Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
M
madbomber31
Guest
if i'm lookin for a decent (pretty good) cam. how many mega pixels do i need????
HappyScrappy
New member
my gf has a 1.3 Sony and I think the pics kinda suck.
I have one that is 2.something and it is fairly good.
the 3.something ones look great IMO, but cost the most.
so I would say anything 2 or more.
I have one that is 2.something and it is fairly good.
the 3.something ones look great IMO, but cost the most.
so I would say anything 2 or more.
The Whole F/N Show
New member
How much do you want to spend? If it's less than $200 then 2-3 mega pixels is about good as you can get. And that's enough to take decent pics it you are just taking them for personal use. Professional cameras can be as high was 14 megal pixels but that would cost several thousand dollars. I've seen pro cameras 6 around $1,000.
280-8040_IMGef.jpg
Okay, here is the deal.
It is not the number of pixels necessarily. It depends on whether or not you are going to print them and then at what size.
What you need to look for is signal to noise ratio. The higher the number the better. The lower the worse. This equates to what film guys deal with called film grain. The noiser the picture the worse it looks.
A 100 camera is good for nothing but web shots and crap like that
Canon for example makes a whole range of digital. The 35mm line
starts with the D30 at about 3mpixels and runs about 1200 bucks.
The D60 is a 6 mpixel and runs about 2,000
The 1D is a 4.5mpixel camera and runs about 5,000
and the new 1Ds is 11mpixels and runs about 7,500.
Look at the D30, a 3mpixel camera, but any image it takes will blow away any camera in that range. The 1D
is only 4.5mpixels and will blow anything away in that range. The 1Ds is 11mpixels and is superior to film pictures.
Here is a picture that I took with the D60. You can't do this with anything that Walmart sells for 200 bucks.
Okay, here is the deal.
It is not the number of pixels necessarily. It depends on whether or not you are going to print them and then at what size.
What you need to look for is signal to noise ratio. The higher the number the better. The lower the worse. This equates to what film guys deal with called film grain. The noiser the picture the worse it looks.
A 100 camera is good for nothing but web shots and crap like that
Canon for example makes a whole range of digital. The 35mm line
starts with the D30 at about 3mpixels and runs about 1200 bucks.
The D60 is a 6 mpixel and runs about 2,000
The 1D is a 4.5mpixel camera and runs about 5,000
and the new 1Ds is 11mpixels and runs about 7,500.
Look at the D30, a 3mpixel camera, but any image it takes will blow away any camera in that range. The 1D
is only 4.5mpixels and will blow anything away in that range. The 1Ds is 11mpixels and is superior to film pictures.
Here is a picture that I took with the D60. You can't do this with anything that Walmart sells for 200 bucks.
marky
New member
Your factors are $, pixels, print size
A 1.3meg pixel camera is perfectly good for everyday use. The shortcommings are that the close up(highest zoom in) is going to give you better quality. Blow ups will look sandy and less focused. Panoramic shots on widest angle will look crappy so zoom in and the picture range will be less but better quality.
A portrait shot of your gf will look good on a zoom in but worse if you widen the angle to include the surroundings. More pixel capacity will eliminate that problem. Open up the field of vision (zoom out) and the quality of the picture quality will still be good even when you print at full size on an 8.5x11 sheet. Look at it this way. For small snap shots the 1.3m will look preety good but do not blow it up, it will look like crap. Larger pixel cameras already take good larger lengthxwidth shots. Hope ive helped.
A 1.3meg pixel camera is perfectly good for everyday use. The shortcommings are that the close up(highest zoom in) is going to give you better quality. Blow ups will look sandy and less focused. Panoramic shots on widest angle will look crappy so zoom in and the picture range will be less but better quality.
A portrait shot of your gf will look good on a zoom in but worse if you widen the angle to include the surroundings. More pixel capacity will eliminate that problem. Open up the field of vision (zoom out) and the quality of the picture quality will still be good even when you print at full size on an 8.5x11 sheet. Look at it this way. For small snap shots the 1.3m will look preety good but do not blow it up, it will look like crap. Larger pixel cameras already take good larger lengthxwidth shots. Hope ive helped.
