Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 12, 2003, 6:37 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 212
Default

If I knew that I wouldn't have bought the Nikon FM3!
Lauren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 9:40 AM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 65
Default

then why did you suggest a 3MP?
Hawkeye12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 9:45 AM   #13
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,545
Default

How about a CP990! It's discontinued, but cheap and it's still use powerful rechargeable 2100mAh AA (unlike other Nikon)... Has good macro and also good for digiscoping :lol: :lol: :lol:

But you're right the s404/414 series are real value!
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 11:34 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Quote:
Remember, it's pixel quality, not pixel resolution that ultimately matters for the casual user
Well my 602 is 3Mpix (going on 4!), but when pushed I can use it as a 1Mpix cam at 800 - 1600ASA. That 1Mpix is better than my old straight 1.2Mpix at 64 ASA. So I'd agree with the above, it's image quality that matters, and I'd add - the 'range' of shooting scenarios over which you can still get back a decent pic. i.e that's all the other factors in the camera, besides how many pixels it has.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 12, 2003, 12:18 PM   #15
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 35
Default

Hi lauren!

thanks a lot for your excellent post! excelent point u got, but, let me add some more...

i agree that 3 Megapixel camera will give you more room in terms of cropping, techology, blow-ups and etc, but, also, we have to think pratically:

- over 100 shots, lets suposed you're taking about 4 or 5 to be developed at a lab to 4x6 (10x15 cm) prints; in that case, you got 95 pictures that you will only view on your computer or laptop screen.... and maybe i'm the only one here, but i just hate when i see pics that are over 1024768 or at most 1600x1200 on my computer screen, because all i see when i open the pic is a closed up fraction of the whole pic, and i have to keep zooming out (if your soft doesnt does that automatically) until the whole image fits confortably on screen...

Now, THAT's another problem...

If your familiar with image processing, you know that you're bound to have some pixelization, some roughness and distortion on images that are "reduced" to fit the sdreen.... so, why would you shot at astounding 2024x1600 when that would be better for printed blow ups that you are very unlikelly to do, and that actually will hinder your everyday viewing of these pics because you'll constantly will have to "fit them to screen size", thus reducing viewing quality....??????

well, i just hope i made my point clear enough!


but you put out an excellent remark: the most important thing is not pixel resolution, but pixel quality!!

and these digital cam thing today is so crazy, so far out there, that i've been trying to decide upon a model for over 2 weeks, read more than 30 reviews, at least 5 different ones for the same camera, talked with lots of user on this forum, and when i thought i finally set my mind upon the Canon A70 inspite of the Sony P72, i found out that the canon has the same problem that made me give up the P72: bad pics at low-light enviromnent conditions, which will be the condition most of my pics will be shot.....

:-(

buuaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!


marcelo
maafbh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2003, 5:26 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

You can still work practically with more Mpix. The advantage you gain is future proofing that you may need that resolution from a pic after you shot it. Monitor sizing should't be a problem. All the progs I use 'fit to window'. If loading/decompressing speed is the bigger issue, particularly running slide shows, then many programs will copy and batch re-sample to lower resolutions. And at least your original image will be kept. If HD space is a concern, burn cam originals to CD.

Consider max card storage size on 2Mpix cams. With a 3-4 mpix cam you can be sure you will get lots of lower res pics on bigger cards, if that's what you want, whilst 'pixel combining' might get you indoor low light pics without flash.

If you eventually get that big XGA plasma screen to replace your TV, complete with card reader, you might wish your photo archive had a bit more resolution!
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2003, 6:14 AM   #17
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxmagna
You can still work practically with more Mpix. The advantage you gain is future proofing that you may need that resolution from a pic after you shot it. Monitor sizing should't be a problem. All the progs I use 'fit to window'. If loading/decompressing speed is the bigger issue, particularly running slide shows, then many programs will copy and batch re-sample to lower resolutions. And at least your original image will be kept. If HD space is a concern, burn cam originals to CD.

Consider max card storage size on 2Mpix cams. With a 3-4 mpix cam you can be sure you will get lots of lower res pics on bigger cards, if that's what you want, whilst 'pixel combining' might get you indoor low light pics without flash.

If you eventually get that big XGA plasma screen to replace your TV, complete with card reader, you might wish your photo archive had a bit more resolution!
i think the poster has their mind set on 2MP's...........too bad too. :roll: :roll:
Hawkeye12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2003, 8:00 AM   #18
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 65
Default

at least look into this...........



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read...&opinion=15800

or...........


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/read...lta_dimages414
Hawkeye12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2003, 1:42 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

Obviously this is going nowhere. You have your mind set on 2 mp and everyone else wants you to get 3 or 4 mp. I suggest you get whatever 2mp cam you wanted before making this post, but buy it at a store that will let you return it if you aren't satisfied. That way, you can see for yourself whether or not a 2mp will suit your needs and still have the option to upgrade to a better cam without having to pay for 2 cameras.
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 13, 2003, 4:36 PM   #20
lg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 823
Default

To rephrase the question of the original poster, I believe maafbh simply asked if he needed greater than a 2MP camera to get sharp and clear default photos from a photo lab. Assuming he meant 4x6" (10x15cm) prints, it wouldn't even take a 2MP camera to duplicate that clarity and sharpness.

While it is true that there are many other factors affect the quality of an image, we would be remiss to correctly answer his question. All other factors being the same, it doesn't matter whether you take a 4, 3, or 2MP image for 4x6" prints.
lg 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 2:43 AM.