 Ali Shah |
Most Popular Megapixel... I am getting myself back into photography. I took a 9-year break... back then I was just a kid with a couple of Pentax and Chinon manual SLR's. I won a few awards at local photo expositions and even did some modeling work for pay on the side. It was very expensive which is one reason I took such a long break. In the meantime digital came into being and I purchased Canon Powershot A20 and S110 digi-cams to practice with. I check this site everyday for inspiration... the images are amazing. I feel like I am lacking something with the cameras that I own. I went to a local camera shop the other day to inquire about a compatible digital slave flash... the salesperson gave me a funny look and said "those are considered consumer cameras... why do you want a slave flash?" I ended up purchasing the SR electronics slave flash anyway from the Net. I wanted to find out what type of digital equipment other folks are using. When talking about megapixels... is 2.1 good enough to create good images... or should I set my sights higher? I have my eyes on the Minolta D7 and I am very tempted to get it now. By the way I purchased a Pentaz ZX-M as well... it's a starter SLR but should be good enough for what I want to do. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
As long as you don't need much larger prints than 5 x 7, 2 megapixels should be fine. Some 2 MP images on some printers look OK as an 8 x 10. To me, they're just on the verge of breaking up, whereas the same image would be true photographic quality as a 5 x 7. If you like SLRs, you might consider a film scanner to digitize these photos and any that you shot 9 years ago.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ali Shah |
Thanks for the reply. I am not really concerned about print size as much... 8x10 is good enough usually. However, I want a good quality picture... and I want a camera that will work well with my imagination. 2.1mp is good but the camera's functionality is very limited. I am interested in manual functions that let me create a image and not have the camera tell me what to do.
|
|
|
|
||
BetterPhotoJim.com - Jim Miotke  Contact Jim Miotke Jim Miotke's Gallery |
Like Doug, then, I too recommend a film scanner to go along with your SLRs. If you do not need the immediacy of a digital camera, you will likely find this more satisfying in the long run. It's more work but it is worth it if you want total creative control.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
I'll toss in an agreement with Jim on this too. All but the very high end and very expensive professional grade digitals are designed for auto-focus and auto-exposure. A 35mm film camera that allows *easy* and *simple* manual control of focus and exposure would give you the control you're looking for (even though it may also have an AE and/or Program mode). That, a few lenses, and a decent mid-grade *film* scanner would cost less than one of the high end pro-grade Canon or Nikon digitals . . . and get you higher resolution digital images! While you're looking at film SLR's take a peek at the Nikon FM-3a, a very new addition to Nikon's lineup and much like a cross between the FM-2n and discontinued FE-2. Its price might surprise you (compared to very high end digitals)! -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ali Shah |
I am sure that film still offers much more flexibility and creative control. However, what about the expense of developing rolls of film vs. digital? Something has to be said about that. Well I made the move... I bought a Minolta D7... should arrive sometime tomorrow. This machine offers manual capability unlike the lower end digi-cams. Is this considered higher end? I sure hope so. I could not afford the higher end SLR style digi-cams. So this will do it for now. Some of those SLR style digi-cams are only 3 & 4MP. I was surprised. Now I won't feel like I am lacking something and my creative juices should start flowing. It's a psychological thing I guess. I feel the limitation of the Canon 2.1's and I just feel like I am not getting the type of shot that I might be capable of taking. I will also use my new Pentax SLR but not as frequently because I cannot afford all those developing costs to be honest with you. $$ is the primary reason I stopped shooting way back when... although thankfully I can swing more now than I could when I was still in college. I must mention that I am now married with children!! 8-)) I just wanted to know what you all thought about the 2.1mp digi-cams vs. going higher. Getting a film scanner would be nice. I have tons of old negatives that I would love to bring into the digital world and play around with in PS. One step at the time though... otherwise the wife will have my head! Thanks for your input!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Hermann Graf |
According to my experience, digital pics with a resolution lower than 3.5 megapixels are not worth the expenditure. Even with 3.5 MP and a 10X15 cm format, you see the difference between digital and traditional photography when you are looking closely; in my view, you pay the price of a medium format camera and get the result a cheap P&S camera. On the other hand, digitals with 6 MP such as the Nikon D1 are extremely expensive at the moment.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Barnes Miller |
Here's something you might want to consider. The Dimage 5 come with a 16MB memory card. At Super Fine, one shot is 9.1 MBs. One shot is all you get. A 32MB card gets you 3 shots, 128MB - 13 and a 256MB - a total of 26. Download speeds vary also. A Lexmark 12x Compact Flash card makes you wait almost 9-10 sec between shots. The higher end cards are $$$$. Buy a camera for $900 and end up paying more for the memory. The Dimage 7 generates a 14.1 MB file, almost twice that of the 5. I own a Dimage 5 and I'm thrilled with it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ali Shah |
