How many megapixels is 'enough'?

**mikeysg** · 04-07-2005, 12:44 AM

Although I'm a gadget freak, I ain't too fussy about digicams. I had an Olympus 3.2mp camera a while back, but I'd lost it while I was in Hong Kong on holiday.

So, what did I get as replacement? A Nikon Coolpix 3200....seems I like 3.2mp cameras that are easy to use.

Recently, at a trade fair, my bud bought an 8mp camera, and while I was tempted to get one too, good sense prevailed for once....I doubt that I'd need a 'prosumer' camera like that, he'd also admitted that he'd prolly not be able to use it to the fullest as he's an average, and occasional, photographer at best....like me.

Different strokes for different folks I guess...

**Seapod** · 05-21-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by ua549
I have yet to see a DMD or MD in private practice with other than a film based imaging device (xray machine). This week I had 8 images made of a broken heel. All were to film. Even my last cat scan (2002) was done to film. Perhaps large research hospitals are bypassing film in some cases, but I'm sure they have not eliminated film for still images.

I am a surgeon and work at four separate hospitals in Cincinnati. All of these hospitals have moved to a filmless system. The simple reason is cost. It costs too much to print films multiple times and have them lost and digital storage is cheaper.

**ua549** · 05-21-2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Seapod
I am a surgeon and work at four separate hospitals in Cincinnati. All of these hospitals have moved to a filmless system. The simple reason is cost. It costs too much to print films multiple times and have them lost and digital storage is cheaper.

I agree for a large scale operation, but going digital is cost prohibitive for a very low volume operation such as the offices of a physician or dentist that is located in a storefront.

**Bearded Kirklander** · 05-21-2005, 05:44 PM

Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!

**PCJ** · 05-21-2005, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
Holy Thread Resurrection, Batman!

who cares? It's a sticky...

As for mp, I'm picking up a Canon Ixus 50, which I will use as an ultracompact when I dont feel like using the D70.

**Bearded Kirklander** · 05-21-2005, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by PCJ
who cares? It's a sticky...

Didn't say I cared, just made the quote.

**Johnmcl7** · 05-22-2005, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by PCJ
who cares? It's a sticky...

As for mp, I'm picking up a Canon Ixus 50, which I will use as an ultracompact when I dont feel like using the D70.

I have the Canon Ixus 500 for a similar purpose, it can share the CF cards with my big Fuji and it's small enough I can carry it with me everywhere without noticing it, plus for its size it's a great little camera.

John

**ImaNihilist** · 05-22-2005, 06:55 PM

The Hasselblad H1D 22MP is enough. I think that's the model.

Anything else is just a toy.

Nothing quite like 150MB images.

One of my friends has one. It is amazing. The detail is beyond what you can even see with your EYES.

Just wait until the GIGAPIXEL camera comes out. It will be able to see through walls.

**camaro** · 07-04-2005, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by ImaNihilist

The Hasselblad H1D 22MP is enough. I think that's the model.

Anything else is just a toy.

Nothing quite like 150MB images.

One of my friends has one. It is amazing. The detail is beyond what you can even see with your EYES.

Just wait until the GIGAPIXEL camera comes out. It will be able to see through walls.

Gigapixel is already out.

http://www.gigapxl.org/gallery.htm

**Bearded Kirklander** · 05-23-2005, 01:07 AM

As long as you can get 300 dpi of actual image data, you should be good to go, I would think.

**MrDigital** · 05-23-2005, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
As long as you can get 300 dpi of actual image data, you should be good to go, I would think.

Well.. if you're printing on basic inkjets you're not going to need more than 150dpi to reach the maximum quality level. There's not really any difference at all above 150 until you get to the weird levels that manufacturers quote.

For instance, the 4800x1200 on HP printers requires a 1200dpi source image. When you print it though (and you'll have to give it about an hour to spool that much of a file) you'll rarely see much difference from 150. It may look nicer, but it's arguable as to whether that's because of the higher dpi or simply because it took much longer and gave much more attention to quality and used more ink.

If you have that new Canon with the 1 picoliter system (the IP5000 I think) then you may need 200dpi, but I have yet to test it.

It could also be argued that the 360dpi print engines that some companies use (such as Epson) may look better at 180dpi than 150dpi. I have an Epson but I haven't done extensive testing on that. I do know that at 150 it looks pretty much as good as I would think it's going to look though.

-MrD

**Bearded Kirklander** · 05-23-2005, 02:33 AM

Gotta disagree Dig. But I don'w want a long, drawn out thread about it, so I'll just leave it at that.

**Bearded Kirklander** · 07-04-2005, 08:40 PM

Holy Thread Ressurection, Batman!

**MrDigital** · 07-04-2005, 08:45 PM

Well, it is a sticky, so I guess it's always there to be commented on.

-MrD

**Bearded Kirklander** · 07-04-2005, 09:09 PM

True dat.

View Poll Results: How many megapixels is 'enough'?

Thread: How many megapixels is 'enough'?

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Posting Permissions