Last edited:
grlpwrd
New member
I have a Kodak digital camera and it's 2 megapixels, but I use that for printing pics and for auctions. I refer people to www.dpreview.com because I am not an expert. There's a lot of samples and reviews on that site.
Personally, I think you will need at least 1.3 megapixels for everyday, fun pics (they tend to be fuzzy) or at least 2 megapixels for pics you plan to print or for auctions.
Personally, I think you will need at least 1.3 megapixels for everyday, fun pics (they tend to be fuzzy) or at least 2 megapixels for pics you plan to print or for auctions.
True, everyday web use etc that will be fine, but as far as quality as in displaying, selling, etc, you will need minimum a D30 camera, excellent lens's. this will give an excellent 8.5x11 picture, and if your an excellent photographer and use photoshop, you can get an excellent 19x13. As long as the picture taken is superb.
The picture I posted couldn't be done with a 200 dollar camera.
dpreview is a good site so is luminouslandscape.com (I think)
The picture I posted couldn't be done with a 200 dollar camera.
dpreview is a good site so is luminouslandscape.com (I think)
38DoubleDamnGood
New member
I have a Vivitar 2.1 Mega Pixels and it takes some real good pics. So far I don't have any complaints.
M
madbomber31
Guest
at largest i think i'd print 8.5 x 11 pics...
gettinlarger
New member
8.5x11?
3 megapixels will be good. 2 could do it, but of course with lesser quality. Why wouldn't you want the best quality?
I'm actually looking right now as well for one. I'm a graphic artist, so naturally I'm going to want a good camera. I was checking out the Kodak DX4330. $299.99. 3.1 megapixels. 10x zoom. Prints up to 11x14. Excellent color quality, etc. I read a couple reviews on it. Seems like a great camera for the price.
3 megapixels will be good. 2 could do it, but of course with lesser quality. Why wouldn't you want the best quality?
I'm actually looking right now as well for one. I'm a graphic artist, so naturally I'm going to want a good camera. I was checking out the Kodak DX4330. $299.99. 3.1 megapixels. 10x zoom. Prints up to 11x14. Excellent color quality, etc. I read a couple reviews on it. Seems like a great camera for the price.
M
madbomber31
Guest
ya, but that bay for the cam is an extra 80 alone... kinda sucks.
Y_lifter
New member
Nothing under 2 MP will give you good quality results IMO...
Anything over 3.3 or so would be a waste of $ unless you are looking for pro 8x10 printouts using an expensive printer.
Also as mentioned get a camera with a GLASS Zoom lens.
Olympus makes several good cameras that are affordable and has good glass zoom Aspherical lens.
Anything over 3.3 or so would be a waste of $ unless you are looking for pro 8x10 printouts using an expensive printer.
Also as mentioned get a camera with a GLASS Zoom lens.
Olympus makes several good cameras that are affordable and has good glass zoom Aspherical lens.
KHMER ROGUE
Banned
Chesty, aren't you talking about SLR digital cameras? I don't even recommend these for the newcomer or even experienced amatuers. Canon has two different sections for digital cameras. One is for SLR (More oriented towards professional photographers) and regular digital cameras. I have Canon Powershot G2 which was the best camera on high-end digital camera level. Now they came out with G3. It wasn't cheap either but it's a good deal compared to these SLR digital cameras' prices.
If you're a casual photographer, I'd suggest getting somewhere from 2MP to 4MP. If you don't mind spending some bit more money, you can go up to 5MP and above if you want to. Just make sure you are going to use your investment in a digital camera, not because it's a cool toy to have.
Here are the pictures I took with my Canon Powershot G2 from last summer. 4MP is still pretty good to have.
Click on this link to view the pictures. http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291523023
I think it asks you to join but it's free only and takes one minute to do it.
