# Megapixels! How much do you need?



## Polarman (May 31, 2009)

I own a Kodak DX6490. Maybe not the best, but i got some really great results with it like this shot i took yesterday. I cropped the original picture to save on size. nothing else:







It's a 4 Megapixel (4.23 sensor) camera btw. Max quality resolution is 2304X1728. The JPEG file can vary from 500K to 2000K depending on the picture taken at 4MP. I have a 512MB card on my camera ATM and have 131 shots taken. The camera estimates that i can take 281 still. So i'm good for roughly another 400 pictures @ 4MP. Not bad!

Print size now. Here's a few calculations: 

Print size @ 150ppi = 15.36 X 11.52 inches
Print size @ 200ppi = 11.52 X 8.64 inches
Print size @ 300ppi = 7.68 X 5.76 inches

I never really print out pictures btw. And looking at those print size above, i could get a very good quality 8 X 10 print.

I don't know about you, but how much Megapixels do you really need when you take pictures ?


----------



## kurosagi01 (May 31, 2009)

if you are a professional photgrapher you would go for those professional camera with massive lenses but if you are like someone that just likes taking pictures then digital camera be nice?? 3-8mega pixel?


----------



## kyle2020 (May 31, 2009)

Anything over 7mp is overkill, bear in mind the eye can only distinguish up to 7.6mp (might be wrong, remember hearing that a while back).

Id say, because they are so common, something around the 10mp mark would be good enough for me - that picture you have taken is too low quality for me, the wings look nice but the colours seem blurred and the image as a whole isnt sharp enough.

Might just be me though - and please, dont take that as criticism, its an amazing photo, just the quality im talking about.


----------



## ShadowFold (May 31, 2009)

#$%& I hate bugs.. I have a 10.0 megapixel Canon PowerShot A480 Black, takes very good close up shots. 

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=94189


----------



## trickson (May 31, 2009)

I have a 5 .1 mega pixel Emprex . I like .


----------



## W1zzard (May 31, 2009)

the rest of the camera aside i'd say 6 mp is enough for most uses. more is always better of course, especially if you plan on doing cropping or use a fixed lens

my cam is 24 mp and i use all of them


----------



## stefanels (May 31, 2009)

I have a NIKON CoolPix L16 with 7.1 Mpx and a 4Gb Emtec SD card in it...


----------



## DaveK (May 31, 2009)

Well it kind of depends, if it's got a higher optical zoom I don't mind a lower resolution, lower optical zoom with a higher resolution is ok because you can get better crops.

It all depends on the image quality too, my phone is 5MP but images aren't as good quality as my 3.2MP Fujifilm. Images on the Fujifilm look very nice at full size, but not on the 5MP so resized to 3.2MP or 2MP it looks better.

The 12.1MP Sony I'm looking at is nice, but the pics at 100% aren't as good quality as my 3.2MP at 100% but because it's 12.1MP resizing it down to 3.2MP it looks better than the Fuji.

I find it's best to have an all rounder, good resolution and good optical zoom. Also, I find the higher resolution helps in post processing, like cropping and straightening the image.

I'm due a new camera though, my phone doesn't do good enough as a dedicated camera but sometimes it can take great pics, especially close ups like these: Click, Click, Click


----------



## Polarman (May 31, 2009)

kyle2020 said:


> that picture you have taken is too low quality for me, the wings look nice but the colours seem blurred and the image as a whole isnt sharp enough.
> 
> Might just be me though - and please, dont take that as criticism, its an amazing photo, just the quality im talking about.



I don't mind.

I posted that picture as is using the macro mode. I did not photoshop it. Here's another unaltered shot:






Hope you like this one better.


----------



## DreamSeller (May 31, 2009)

Polarman said:


> I don't mind.
> 
> I posted that picture as is using the macro mode. I did not photoshop it. Here's another unaltered shot:
> 
> ...



wow that's 4 mpixels ?  
i thought 6 is not enough anyway after seeing this pic i'd say 5-6 max


----------



## kurosagi01 (May 31, 2009)

i use my phone camera lol which is a LG viewty with 5mp =p good enough for me,the 3.2mp from the cybershot phone(K800i or K810i) are nice 3.2mp if you want a camera phone.