Barnes, Thanks for mentioning the memory... I didn't look at this in that way. So what do you use for memory? Do you use Super Fine mode or step down? I looked into getting the Dimage 5 but I thought well, if I am going to spend the money, why not go all the way - once and for all! I even considered the Canon PS G2 which seems like a great camera for the $$$. All in all, I love this site because there is just awesome critique and so much creativity. I would like to eventually step up the same level as all of you. There has to be give and take when comparing digital to film. However, I think that digital will grow and prices eventually will fall. I can see them coming down on many of the lower end digi-cams already. Like I said, I will shoot both ways. My interest is purely just to express myself through my shots... nothing more. Just pure pleasure!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Johnathan R. Peal |
I have a Canon G2 and it's a great camera for the semi-pro or advanced beginner. It's a 4.0 megapixel camera that allows for creativity with lots of different modes and settings. The picture quality is awesome for a camera in it's price range. It also allows for professional hot shoe flashes and micro flashes. You can purchase optional wide angle lens, a telephoto lens or a close up lens. It also come with a remote control which is useful and 32MB worth of memory. I get around 40-50 photos in the default mode. It will accept IBM microdrives where you can take 100's of photos on a single drive. However you won't be able to purchase the higher end zoom lenses available on professional cameras. I couldn't afford most of those anyway, lol. However a cost of $799.00 is much lower than the cost of the pro-pro models. I think it will last me a while and would satisfy most. I've seen several people on this site who use the G2 including past contest winners.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ali Shah |
Yeah from what I read the G2 goes a long way. There is no sense in mind buying those higher end SLR type of digi-cams. The Canon's higher ends are only 3 or 4 megapix anyhow.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhotoJim.com - Jim Miotke Contact Jim Miotke Jim Miotke's Gallery |
I just wanted to assure you, Ali, that you made a good choice. I have a few folks in the current photo-course using the Minolta Dimage 7 and loving it. You do have the creative controls and you do save time and money in the long run. And if what you really love most is browsing and participating at BetterPhoto, such a digital camera will do just fine. The immediate feedback also provides a terrible advantage when it comes to learning how to take better pictures. With the rough thumbnail version of your photo, you get a pretty good idea right away if you succeeded or not. When I go out shooting, I have a digital on one shoulder and a film camera on the other.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Johnathan R. Peal |
When I posted my suggestion I read the question just above mine about the Canon G2 and failed to read that Ali already bought a camera. I just checked out the camera Ali bought and it really looks like a heavy duty piece of gear. It has better zoom capabilities and more megapixels to boot. I'm sure that he will get superior results with his new Dimage 7 as compared to the Canon G2. I would say that he definately made a smart choice. I wished I had seen it before I purchased my camera, but I'm happy anyway. lol.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ali Shah |
Jonathon, Don't fret... you've got a good piece of machinery. The Canon G2 is a great camera! Thanks for all your input guys. Now if I could just get some feedback on my shots. I am just starting out so feedback would help. Usually I just shoot whatever I find interesting... this might not be appealing to others. I still need to work on composition of the shot. How to get rid of shadows for example or how to get perfect lighting. I prefer natural light but there are times that I wish I could control light. However, I am doing things now that I have not done in the past... all thanks to Photoshop and this new Minolta. It's all in good fun anyhow. C ya all later.
|
|
|
|
||
|
J David Patterson |
I view the burgeoning world of digital photographic equipment similiar to the not-so-new world of computers. In computers what you buy is "old" and yesterdays excitement before you leave the store. In digital photo the technology is as dynamic and expensive. And prices are dropping, albeit slowly, on the BEST stuff. In the PC, RAM is the best single upgrade. In digital photo, megapixels (MP) rule. My advice is to buy the BEST with the MOST MP's you can afford (or borrow). 3-4 MP WILL deliver a good size range of useable, saleable photo prints. 4+ MP's should be your minimum goal. However, what really counts most is how you use your eyes, how well you compose IN the camera. (Warning - cropping and some other manipulations eat up MP's in the digital darkroom, reducing the final print size options ) Constantly work on improving your ability to see. For with all the MP's and the top-of-the-line equipment, poorly composed weak images will be second-rate. What do I use ? Olympus C-4040, E-10 and E-20. The 4040 is a great "sneak" cam, with 4.1 MP, The E-10 and E-20 LOOK very professional in the field and give me the capability to sell 30X40 prints IF I have captured something worth bragging about. Good hunting. Buh-bye film.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Dave: Is that 30x40 inches or centimeters? -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Spyros |
Hello friends, I own a digital camera DSC-S30 which is only 1,3 Mpixel BUT it gives me manual operation and shoots great pictures, if we also assume that a print quality of 240 Dpi is acceptable then no more pixels are needed to print 6x4 photographs and from a reading distance. All I want to say is that there better things to search for than MPIXELS.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||