If you're a casual photographer, I'd suggest getting somewhere from 2MP to 4MP. If you don't mind spending some bit more money, you can go up to 5MP and above if you want to. Just make sure you are going to use your investment in a digital camera, not because it's a cool toy to have.
Here are the pictures I took with my Canon Powershot G2 from last summer. 4MP is still pretty good to have.
Click on this link to view the pictures. http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291523023
I think it asks you to join but it's free only and takes one minute to do it.
gettinlarger
New member
bigguns7 said:
Yes, but can I still recharge the battery without that gay dock thing? I don't wanna spend 80 bucks on a freaking charger.
M
madbomber31
Guest
target has the 4200 one of the kodaks... WITH the bay for 200... any good? i think it's 2.1mp and 2x or 3x zoom
Yes, I am talking about the slrs. I would recommend one for any level of photographer. The D30 and D60 can be operated fully automatic or fully manual or any combination there of.
Plus with two lenses you can cover any shooting need. 28-135is zoom and a 100-400is or a 70-200is zoom.
The versatility, ease of use and quality of pictures is where it is at.
I feel that all of the other camera's (non-slr's) are akin to the instamatics and pocket 110's. Sure some of them can give fairly good results and if all your really interested in is recording a trip here and there or for web stuff they would be okay.
But really, why using something less than quality?
Like the pic's.
Plus with two lenses you can cover any shooting need. 28-135is zoom and a 100-400is or a 70-200is zoom.
The versatility, ease of use and quality of pictures is where it is at.
I feel that all of the other camera's (non-slr's) are akin to the instamatics and pocket 110's. Sure some of them can give fairly good results and if all your really interested in is recording a trip here and there or for web stuff they would be okay.
But really, why using something less than quality?
Like the pic's.
Y_lifter
New member
IMO, this is one sweet Beginner - Intermediate camera for $500
Olympus C-730 Ultra Zoom
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&p=16&bc=2&product=889
3.2 MP,
10 x Optical Zoom w Glass Aspherical lens
QuickTimeTM Movie Mode w/sound
Olympus C-730 Ultra Zoom
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_product_lobbypage.asp?l=1&p=16&bc=2&product=889
3.2 MP,
10 x Optical Zoom w Glass Aspherical lens
QuickTimeTM Movie Mode w/sound
KHMER ROGUE
Banned
Y_Lifter said:
You Jelus of my Powershot G2? Beat this, fool.
Y_lifter
New member
Only the 3.0 MP camera on this Olympus shot.... Its all in the lens.
.
Click below for Full size Image
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/c720uz/samples/P6120063.JPG
.
Click below for Full size Image
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/c720uz/samples/P6120063.JPG
Try this one on. Canon 1NRS, 100ASA, film, Nikon Scanner and 70-200 f2.8 lens.
http://boards.elitefitness.com/foru...=9&action=view&sortby=&in=3326_12_0602_V1.jpg
http://boards.elitefitness.com/foru...=9&action=view&sortby=&in=3326_12_0602_V1.jpg
Y_lifter
New member
High end camera Digital Images have met the quality of Film IMO.
Even the color rendering and ablility to set ISO, DOF, etc is matched with the high end SLR style cameras
If I could afford it I would have a Canon D60 SLR style Digital.
The only issue they can't match is Output to Paper IMO.
To match the quality of Film on Paper you must use an Expensive dye sublimation printer in the thousands of $.
When this is cost/quality paper output issue is solved, digital will take off for prefessional type Prints.
Even the color rendering and ablility to set ISO, DOF, etc is matched with the high end SLR style cameras
If I could afford it I would have a Canon D60 SLR style Digital.
The only issue they can't match is Output to Paper IMO.
To match the quality of Film on Paper you must use an Expensive dye sublimation printer in the thousands of $.
When this is cost/quality paper output issue is solved, digital will take off for prefessional type Prints.
KHMER ROGUE
Banned
Nice, Ylifter. It's all about in lens? Probably. Here's another picture I took with Canon Powershot G2.