----------



## entropy13 (May 31, 2009)

I have a Sony Cyber-Shot @ 13.6MP, but I'm using it at just 5MP.

My current phone, which is more than 3 years old already (W900i) has 2MP which is good enough today, and quite great 3 years ago.


----------



## trickson (May 31, 2009)

I took this just now .


----------



## intel igent (May 31, 2009)

i was told that a point & shoot with 6mp-10mp is more than sufficient for everyday normal use, my p&s is true 6mp and with some more practice i think i could capture great picture's! i was told something to do with the zoom is important? whether it is optical or digital? 

 damn W1zz 24mp!  i don't think i've ever seen a camera with more than 15mp!   guess that's how you manage all those beauty close up's 

also is it true that an image captured with higher mp is asier to edit/manipulate?


----------



## Dark_Webster (May 31, 2009)

Here you go:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082009canoneos1dsmarkiii.asp

Two of the best cameras in the high-end segment. For those that have never seen a beast DSLR, enjoy . (Oh, and don't be scared about the prices)


----------



## DaveK (May 31, 2009)

I saw samples from a 24MP camera, I think it was a Canon, the pictures were AMAZING, great detail at full crop, bet it cost a lot lol


----------



## AsRock (May 31, 2009)

intel igent said:


> i was told that a point & shoot with 6mp-10mp is more than sufficient for everyday normal use, my p&s is true 6mp and with some more practice i think i could capture great picture's! i was told something to do with the zoom is important? whether it is optical or digital?
> 
> damn W1zz 24mp!  i don't think i've ever seen a camera with more than 15mp!   guess that's how you manage all those beauty close up's
> 
> also is it true that an image captured with higher mp is asier to edit/manipulate?



Yeah i'm happy with my Pentax 6.1Mp does just fine pics are big enough for my needs.

I hear it a lot on DPreview that these high Mp camera's are not really needed but do have there place if the rest of the camera is upto it.

About 15Mp is  is the highest i've heard of but see no need think it's more about marketing than any thing and not actually need\requirement for most.


----------



## Frederik S (May 31, 2009)

For the web 6 mp or more is enough. For school work 24 mp would be nice since we sometimes do A0 or double A0 posters for our presentations. 

It is all about the lens and body combination. The body needs to have sufficient features and performance and so does the lens.


----------



## Dark_Webster (May 31, 2009)

Of course they are very expensive... a Canon 1Ds Mark III body costs here in Portugal 7000€ (not a typo). There are lenses that cost more than the body.

But responding to the question on this topic, 8-10 megapixels are enough for me .


----------



## thebeephaha (May 31, 2009)

It isn't the number of pixels, it is the quality of the lens.

Case and point.

Nikon D1, one of the oldest digital SLR cameras, which mind you is still used today, is 2.7MP, it blows your average 6-10MP camera easily just because of the lenses you can use and the quality of the sensor.





^Image I shot with a D1 about 3 years ago.

Now I use a more state of the art D300 which has 12MP and can also use the same lenses, that is a combo that is hard to beat, but the point is, MP aren't the main thing you should look at.


----------



## etrigan420 (May 31, 2009)

damn fine shot there beep.

I just bought the wife a Canon T1i...wish I knew how to use it!!!


----------



## RadeonX2 (May 31, 2009)

I had been starting printing photo's with my HP 900 printer lately this May. It's not the best quality output printer but it looks stunning with bright color after a few adjustments printed size is 4x6 4r photo. I bought a matte type a4 photo paper 20 sheets 1 sheet can print up to 4 reduced size 4r photos. I'm using this free photo batch editor/print it's called Photoscape http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/index.php it's very easy to use once you familiarize it.

this is my camera. Sony DSC W55. it's great for point-and-shoot photography.
it has 7.2MP and most settings are automatic you can still adjust the camera settings for greater quality tho. 






right now I'm eyeing on this camera. It's a Nikon D-60 great for those starters who are planning on going DSLR.


----------



## Deusxmachina (May 31, 2009)

thebeephaha said:


> It isn't the number of pixels, it is the quality of the lens.



