 Paul |
Buying a digital camera I am trying to decide on a good digital camera. I have been into photography for most of my life, and I am very picky about image quality. I currently shoot on an SLR camera and have the processor make me a CD from the negatives in addition to my prints. This is costing me a fortune! Once I purchase a digicam, I do not plan to make prints on an inkjet printer, and I will probably never order larger than 5x7’s when I order prints through online services (such as Shutterfly). I understand that more megapixels means better image resolution, but there is something I cannot figure out. Most of the ads I see for digicams list both the megapixels and the max resolution. Why is it that the resolution figures (e.g., 2280 x 1740) almost never add up to the megapixel number? And which is more important for overall image resolution? - Paul
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
For your purposes, a 2 megapixel might do, if money is an issue. Even at full resolution, you could get more images onto your storage cards. Problem is, a cheaper digicam may not have the exposure flexibility or lens quality a photog like you would want. Be looking at 3 megapixels, minimum. Read a brochure on, for example, the Canon G2, and see if those advanced features appeal to you. My guess is that they would. The resolution figures, multiplied together, should give you the megapixel rating. I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers round the megapixel figure up a little. The megapixel and pixel dimension ratings are two different ways of stating the capability of the camera's CCD (charge-coupled device, the thing that turns light intensity and color into digital data). Megapixels is just more convenient to use as a comparison.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Paul |
Thanks for the info, Doug. Maybe rounding up is all the manufacturers are doing, but it seems like there must be more to it. The G2, by way of your example, is listed at 2272 x 1704 pixels, which comes to 3,871,488--yet they also list it as a 4.0 mp digicam. Some manufacturers even give more precise mp figures that are also off. Like the Olympus C-3040 (2048 x 1536 = 3,145,728) which is listed as 3.34 mp. More and more, I'm leaning toward a 3 mp camera, minimum. But I may need to spend the $ for a 4 mp model. I'm just waiting for the prices to fall a bit more first. Right now, I'm comparing the Canon G2, the Olympus C-4040, the Sony DCS-S85, the Minolta DiMAGE S404, and the Panasonic DMC-LC5, all of which have 4 mp ratings. Any thoughts on these choices?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard E. Perry |
You may want to consider NIKON Coolpix 880 digital camera..3.34 mega pixels...I have one ..I am new to digital photography..its a great camera for the newby..but for the seasoned photographer like u it will still suffice I think..take a look at it..the price on it is good now..down to around $350 I think.. good luck..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Peckman |
Paul, as far as comparing digitals and checking out reviews, go to www.dpreview.com. Extensive reviews/tests/comparisons done on many digital cameras. Wonderful site that will help you make an informed decision. Good luck! From that site, I am leaning toward the Sony DSC-S85.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||