Make sure you copy the link and paste it in your URL. Big-ass file, though.
http://www.geocities.com/cw577enfield/awesome.jpg
Make sure you copy the link and paste it in your URL. Big-ass file, though.
http://www.geocities.com/cw577enfield/awesome.jpg
Y_lifter
New member
Very nice Sunset...
My point is that I was always taught in Photo classes that a
camera was nothing more than a Light Tight Box with film at the back. or a CCD.
Nothing really is different between cameras thinking this way other than the Lens.
If you have a Superior lens on a camera, your pictures will be better, given the same photographic technique-capabilities than a poor/average lens.
It makes sense if you think of photography simplistically instead of all the gadgets, autofocus, etc..
They do nothing more than make it easier to take the picture IMO..
My point is that I was always taught in Photo classes that a
camera was nothing more than a Light Tight Box with film at the back. or a CCD.
Nothing really is different between cameras thinking this way other than the Lens.
If you have a Superior lens on a camera, your pictures will be better, given the same photographic technique-capabilities than a poor/average lens.
It makes sense if you think of photography simplistically instead of all the gadgets, autofocus, etc..
They do nothing more than make it easier to take the picture IMO..
KHMER ROGUE
Banned
You still Jelus?
I'm yanking your cord, jeez. I know all about the aspects of photography. I own Nikon N65 film camera with 70-300 mm and 28-80 Aspherical lenses. I also have Pentax K-1000. You can't find a camera like Pentax K1000. Purely manual camera and made out of steel. (Sure feel like it, lol) Great for messing around on your own, using your own judgement on how to take photographs.
I'm trying to point out that Canon is.......well, how do I put it like this? Canon kicks Olympus's ass.
I'm yanking your cord, jeez. I know all about the aspects of photography. I own Nikon N65 film camera with 70-300 mm and 28-80 Aspherical lenses. I also have Pentax K-1000. You can't find a camera like Pentax K1000. Purely manual camera and made out of steel. (Sure feel like it, lol) Great for messing around on your own, using your own judgement on how to take photographs.
I'm trying to point out that Canon is.......well, how do I put it like this? Canon kicks Olympus's ass.
I beg to differ on the quality of digital vs film. The first camera to meet and exceed film is the Canon 1Ds. The D60 is good camera, but can't give pictures of quality beyond 19x13. And you do not repeat do not need dye sublimation to equal traditional photos. I use the Canon s820 with photo paper pro (canon glossy) I print pictures which exceed film capability both from the D60 and my 1NRS film camera. The epson series, such as the 1280 and their larger brothers the 7000-9500 series can print all the way up to 30x40 size prints and you can get those larger sizes if you use film (35mm is pushing it) or the 1Ds. The others just do not have the resolution.
As a key here is the formula
Minimum dpi (ppi) for printing should be no less than 240 and at least 300. This also has to do with lines per inch, but that is another class.
Given those requirements above. That means that a 3 million pixel camera could theoretically yield a max picture on print of assuming an initial chip size of 1.5inx1.0 (35mm, most of the lower end cameras and even up through the 1D have chips with imaging areas much smaller than this) this yields only 1, 414ppi. Divide this by the minimum pixels required gives 5.89x3.9 inches. Of course with photoshop and genuine fractals this can be upres'd to give a good quality 19x13 if using an slr such as the D30. If using a power shot or similar (no way, way to much noise)
I print pictures/portraits a lot and have many at work. In fact one that I printed at 24x36 of a chinese helicopter that we made is now prominately displayed in the chinese main office back in china.
If computer is the only place you ever plan on viewing picks, go with the power shot or somthing. But for real photo work, stay with an slr, (digital or film, only use manufacture lens (personal preference from experience) and use a good quality epson or canon s series photo printer and with good technique you can go all the way up to 30x40 in print size and the epson and canon photo papers and their inks are rated at archival quality 25 years or more and actually outlast most traditional photographs.
I know this subject very well, be doing photo work for years.
As a key here is the formula
Minimum dpi (ppi) for printing should be no less than 240 and at least 300. This also has to do with lines per inch, but that is another class.