Yeah, that.  My old Olympus only did 640x480, but compared to the higher mp Sony Mavicas and things of the time, and even a ways into the future, the Olympus put them to shame.  Less pixels but better picture.  Take a 5mp-ish Nikon or maybe Canon or something and compare to the current 10mp lesser brands to see similar.

Having said that, other than used, it's hard to buy less than a 5mp or so today anyway.  Pretty much anything can take "pretty good" to "good enough" recreational-type photos today, but there can definitely be a quality difference between brands or price levels.  My brother is big on Canons for their cost vs. performance, and every time I see pics from it, I can't argue.


----------



## RadeonX2 (May 31, 2009)

agree with that. its not all about the MP the camera has its about the lens. If you've mostly print those picture frame size photo's then you surely need a high MP cam. Don't underestimate the camera lens as its one of the big factor for clear image photography.


----------



## h3llb3nd4 (May 31, 2009)

Who cares how much you need?
I want 12+ with good Lenses to Satisfy my e-peen...


----------



## RadeonX2 (May 31, 2009)

Frederik S said:


> It is all about the lens and body combination. The body needs to have sufficient features and performance and so does the lens.



this is up to the point answer. I highly agreed that a camera body packed with performance features and image optimizer should be paired with a very good lens you'll get an outstanding Image quality.



thebeephaha said:


> It isn't the number of pixels, it is the quality of the lens.
> Now I use a more state of the art D300 which has 12MP and can also use the same lenses, that is a combo that is hard to beat, but the point is, MP aren't the main thing you should look at.



How much does the D-300 costs?


----------



## Frederik S (May 31, 2009)

thebeephaha said:


> It isn't the number of pixels, it is the quality of the lens.
> 
> Case and point.
> 
> ...



Depends if you want to print it in A0 size a 2.7 MP picture will look pixelated. But yeah the lens is every bit as important as the body.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (May 31, 2009)

I'd sure like to see that 24mp cam w1zzard


----------



## lemonadesoda (May 31, 2009)

Polarman said:


> I don't mind.
> 
> I posted that picture as is using the macro mode. I did not photoshop it. Here's another unaltered shot:
> 
> ...



That's a very nice shot polarman. But you can improve it a little. Around the head it has become "black out". The gamma needs working on just a touch to bring out some detail, if you can.  Otherwise, superb. The feathers are beautiful.


----------



## thebeephaha (May 31, 2009)

Frederik S said:


> Depends if you want to print it in A0 size a 2.7 MP picture will look pixelated. But yeah the lens is every bit as important as the body.



That is why God invented bicubic interpolation and the use of RAW files. 



RadeonX2 said:


> How much does the D-300 costs?



My setup with the body, vertical grip, assortment of batteries was about $2000 without a lens.

If we include my lenses, close to $7500.

The D300 is a high end consumer camera, a "prosumer" camera so it is for rich people or for me where I actually take pictures for a secondary job.

*For most people it is massively overkill.*


----------



## vbx (May 31, 2009)

Just get a Samsung WB550

http://www.samsungcamera.com/product/pro_view.asp?prol_uid=4589&step1=2&step2=1


----------



## Sir_Real (May 31, 2009)

What is the need for 12mp for a everyday camara? 

Two points i can see that make it pointless going over around 5mp:

1, A picture taken at 12mp has a res of 4000x3000. You carnt by monitors anything like that res.
2, Unless your going to shell out thousands on an A1 size 2400dpi printer you carnt print a 4000x3000 picture either. 

So all you will ever be able to see from pictures taken at that res is a digitally zoomed out version at a much lower res.

I'm no expert or owt on this subject so i'm probably wrong or missing something. If anyone knows a reason they would need 12mega pixels i'd be interested to know?


----------



## A Cheese Danish (May 31, 2009)

I got a 3.2MP camera on my phone and it works for what it needs to. However, for more detailed pictures, I'd say about 9-10MP or so.


----------



## AsRock (May 31, 2009)

RadeonX2 said:


> I had been starting printing photo's with my HP 900 printer lately this May. It's not the best quality output printer but it looks stunning with bright color after a few adjustments printed size is 4x6 4r photo. I bought a matte type a4 photo paper 20 sheets 1 sheet can print up to 4 reduced size 4r photos. I'm using this free photo batch editor/print it's called Photoscape http://www.photoscape.org/ps/main/index.php it's very easy to use once you familiarize it.
> 
> this is my camera. Sony DSC W55. it's great for point-and-shoot photography.
> it has 7.2MP and most settings are automatic you can still adjust the camera settings for greater quality tho.
> ...




