How many megapixels is 'enough'?

[idiotekniQues]

i think 4 is the proper balance.

[imayoda]

You can never have enough.


3.2MP is great for snapshots and such. But if you really want some quality photos, accept nothing short of a SLR camera. Granted they're still a bit pricey, but the quality you get is well worth the money.

[Terry]

No way, it depends on your skills, you could definitely do beauuuuuutiful shots with 3.2

Unless you want to blow it beyond 8x10

[Johnmcl7]

Originally posted by kpxgq
i think "more mp is better" is a myth.. there are much more important things like the quality and size of the ccd...

my canon a75 set to 2.0mp mode has SUPERIOR... i MEAN SUPERIOR quality shots compared to my sony cybershot 2.0mp Point-and-Shoot

I fully agree, I get sick of people basing opinions on camera pretty much solely on the number of megapixels. Some of these 2MP and 3MP cameras with CMOS sensors are just poor, you can print out larger photos with their pictures but it doesn't do you much good when the quality is so low.

John

[masteraleph]

Originally posted by Johnmcl7
I fully agree, I get sick of people basing opinions on camera pretty much solely on the number of megapixels. Some of these 2MP and 3MP cameras with CMOS sensors are just poor, you can print out larger photos with their pictures but it doesn't do you much good when the quality is so low.

John

Well, all things being equal. If you have the choice between a good 3mp camera and a good 4mp camera and want to be printing 8x10s, buy the 4mp one.

[ua549]

The number of pixels isn't everything! A good digital camera must have well balanced features just as with a film camera. The lens is most important. I'll take a low resolution camera with a Leica lens over a higher resolution camera with a Nikon lens any day. What is really nice is to combine the benefits of the interchangeable lens of a 35mm film camera with a digital camera. There are a few of these cameras in the marketplace. They are quite versatile and are worth consideration by the serious photographer.

My pet peeve with all digital cameras is the delay between pushing the "shutter" button and taking the picture. There is no substitute for a fast 35mm camera!

[Terry]

Originally posted by masteraleph
Well, all things being equal. If you have the choice between a good 3mp camera and a good 4mp camera and want to be printing 8x10s, buy the 4mp one.

$$$
The sweetpoint in price is not yet there for 4mp
Almost though.

[ThemSkillz1]

Originally posted by Trav2003
Not so obviously. There are plenty of 3MP digital cameras that are hundreds of times better quality wise, and printing off certain 3MP cameras would look better than some 4MP cameras. You really have to go off of more than the number of megapixels.

sorry i wasnt clear... i wasnt trying to equate quality with quantity, but was just referring to the ability to have larger prints on a 4MP compared to a 3MP of equal quality. the cameras i mentioned in the post all have comparable quality shots.

MrD... i bookmarked post on S-Spline before, gotta search or dig it up

very helpful discussion here, but i know there are more photographers on this forum, ive seen some good pics the dpreview.com forums have some incredible canon s1 shots to be found also ive found recently.

PS, to a mod: can you fix the title to say "is 'enough'"? just looks better to have a sticky without a typo

[MrDigital]

Originally posted by ThemSkillz1
PS, to a mod: can you fix the title to say "is 'enough'"? just looks better to have a sticky without a typo

Yeah that drives me nuts too.

-MrD

[Colossus]

Originally posted by ua549
My pet peeve with all digital cameras is the delay between pushing the "shutter" button and taking the picture. There is no substitute for a fast 35mm camera!

How I hate that delay!!!!

You can minimize that delay by disabling the auto features and going manual

But its still not as good as a 35mm film camera.. I love my Rebel

[ua549]

I stopped using my digital camera because I was always missing the shot. My primary camera is a 70s vintage Canon 35mm with a zoom lense and a motor drive. I can take an 10 shots in the same amount of time a digital camera gets the first shot off. For good quality I use a 1957 Leica range finder camera with a 50mm lense. I wish I could afford a new Leica!

[rhettro]

Depends on your needs. For the adverage user 3MP is plenty if you are going to print 4x6's. If you print a lot of 8x10 etc. you will want more MP, but also better lens, more accurate color etc. But the digitals still can't match the quality of film. I'm an amateur and I like my 3.2 Cybershot with the Carl Ziehs lens. But my dad's mid range Fugi has better color reproduction. I shoot 3MP pictures only rarely, because I do not print the vast majority of my shots. I view them on the monitor.

[richardginn]

Full frame:



100% detail of a small part of the full frame:

Phase one P25 shot

[ua549]

Originally posted by rhettro
... But the digitals still can match the quality of film.

The digitals will never match the quality and variety of film especially when shooting at night in the dark.
A digital camera can't produce infrared shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak HSI film.
A digital camera can't produce night street shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak T-Max P3200 speed film can.

If one is simply going to take snapshots to put on a computer, a digital camera has some advantages because a computer video (even the best) can't compare to high definition film. There is a reason the medical imaging still relys on film.

*edit* The above shots look OK on a computer screen, but I'm sure they don't when printed at 11x17.

[masteraleph]

Originally posted by ua549
The digitals will never match the quality and variety of film especially when shooting at night in the dark.
A digital camera can't produce infrared shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak HSI film.
A digital camera can't produce night street shots as my 35mm camera can with Kodak T-Max P3200 speed film can.

If one is simply going to take snapshots to put on a computer, a digital camera has some advantages because a computer video (even the best) can't compare to high definition film. There is a reason the medical imaging still relys on film.

*edit* The above shots look OK on a computer screen, but I'm sure they don't when printed at 11x17.

You're right, you're right, you're right.

OK. So digitial doesn't match film. However, most of us find it to be convenient to shoot digital pictures, for whatever reason: convenience, cost, etc (I'm more likely to look at pictures on my computer. Also, on a good, long trip, I'm likely to take 400+ pictures, sometimes 100+ in a day. Buying that much film is a LOT of money and convenience).

Now, as for digital pictures: 3mp on a decent (not superincredible, but decent, as in Canon or Nikkon) is enough to print 4x6s that look good. On similar cameras, 4mp is enough to crop on 4x6s and crop or print 8x10s.