Given those requirements above. That means that a 3 million pixel camera could theoretically yield a max picture on print of assuming an initial chip size of 1.5inx1.0 (35mm, most of the lower end cameras and even up through the 1D have chips with imaging areas much smaller than this) this yields only 1, 414ppi. Divide this by the minimum pixels required gives 5.89x3.9 inches. Of course with photoshop and genuine fractals this can be upres'd to give a good quality 19x13 if using an slr such as the D30. If using a power shot or similar (no way, way to much noise)
I print pictures/portraits a lot and have many at work. In fact one that I printed at 24x36 of a chinese helicopter that we made is now prominately displayed in the chinese main office back in china.
If computer is the only place you ever plan on viewing picks, go with the power shot or somthing. But for real photo work, stay with an slr, (digital or film, only use manufacture lens (personal preference from experience) and use a good quality epson or canon s series photo printer and with good technique you can go all the way up to 30x40 in print size and the epson and canon photo papers and their inks are rated at archival quality 25 years or more and actually outlast most traditional photographs.
I know this subject very well, be doing photo work for years.
marky
New member
More pixel will eliminate that problem
No a 1.3 will not look good on an 8.5x11 blow up but a large pixel camera will. I have the s110 Canon Elph Power Shot and the 8.5x11 prints look great at high resolution (2.1meg). You need much more and you might as well be in the business.
chesty said:
No a 1.3 will not look good on an 8.5x11 blow up but a large pixel camera will. I have the s110 Canon Elph Power Shot and the 8.5x11 prints look great at high resolution (2.1meg). You need much more and you might as well be in the business.
KHMER ROGUE
Banned
Marky's right.
I'm sure Chesty knows his stuff but I must stress that if you are only in it for recreational purpose, I don't even suggest spending more than $500 on a digital camera, let alone a SLR digital camera. If you are concerned about wanting to have a mid to high quality digital camera, anywhere from 2MP to 5MP will be sufficent.
Just make sure what you are planning to do with a digital camera before you purchase one. Are you doing it for pleasure or business? How many pictures do you think you are going to take? Once a week? Once a month?
Hell, if you still want to have best of the best.....I'm not going to stop you, lol.
Wynn, SonyCybershot does have USB connectivity, at least it's what I found out from an article on it.
I'm sure Chesty knows his stuff but I must stress that if you are only in it for recreational purpose, I don't even suggest spending more than $500 on a digital camera, let alone a SLR digital camera. If you are concerned about wanting to have a mid to high quality digital camera, anywhere from 2MP to 5MP will be sufficent.
Just make sure what you are planning to do with a digital camera before you purchase one. Are you doing it for pleasure or business? How many pictures do you think you are going to take? Once a week? Once a month?
Hell, if you still want to have best of the best.....I'm not going to stop you, lol.
Wynn, SonyCybershot does have USB connectivity, at least it's what I found out from an article on it.
M
madbomber31
Guest
ok.. i'm looking for general pictures, 4x 6, maybe MAYBE bigger... real simple like a normal cam. usage... maybe once or twice a month...
talk to me simply... what numbers am i looking at? what brands do i avoid? what sort of lense? am i looking for something that DOES NOT take video? do i want a flash?
you are talking to a beginner... simple as that...
talk to me simply... what numbers am i looking at? what brands do i avoid? what sort of lense? am i looking for something that DOES NOT take video? do i want a flash?
you are talking to a beginner... simple as that...
Y_lifter
New member
I have a preference for Olympus because of past experience.
They make good cameras, put good glass zoom lenses on their Consumer level cameras.
The Olympus Camedia Cameras have the capability to take quicktime movies of about 20 seconds each, with sound.
You can also take a picture, and then record a brief sound file message and attach it to the picture using the camera.
This is the camera I have. It is 2 years old but they make a similar model out today..
http://www.steves-digicams.com/c3000.html
Kodak, Sony or Canon are also good brands. I can't say which brand to stay away from.
Most all of the digicams offer a full auto mode. The Olympus I posted earlier and others also give you the option of going manual, and controlling things yourself as you get better.