Yeah i'd say NIKON is the best way to go...  Wise i did my self but the Pentax fit my hand better.  All though i'm paying for that due too lense costs but it's still a kick ass camera just those prices... I'd like pick up a macro lens my self as i already have a 300m film lens.

Don't forget to get a good Tripod and check on how it's built as there is some real nasty ones out there even in decent camera shops.


----------



## -1nf1n1ty- (Jun 1, 2009)

I love taking pictures and I made switches from my Samsung 8.2 or .3 megapixel camera to a casio 9.1 EX-285.....I'm thinking of upgrading to a new case camera with a better lens/zoom wish I could show you some pics but Im lazy


----------



## TRIPTEX_CAN (Jun 1, 2009)

10mp is enough for me but lenses are what really matters. 24mp with a shit lens will never compete with 1/4 the mp and top quality glass. 
http://img.techpowerup.org/090531/DSC01858-1016.jpg


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 1, 2009)

Sir_Real said:


> What is the need for 12mp for a everyday camara?
> 
> Two points i can see that make it pointless going over around 5mp:
> 
> ...



Hate to be the one pointing it out, but 4000x3000 pixels on A1 (841 x 594 mm) would be approximately 5 pixels per 1mm, which is the same as 120dpi or newspaper quality print. Awful. A4 is OK, and A3 may be OK depending on content and picture quality. But A2 and A1 would be pushing it.

A rule of thumb is approx 300-600dpi for a high quality colour print, e.g. colour magazine or photo.  However, your printer needs to be a MULTIPLE of this, because a printer "mixes" (typically) just 4 colours to make all, so it needs to print multiple "dots" of various colours to represent the full colour spectrum.

If you had a "real" 2400dpi printer then 4000x3000 pixels would fit on a piece of paper just 2 inches by 2 inches!  Of course, despite these specifications, no printer can actually achieve that resolution... just like no paper can be that accurate in capturing the ink. Actually, what is happening with these specifications, is that they expect you to print at say 600dpi, and the printer can use up to 4 dots (600x4=2400) to "mix" its colours to obtain the right shade of colour to print. Or you print at 300dpi and the printer can use 8 dots (300x8=2400) to "mix" the colours.

This is why "professional" colour printers have 10 or more colours... colours like "light black" which is actually a grey. This helps the printer "mix" colours more accurately without having to speckle high contrast colours with white space or black ink to obtain the right shades.


----------



## Sir_Real (Jun 1, 2009)

Guess i was wrong bout needing a A1 size printer. But going by your way A4 size would make a printer have to do 192 pixels per mm ! Is there really printers that can do that?

Theres defo no monitor gunna do 4000x3000 mind


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 1, 2009)

Wrong again! http://www.lcdnfo.com/html/Iiyama_AQU5611DTBK-lcd-monitor.html 

And IBM T221 http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1012426/ibm-t221---the-worlds-finest-monitor


----------



## vbx (Jun 1, 2009)

Sir_Real said:


> What is the need for 12mp for a everyday camara?
> 
> Two points i can see that make it pointless going over around 5mp:
> 
> ...



I didn't say get it because its 12MP..  Get it because it has a larger lens than any other "compact camera".  It also has some nice features.  And it barely 300 bucks.  You can't beat that at that price range. 

I provided a link for a reason.  Check it out.


----------



## Sir_Real (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Wrong again! http://www.lcdnfo.com/html/Iiyama_AQU5611DTBK-lcd-monitor.html
> 
> And IBM T221 http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1012426/ibm-t221---the-worlds-finest-monitor



Hay thats bull  neither of them can do 4000x3000. Getting close tho !

Thing is no normal gpu's go anywhere near 4000x3000 eva


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 1, 2009)

Sir_Real said:


> Guess i was wrong bout needing a A1 size printer. But going by your way A4 size would make a printer have to do 192 pixels per mm ! Is there really printers that can do that?



