Printable View
I stick with the feeling that 300 dpi of data for the final output of the print should be about right.
So, for a 10x8 image, 3000x2400 pixels should be sufficient.
The pixel count would rise according as print size does to enable at least 300 dpi of raw data (non-interpolated) when possible.
For instance, 14x11 = 4200x3300
Just a general guide that I like to use, not saying it is any sort of absolute. Just works for me is all. :)
Here is a typical 6.6 megapixel satellite pic I edit and print. It is 300x300 and goes to poor quality when printed at 8x10 and is unuseable at 11x17.
I like the >10 megapixel cameras that are now readily available. The better cameras are pushing 14 megapixels. Still, the lens is the most important part of a camera, pixels be damned.
*bows to Leica*
For now you may well be right. But at least with digital, you don't have to worry about grain. :)Quote:
Originally posted by Transfurzz
In the end nothing beats it better than real film photography.:)
There is quite a bit of noise on the ones with the smaller sensors. Mine is 6.3MP with very little noise. It also has an upgraded lens on it that was about $300 by itself. Those things can easily go over $1000+. I mentioned it looks a lot better than 35mm, but not that it gets put through photoshop first ;) Or a few free utilities. I really like Infranview for resizing.Quote:
Originally posted by Bearded Kirklander
For now you may well be right. But at least with digital, you don't have to worry about grain. :)
Eric
There are some models with a full 24x36 sensor. And I think that a lot of higher end models do a good job of reducing noise, so I'm optimistic that digital is going to be a solid choice, even for enthusiast photographers, now and in the future. I really like digital photography from a convenience and privacy standpoint. I would prefer to stick to digital whenever I can. But I do have an Olympus C5050, so maybe my viewpoint is a bit tainted. I really dig that camera. :)
I really like IrfanView for the slide-show viewing feature, where you just press a key to go back and forth between all the pics in a folder. What a great, free program. Wish they did not put the commercial tie-in in that last version, but I guess dude has to make money some how.
if u are talking about taking a pic and printing it out, most don't go bigger than 8x10...meaning 4mp is enough...however, i find that whenever i take pics, i always wish to crop them afterwards. sometimes taking a basic landscape picture and then cropping it into more of a panoramic picture gives it great depth and field. it truely enhances the picture.
and as a result of the cropping, i'm losing the resolution that i could have had by simply printing the whole picture out.
therefore, imo, the bare minimum for getting any type of good picture is 5mp. of course more is better.
but i'd take a 5/6mp slr over any of those 8mp cameras any day. besides the pixels, perhaps the most important aspect of the camera is lens quality.
Holy thread resurrection! :eek:
Cannon EOS Rebel? Just a guess.Quote:
Originally posted by ewitte
There is quite a bit of noise on the ones with the smaller sensors. Mine is 6.3MP with very little noise.
Anyway, I have the Rebel, and it isn't about MP, it's about the CMOS recharge time, and the features a good SLR provide which typical clamshells don't.
For "Click and Print" snapshots from a clamshell you'll never tell the difference between a 3MP and something higher.
But if you're serious and want to do some editing, 5MP or higher is really needed.
We have had a Canon PowerShot A50 2.1 Megapixels for about 5 yrs. now. For the longest time 2.1 seemed to be the standard. In the last year or so the average has jumped from 2.1 to 3.2 megapixels.
Just this last week we finally broke down and purchased another camera after 5yrs. We really liked our Canon PowerShot A50, so Canon was the front-runner in our decision. With the Canon A50 came Adobe Photo Deluxe Business Edition 1.0 & Photo Impact 4.2. The other cameras we were concidering were Sony, Nikon, FujiFilm and the wife liked the Kodak cameras. After about 3 weeks of research we finally decided on the Canon PowerShot G6 (7.1 Megapixels). Something we really liked with the Canon G6 is that we could purchase extra lenses (wide angle converter & telephoto converter) and it also has a hotshoe for an external flash. We did concider the PowerShot Pro1 but found it a little pricy.
Canon G6
There is more to a camera than megapixels....
My top ten list in order of importance.
1) The Photographer
2) The Photographer
3) The Photographer
4) The Photographer
5) Lighting
6) The lens
7) The Photographer
8) The Photographer
9) The Photographer
10) perhaps megapixels....perhaps.
Even an Ansel Adams level photographer can't do much with poor equipment. IMO the lens is most important followed by the photographer and finally all the other equipment. A good photographer with the good equipment can make a mundane scene interesting. A great photographer with great equipment can turn that same scene into an award winner.
most camera's and most lenses are better than most photographers :D
when you can get 3.2 MP for $140, that is enough A75
i have this camera and love it and im not a serious photographer at all, but even i wish for more MP especially when i crop. i also have my pictures set as my screensaver and full size, the pictures are noticeably unsharp. i say 4MP would be suitable for me, the average camera owner.
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.:o So, what did I get as replacement? A Nikon Coolpix 3200....seems I like 3.2mp cameras that are easy to use.:p 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.:o Different strokes for different folks I guess...
Quote:
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.