You want a camera with an "Optical" Zoom" GLASS lens..
This is where the lens moves in and out to zoom.
NOT DIGITAL zoom Only. CHEAP
2 megaP would be the Mimimum I would buy for your uses
A 3 or 3.3 MP would be perfect for a compromise of quality and price and you won't be wishing you had more as you use the camera for other things. Anything over 3.3 will likely cost you $600 or more.
As for storage cards on the camera, you will want a Minimum of a 64 meg card. I do not care for the memory sticks
My camera came with an 8 meg card so I bought (2) 64 meg cards for day trips.
I can hold 80 good mid quality pictures on a 64 meg storage card.
This site has great honest comparisons and sample pictures for many cameras, so you can compare the color quility they take.
This is usually where digicams differ.
How they capture the reds,blues,greens, and how clear and fast the image is captured.
http://www.steves-digicams.com
They make good cameras, put good glass zoom lenses on their Consumer level cameras.
The Olympus Camedia Cameras have the capability to take quicktime movies of about 20 seconds each, with sound.
You can also take a picture, and then record a brief sound file message and attach it to the picture using the camera.
This is the camera I have. It is 2 years old but they make a similar model out today..
http://www.steves-digicams.com/c3000.html
Kodak, Sony or Canon are also good brands. I can't say which brand to stay away from.
Most all of the digicams offer a full auto mode. The Olympus I posted earlier and others also give you the option of going manual, and controlling things yourself as you get better.
You want a camera with an "Optical" Zoom" GLASS lens..
This is where the lens moves in and out to zoom.
NOT DIGITAL zoom Only. CHEAP
2 megaP would be the Mimimum I would buy for your uses
A 3 or 3.3 MP would be perfect for a compromise of quality and price and you won't be wishing you had more as you use the camera for other things. Anything over 3.3 will likely cost you $600 or more.
As for storage cards on the camera, you will want a Minimum of a 64 meg card. I do not care for the memory sticks
My camera came with an 8 meg card so I bought (2) 64 meg cards for day trips.
I can hold 80 good mid quality pictures on a 64 meg storage card.
This site has great honest comparisons and sample pictures for many cameras, so you can compare the color quility they take.
This is usually where digicams differ.
How they capture the reds,blues,greens, and how clear and fast the image is captured.
http://www.steves-digicams.com
M
madbomber31
Guest
anyone else?
M
madbomber31
Guest
http://www.bestbuy.com/compare.asp?...53=11121363&62=11182850&txtCount=64&x=94&y=11
see what you think.. especially with the sony.. it seems to me like that could be the best of the bunch.. i dont want to spend over 350, i'd be using the camera very recreationally.... and not all that much either...
would i be better off with a sub 3.0 mp cam???
see what you think.. especially with the sony.. it seems to me like that could be the best of the bunch.. i dont want to spend over 350, i'd be using the camera very recreationally.... and not all that much either...
would i be better off with a sub 3.0 mp cam???
Y_lifter
New member
Sony is nice... I compared it to the same type Olympus
http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11161867&m=82&cat=83&scat=0
Sony has rechargable batteries and charger Olympus NOT
(Important as these cameras go through batteries)
Olympus has a bit larger display on the back
Sony uses 2 AA, Olympus uses 4 AA
Both can do the short movie mode
Sony has no sound - Olympus has sound
As mentioned, I don't care much for the Memory sticks on the Sony's for storage.
SmartMedia cards are made by several companies, but the sticks are only made by Sony I believe.
Either camera would be good
http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11161867&m=82&cat=83&scat=0
Sony has rechargable batteries and charger Olympus NOT
(Important as these cameras go through batteries)
Olympus has a bit larger display on the back
Sony uses 2 AA, Olympus uses 4 AA
Both can do the short movie mode
Sony has no sound - Olympus has sound
As mentioned, I don't care much for the Memory sticks on the Sony's for storage.
SmartMedia cards are made by several companies, but the sticks are only made by Sony I believe.
Either camera would be good