Er, wrong again! LOL 

A4 = 297 mm x 210 mm.  4000 pixels x 3000 pixels on A4 = approx 14 pixels per mm

A decent colour printer can do that resolution without a problem. The question is, can the "mix" the colours well enough so at that resolution it is photorealistic?  Or is the colour dithering going to "lose" resolution? Well, that's where 10 colour printers come in. With 10 colours, you can achieve a pretty good colour spectrum using four dots. So you would need to print 14 pixels per mm with the ability to squirt more than one ink colour over the same pixel, choosing from a combination of 10 inks to mix. Get the idea?

It's not surprising that inks are so expensive and printers need to be "calibrated". Get the colour mixes spot on to represent anything like the digital image is actually quite a challenging task! 



> Thing is no normal gpu's go anywhere near 4000x3000 eva



Wrong again!  LOL. Nearly any Dual-Link DVI can do that resolution. Just that the REFRESH FREQUENCY will NOT be 60, but more like 30, possibly lower.

So NOT for gaming at those resolutions!


----------



## Polarman (Jun 1, 2009)

I agree with lots of comments when it comes to sensor quality, lens quality and makers built-in firmware. 

But a simple fact is: Not all of us are professional photographers with infinite pockets. Those top quality equipment and software is way out of the average joe's income.

My DX6490 still takes great shots for a 4MP camera that's 6 years old. I use Photoshop Elements 5 (legally purchased) to edit stuff because CS4 is wayyyy to expensive for my taste. I also use Ashampoo's Photo Commander 7 (also legally purchased) to organize my pics.

Most people don't even bother to take the time trying to take good pictures let alone great ones. Some don't even bother backing up those pictures in case of loss. Just to give you an idea how some folks are really bad, let me tell you this exemple:

   I was on a trip to Las Vegas in 2005 and was on top of that "Eiffel Tower" replica at night. I was the only one there with a tripod (very small) out of around 25 people. Everybody around me was snapping away aimlessly with the flash behind the protective grill (fence)  some had their arms way up in the air trying to take shots over the grill with one hand. BTW, here is the shot i took:






Again, the picture was not altered (beautified) on photoshop. The only thing i did was to combine 2 shots together. I'm satisfied with my camera's results and don't mind some minor flaws because i know that my picture are only for me and not on the cover of Time Life.

The conclusion is like some said: It's the person behind the camera that affects the quality of the picture, not the camera itself and not more megapixels.


----------



## Sir_Real (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Er, wrong again! LOL
> 
> A4 = 297 mm x 210 mm.  4000 pixels x 3000 pixels on A4 = approx 14 pixels per mm
> 
> ...



Dont know how your working it out ?

My sum goes:

A4 area 297 x 210 = 62,370 square mm  &  4000 x 3000 pixels = 12,000,000 or 12mp

12,000,000 devided by 62,370 = 192  So there would be 192 pixels to every square mm 

& no monitors or LCD tv will run at 30 htz ! And all gpu's i've seem max res is 2560 by 1600 even Dual-Linked.


----------



## thebeephaha (Jun 1, 2009)

The reason for MP is for cropping and overall print detail at large sizes.

Take this image for example:






Nice overall image.

This is a 100% crop from the pool in the image above:






You can't pull detail like that with low MP count or crappy lenses.

(THESE ARE NOT MY IMAGES, they are by "Steve Perry" from http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/728117 and shot with a Nikon D3x (24.5MP) w/ 24-70 @ 2.8)

EDIT:

Here is another example:


----------



## DaveK (Jun 1, 2009)

Amazing pic Polarman. There's no doubt that Digital SLR cameras are better than point and shoot cameras because of the lens.

I see myself using 12MP, it means I can crop a small part of the image while maintaining a large size or straighten the photo if it's at an angle.

I like to take pictures, so it's a shame I don't have a decent camera, In the past 6 months I've taken 2,536 pictures on my phone lol.


