I think 4 is the great for the casual photographer, my Kodak LS743 leaves me with no complaints, just make sure you get one with a good lens (as far as I know Kodaks and Sonys offer professional lenses).
Printable View
I think 4 is the great for the casual photographer, my Kodak LS743 leaves me with no complaints, just make sure you get one with a good lens (as far as I know Kodaks and Sonys offer professional lenses).
4. anything more is overkill, even upper 3s would work for what most non hardcore people need
8MP is perfect for me :)
but megapixels dont really mean anything.
a 4MP DSLR > 8mp P&S.
wow after reading this thread I realize how import other factors are in a digicam. so megapixel don't means as muchQuote:
Originally Posted by pwain
here's something interesting for you guys:
Sample Image Minolta Dimage XT 3.2 megapixel in fine quality
http://www.geniv.com/kin/downloads/S...%20CXT%20k.JPG
Sample Image Canon SD550 3.2 megapixel in fine quality
http://www.geniv.com/kin/downloads/S...el%20SD550.jpg
Sample Image Minolta Dimage XT 3.2 megapixel in fine quality
http://www.geniv.com/kin/downloads/S...%20CXT%20k.JPG
Sample Image Canon SD550 3.2 megapixel in fine quality
http://www.geniv.com/kin/downloads/S...el%20SD550.jpg
You need to set the white balance on your Minolta for indoor use.
it's suppose to be in "AUTO" so I shouldn't have to set white balance. but I see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Assassin
here's another comparison between my bosses camera
a Minolta 5 mega pixel Point & shoot (forgot the model but he got it in the past 6 months)
both is taken at 5 mega pixel in automode in fine quality
minolta:
http://www.geniv.com/kin/downloads/samplecm.JPG
canon sd550
http://www.geniv.com/kin/downloads/samplecc.JPG
regardless of white balance u see the details in the pictures and less noise
canon for teh win!
big time!
I woud love to compare the picture quality to some of the other brands likeQuote:
Originally Posted by idiotekniQues
- sony
- kodak
- casio
- nikon
- etc.c..
but too bad all I got is minolta
hopefully for most of u, a setting someplace is wrong because even a good 3.2 or so mp cam should give u near perfect 8x10s. i used to sell cameras. go and try every make and every mp and PRINT the results. u'll see that a decent camera at the "lowly" 3.2 mp can give u flawless results. i prefer 4 mp however just for the extra room and in case i want to get in on a certain part of the picture only.
for casual people i like olympus ,fuijifilm, nikon, canon, and sony IF you are willing to be stuck with proprietary stuff.
for u hardcore photo people, id say go get an slr or soemthing.
PERSONALLY the camera i want is either a pentax optio or leica. SMALL but good is the thing. 5 and 8.4 mp respectively. Do i NEED that much? NO. BUT IT IS NICE!
and for the love of God nvr get a kodak or hp. actually each of them are doing a lot better, they just still suck in my opinion. they are good for people who know VERY LITTLE about technology and all so they got that market cornered. dock?... just rediulous. Again tho... PERSONAL opinions.
Its still preference because I prefer 300dpi which would be closer to 7.2MP for an 8x10. I'd put 200dpi or 3.2MP at the beginning of acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by xcessiv
200dpi is definatley acceptable, depending on your viewing range.
From a pop mechanics mag:
4 megapixels for sharp 8x10 images. Anything more if you need to blow up something larger than that.
More important than pixel count is the charge-couple size (ccd) sensor size. The larger the value, the more crisp detailed and vibrant the picture will be. Most point an shoot cameras is about 5.3mmx4mm (1/2.7"). High end digital SLR's are 18mmx13.5mm.
I am perfectly happy right now with my 3.1 I think optics are more important above 3 than anything else. I understand arguing 5mp vs 3, but above 5, only special use people need that. Most of them want a bigger MP penis.
I just bought a Canon S2, for family photos and vacations and stuff, amateur at its finest. It is 5 megapixel, with a 12x optical zoom, and the quality of photos it takes over my old fuji finepics 3.2 is amazing, even with my very poor skills. I feel the balance between quality, price and user friendliness is great.
I think 4 is plenty. Most people don't need anymore, I could get by with alot less for my needs. I have a Olympus Camedia 750 UZ, nice and compact and very versatile and convenient to plug into computer for image download. Picture quality is outstanding and is capable of taking pictures under water, if I ever get inclined to do so.
The 8mp HP camera is the worst camera the world has ever produced. HP should be ashamed of themselves for even trying to sell such a horrible product.
If my wife could only find the battery charger for her Pentax :(
I got a 8MP Vivitar from Radio Shack for $179. Actually, it also had a nice LCD display. Thing is, I took a chance, not seeing any reviews. Luckily, though, I saw the same camera (brand Mustek) on Steve's, which basically went into what's being said here: Initial attractiveness for 8MP/LCD for a mediocre camera. Returned it (I love the 'generous' return policy before purchase then the hassle with the actual return...'What's wrong with it? You didn't give it a chance...) and got a A530 for $147 from Elect. Expo ($51 after tax with an Amex Gift Card).
Lucky me.
i vote for about 22mp on a Full frame camera. allowing me to still crop off 5mp of the shot and still print large 20x30 prints.
I purchased a Canon PowerShot S3 IS for a recent trip
to the Med. I am very pleased with its results. I took
about 2,000 pictures of which many were in low light,
no flash allowed conditions.
It is a 6 megapixel middle of the line camera (~$350) with
excellent optics, a 12x optical zoom that is extended to
48x with the digital zoom. The 35mm equivalent lens focal
lengths are from ~38mm to ~1850mm.
miqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwev gfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriaw evfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyi ewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfe yqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiq wevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfr iawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevf pyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewq vfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqq miqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwev gfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriaw evfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyi ewqvfeyqqmiqwevgfriawevfpyiewqvfeyqq
srry my last spam ever
That's right. You sleep with the fishes forever.
Last week I cashed in my Sony points for a w100 compact digital camera.....8 megapixels. I guess itsa $300 camera. Anyway, never owned a digital camera but I felt I needed one. Quickly realized that I sure as h*ll don't need 8 mgpixels!
There's a more important issue than how many megapixels is enough, and that is how many is too many? Particularly when dealing with a compact camera, cramming an excessive amount of the megapixels onto a small sensor camera does not give sharper pictures, it gives considerably more visual noise. Take a look at any of the high iso shots from any compact camera above six megapixels. Noise galore. Six is the cutoff point, for a compact camera, and even that could be called into question.