inch print would not be the best because of negative grain, lens flaws and photographer errors being magnified.

A 4 x 5-inch view camera negative can easily make an 8 x 10-inch print by only enlarging its image twice its size. This keeps all the flaws smaller and the image sharper.

An 8 x 10-inch view camera negative just makes an easy contact print to make an 8 x 10-inch print. There would be no grain and the only degrading factor would be the lens and any photographer errors.

In the digital camera age megapixels are going the reverse of conventional cameras negative. Conventional cameras started with large negatives and through the years the negative sizes got smaller as the cameras became more sophisticated. From the small 1 megapixel cameras to the current 5 megapixels and larger digital cameras we are going from smaller information to a more information available to print larger images. Larger megapixels are good if you can use it.

Now an 8 x 10-inch view camera negative can be reduced to a 4 x 5-inch print with no loss of quality. A 5 megapixel camera can make a smaller 4 x 5-inch print with no loss and can still make outstanding 8 x 10-inch prints, even with cropping. A 2 megapixel camera will also make the same great 4 x 5-inch print but if the print is enlarged to 8 x 10-inch print quality is being stretched and starts getting fuzzy (pixilated). And if you crop the 2 megapixel image you can expect even more degradation, pixilation, and lens/photographer flaws of the print.

You can make 8 x 10-inch prints with a 2 megapixel camera but that is the limit and you canít crop the 8 x 10-inch image on a print. Donít expect a great picture if you crop final images.

Remember to try equating amount of megapixels of a digital camera file as the size of a negative.
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2003, 2:57 PM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4
Default

Thank you so much for all the replys and help. I just want to take "normal" day to day pics. I will never have to go any bigger than an 5x7..........I dont know anything about digital cameras or even photography. I just want to point the camera, shoot and have a decent pic that I can print or email.
Thanks again everyone for all your help!
soooomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2003, 3:02 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

Take it as it comes...if 2mp is high enough for you now stick with it...in future you may want more mp or more capability. I bought a high end $650 2mp camera and I'm happy with it, for now...I'm waiting for certain features to be added to the next model of it and then I'll upgrade.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2003, 4:44 PM   #14
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 45
Default

Some people say that a 3MP camera is better than a 2MP camera like the FZ1 with its 12x zoom because the extra MP allows you room to crop the picture in the computer. 4MP allows you even more croping freedom. But the point is with the FZ1 with its 12x zoom you can zoom in and take the picture you want with out having to crop later.
Mind you it does require some thinking before hand and not just blinding firing a way and hoping to sort things out later on the computer, :lol: as a lot of people seem to do.
David Elson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2003, 6:51 PM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 29
Default

One of my favorite cameras is the old Sony MVC-FD90. It is only 2.1 megapixels and uses floppy disk (and Memory Stick) to store images. It doesn't sound like too much of a camera to get thrilled at but the camera has a 10x zoom and a 2x digital zoom. And it has SteadyShot stabilization that give me an edge in the non-tripod, "shaky", times. Bird watchers would love this camera. Macro on the camera is 0.08-inch and great for close up cropping.

With the limited pixels available to this camera I learned to crop carefully to get the pictures I want. So now I have the luxury of 5+ megapixels and I still know how to crop. I don't like to waste my limited pixels and my prints have the edge on clarity because I do not waste pixels.

It takes a little more time to compose and crop in the camera but the final pictures are worth it.

If you can learn to crop inside the camera instead of in the computer you can get great pictures with only 2.1 megapixels.

I like David's answer.
HaveBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 18, 2003, 12:00 AM   #16
lg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 823
Default

soooomm, if you won't be printing anything over 5x7, then any good quality 2MP camera should do just fine. For Email and web posting, even an 1.3MP will do fine. Concentrate more on the other features you want in a digital camera and don't worry about the megapixels.
lg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2003, 10:43 PM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lg
Concentrate more on the other features you want in a digital camera and don't worry about the megapixels.
I agree with this statement 100%. I researched for months to find a replacement for my Mavica FD92 (wanted something with similar features but smaller and lighter) and went back and forth over the mp issue.

I finally decided on the Panasonic DMC-FZ1 because of the 12x stabilized zoom and .9" macro (which can be improved with add-on close up filters), and its compact size and light weight. I've had it for about 5 days and spent the weekend shooting pictures - what a joy it was! The camera is "only" 2 mp but it's plenty for me, and I've printed out very satisfactory 8x10's. I just won a set of close-up filters on eBay and look forward to more "playing"!

Samples of my first 3 days of shooting:

http://www.joannesplace.com/albums/fz1/index.html
flakes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2003, 10:49 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

I am only now editing my photos for printing and I do beleive you need 3MP .... it makes life SO MUCH easier when cropping.

You have a great eye and great use of apeture .. but some savage "purple Fringing" on most macro's.
Alfisti 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 12:32 PM.