----------



## W1zzard (Jun 1, 2009)

tigger said:


> I'd sure like to see that 24mp cam w1zzard



i'm sorry .. it's 21mp .. i got the eos 5d mark ii


----------



## Soylent Joe (Jun 1, 2009)

At this time, I see no need for anything over about 8MP, unless you're a professional photographer with a killer setup. The larger the photo, the more memory it takes up (making older 256MB and 512MB cards almost useless) and in order to upload it to about anything, you'll need to resize it, therefore reducing the quality lower than what a 4MP camera could take.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 1, 2009)

Sir_Real said:


> & no monitors or LCD tv will run at 30 htz ! And all gpu's i've seem max res is 2560 by 1600 even Dual-Linked.


Wrong again, my friend! LOL 

Why dont you just read the links I gave you earlier, and then you can stop posting SUCH NONSENSE! 

Start with this one: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1012426/ibm-t221---the-worlds-finest-monitor


----------



## Sir_Real (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Wrong again, my friend! LOL
> 
> Why dont you just read the links I gave you earlier, and then you can stop posting SUCH NONSENSE!
> 
> Start with this one: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1012426/ibm-t221---the-worlds-finest-monitor



LoL Think we are gunna have to agree to disagree on this 

You still havent shown me a monitor that can run 4000x3000 res still !

I read nothing there that says its possible to get a res big enough to display an entire 4000x3000 photo.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 1, 2009)

I have an 8MP Sony with Zeiss optics and a new Nikon 14MP compact.  The Zeiss optics are so much better, that a 500% zoom on an image from both cameras are about equally sharp - and that is giving some benefit of the doubt to the Nikon.

I have an old Zeiss Ikon from the 50's and the images are so sharp they'll make your eyes bleed.  It is truly amazing.

So if you can get superior optics at a somewhat lower resolution, I think that is the clear choice.  However as resolution increases, even mediocre optics will look good.


----------



## raptori (Jun 1, 2009)

i found this one DSC-H50 and i'm assuming that its the best in our market in the line of digital cameras .......... is it so and is there's better camera in the line of Sony Cyber-shot® Digital Camera.


----------



## Triprift (Jun 1, 2009)

I use a Nikon D40 myself wich is 6 MP and produces fine pics. I voted 8-12 as over 12 is the reals of proffesional photography and ppl who want greater editing ans cropping with Raw at higher res.


----------



## twilyth (Jun 1, 2009)

raptori said:


> i found this one DSC-H50 and i'm assuming that its the best in our market in the line of digital cameras .......... is it so and is there's better camera in the line of Sony Cyber-shot® Digital Camera.



For a while I thought that Sony had dropped Zeiss as their optics company, but I guess they're back - thank god.  I don't know if it's the best, but I like that 15x zoom.  I have the DSC-F828.  It's not a good choice for most people but I got it because it has really good low light focusing options.  Don't ask.


----------



## human_error (Jun 1, 2009)

I use a Sony A200 DSLR for when i wanna go out to take photos which is 10 megapixel and i don't feel like i need any more even when doing full crops of my shots, though i can see why professionals may want more. The lense and the sensor on my Sony are brilliant and have a far greater impact on picture quality than pure megapixels (beyond a certain point anyway, a brill lense/sensor at vga resolution will still be rubbish, but at 6mp+ lense and sensor quality have a far greater impact imo).

If i'm just out and about my old LG viewty's 5mp or my current LG renoir's 8mp cameras are more than good enough for a quick snap as it's unlikely i'd happen upon something i'd want to photo and then crop to hell (i'd just get closer to what i wanted to shoot  ).


----------



## thebeephaha (Jun 1, 2009)

Sir_Real said:


> LoL Think we are gunna have to agree to disagree on this
> 
> You still havent shown me a monitor that can run 4000x3000 res still !
> 
> I read nothing there that says its possible to get a res big enough to display an entire 4000x3000 photo.



Who gives a crap, high resolution like that is not for viewing all at once on a monitor at native res, it is for cropping capability or extremely fine prints.

You two give it a rest!


----------



## Sir_Real (Jun 1, 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Sir_Real  *
> LoL Think we are gunna have to agree to disagree on this





thebeephaha said:


> Who gives a crap, high resolution like that is not for viewing all at once on a monitor at native res, it is for cropping capability or extremely fine prints.
> 
> You two give it a rest!



Yeah who gives a crap ! That was the point.. Me & lemonadesoda was just avin a gentlemanly disagreement over sumthing totally unimportant. Called avin a sence of humor


----------



## Reventon (Jun 1, 2009)

I'd say about 8MP is good for me. My mom has a relatively cheap 8.3MP HP camera and that thing takes great pictures at something like 3200x2400 or possibly larger.


----------



## suraswami (Jun 1, 2009)

To me 4 to 8 MP is more than enough for most photographers.  It all depends on the lens quality, cmos/ccd and most importantly the internal algorithm (software).  If the algorithm is messed up then the whole camera is POS.

Any camera that can expose a full dark room (smaller size) properly with its built-in flash and will take people pictures with proper exposure using flash and only indoor artificial light then its a good camera (ofcourse without red-eye).  Most SLRs take good pictures, but carrying around is a pain.

Not really a fan of Sony digital cameras (the smaller ones), they really suck in indoor flash photography.  Anyday I will buy Fuji.

I own a Olympus 3.2 MP 10X zoom, Panasonic FZ4 4 MP, Fuji A500 5MP (my wife's camera) and recently bought a Fuji F470 6MP for my sister.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 1, 2009)

Sir_Real said:


> Yeah who gives a crap ! That was the point.. Me & lemonadesoda was just avin a gentlemanly disagreement over sumthing totally unimportant. Called avin a sence of humor


English humour is an acquired taste. Not everyone likes it. Careful, or there'll be some spilt tea around here.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> English humour is an acquired taste. Not everyone likes it. Careful, or there'll be some spilt tea around here.





i have crumpet's!


----------



## Sir_Real (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> English humour is an acquired taste. Not everyone likes it. Careful, or there'll be some spilt tea around here.



Oow ! avin a pop at the english humour  Your just bitter cause ya know i was right bout the monitor thing 

I'll say no more its gone totally off topic.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Jun 1, 2009)

Megapixels mean f*ck all...........its all about the quality of the lens


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 1, 2009)

HookeyStreet said:


> Megapixels mean f*ck all...........its all about the quality of the lens



mmmmmhhhhhhmmmmm!


I use a Rebel XTi, 10.1Mp. Its amazing .


Megapixels is just how big your picture is gonna be, though.. Having a quality sensor, and NICE lens.... (and ofcourse good hands controlling the settings) is what makes the shots look nice 

Ive seen so many people look at a 640x480 picture and be like "ahhh thats a nice picture!"


I die a little inside


----------



## ste2425 (Jun 1, 2009)

12 is what i own, its great coz even if i want to take a pic of something where i dont all 12 mega pixels i still have it set to that coz i get so much more detail


----------



## twilyth (Jun 1, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> English humour is an acquired taste. Not everyone likes it. Careful, or there'll be some spilt tea around here.



That's right!  And that tea is hot!  Hot enough to . . . uh . . . make your skin REALLY red!!!  Understand?!?! :shadedshu


----------



## ste2425 (Jun 1, 2009)

hmmm this makes me really fancy a........


errrr
coffe


----------



## intel igent (Jun 1, 2009)

ste2425 said:


> hmmm this makes me really fancy a........
> 
> 
> errrr
> coffe



 i'm gutted! :shadedshu


----------



## ste2425 (Jun 1, 2009)

haha what!?!?


----------



## Triprift (Jun 2, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> mmmmmhhhhhhmmmmm!
> 
> 
> I use a Rebel XTi, 10.1Mp. Its amazing .
> ...



Your right but also the skill of the person taking the shots ive seen some great shots with low mp compacts. Crumbs i did decents shots with my 2 mp Nokia camera phone course thats at the usual photo size any bigger than that and there bad.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 2, 2009)

I vote 12mp + I don't know if you all realize but your image resolution shrinks when you use digital zoom. so actually for normal users higher mp is better because normal cameras have 3-5x optical zoom witht he rest being digital.

take my Kodak z1485 ls for example. 14mp witha 5x optical zoom. now putting aside kodaks normal issues if I go to the 5x full optical zoom I can take a zoomed image with full quality 14mp. If I take a full digital zoom i get an image that is 1280x960 or 1.2mp wow. I also have a 5mp kodak it has a 3x optical zoom, when fully zoomed in I get a picture 1024x768 or .78mp and you also have to remeber that the z1485 is zoomed to 25x optical and digital versus the 5mp's 9x optical and digital. 

which is why for the average user higher mp is better either for zoom when you're out about or if you crop the images at home.

now if you have better lenses with 25x optical + then you have less to worry about and can zoom to your hears delight at the camera's full mp. 

professional will go for lense, shutter, iso, and then mp (followed by a zillion others) but if they're going to be making 10'x15' photos for a photo show, they are going to want a high mp along with the other features of the camera. 

we got teh z1495 ls for it's ability to do hd video (720p) along with the zoom, mp and full auto mode. and all I'm doing is taking pictures and video of my daughter.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 2, 2009)

^^ i thought optical zoom had a part in it! mine has 12x optical


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 2, 2009)

intel igent said:


> ^^ i thought optical zoom had a part in it! mine has 12x optical



Not for pro's.

Infact, my rebel Xti doesn't have any zoom 

Now if I use a 50-75mm lens it has a little... if I use my 75-300mm.... well I can take a picture down the street!

But yeah, digital zoom isnt worth a damn. (Digital zoom works better on high MP cameras though. obviously. Its no different than zooming in in photoshop though.)


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jun 2, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Not for pro's.
> 
> Infact, my rebel Xti doesn't have any zoom
> 
> ...



this is true digital zoom is no different then doing it on your desktop. but some peopel are lazy that way lol. 

in the end though average users miss out on some quality shots due to lack of a good lense and compact cameras have no way to upgrade. 

for mor proshots we have a 35mm canon with a 50-75mm lense and a 75-300mm for longer shots. I'd get a telephoto for it if jlo was in town lol.


----------



## intel igent (Jun 2, 2009)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Not for pro's.
> 
> Infact, my rebel Xti doesn't have any zoom
> 
> ...



that's a given seeing as on a P & S the lense is fixed and on a "pro body" you can swap lense's for close up's, distance, panoramic, fish eye, etc.....

is it safe to say that on a P & S "optical" zoom is a factor to consider?


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 2, 2009)

Above 8MP, it isnt the number of pixels that are important anymore, *but the quality of the lens*.

There really is no point being "fooled" by megapixel marketing, and then just sticking those cheap noisy sensors behind cheap plastic.

Quality glass is needed.


----------



## Steevo (Jun 2, 2009)

W1zzard said:


> the rest of the camera aside i'd say 6 mp is enough for most uses. more is always better of course, especially if you plan on doing cropping or use a fixed lens
> 
> my cam is 24 mp and i use all of them



Bastard. 



I find the shots, lenses, and adjustments make the shot more than the MP of the ccd. A poorly setup shot on a 12MP will be worse than a great shot on a 3MP.



If you are starting out learn to use the settings on a camera, or buy a higher quality camera with more settings and learn to use them. If you do know, then buy a higher MP camera and use the settings for better pics.


----------



## thebeephaha (Jun 3, 2009)

Steevo said:


> more than the MP of the ccd



CCD!

Nonsense man! CMOS sensors are where it's at!


----------



## twilyth (Jun 3, 2009)

intel igent said:


> that's a given seeing as on a P & S the lense is fixed and on a "pro body" you can swap lense's for close up's, distance, panoramic, fish eye, etc.....
> 
> is it safe to say that on a P & S "optical" zoom is a factor to consider?



I would ignore numbers that include digital zoom.  DZ serves no purpose if you know how to use a photo editor.  Generally anything that just says xx times zoom, will be total zoom.  You have to check to make sure it's optical.  

But the bottom line is that you have to be honest with yourself.  Are most of your pix impromptu and candid shots or do you go out intending to take pictures.  If the former, then unless you like looking like a tourist, you won't be going everywhere with a 5lb, high-end DSLR hanging from your neck - not to mention the extra bag full of another 10lbs of lenses, filters and amulets to ward off any evil spirits that would do your expensive collection harm.  If the latter, then you already do all of these things, go for the best camera you can afford.

I have a Nikon compact with 14MP.  It takes pretty nice pictures and I can walk around with it in one of the pockets of my cargo pants and forget that it's there.  But I almost never go out intending to shoot.


----------

