Digital camera megapixels?
#11
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Saginaw, MI
Posts: 1,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i had a 3.2 MP and now a 4.... ... the megapixel is not the SIZE of the file directly but the number of dots IN the picture...
One-thousand pixels, a unit of measurement in an image. This number will determine the quality of the image. Think of it as the number of dots in your picture. A low density of dots will result in a poor image.
its like the difference between a b&W TV a color 13" tv and a 56" plasma HDTV
you could always get the like.. 11 megapixel Digital SLR camera... lokl
One-thousand pixels, a unit of measurement in an image. This number will determine the quality of the image. Think of it as the number of dots in your picture. A low density of dots will result in a poor image.
its like the difference between a b&W TV a color 13" tv and a 56" plasma HDTV
you could always get the like.. 11 megapixel Digital SLR camera... lokl
#12
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Holly, Michigan
Posts: 1,181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basically the higher the megapixel the bigger the image you can print out without distortion. Thats the point i was getting across. Ive been to 15 meetings about digital cameras and the manufactures that make them...unless your printing posters you really dont need a 5 mp camera.
#13
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had bought my Canon S10 a few years back now and its a 2.1 MegaPixel...
I have had 4x6'* done and they are better then when I had my Canon Rebel * 35mm.
I can print out a 8x10 and it comes out really good....
Safely get incredible 5x7'*
I think that 2.1 is the lowest you would want to go....3.2 or hight is probably your best choice at the moment.
All about $$$$
How much you want to spend?
Here is a pic I took with mine...for an idea of a 2.1 ( won't embed it for 56k users...LOL)
http://members.***.net/givemebreak/Images/Stang.jpg
I have had 4x6'* done and they are better then when I had my Canon Rebel * 35mm.
I can print out a 8x10 and it comes out really good....
Safely get incredible 5x7'*
I think that 2.1 is the lowest you would want to go....3.2 or hight is probably your best choice at the moment.
All about $$$$
How much you want to spend?
Here is a pic I took with mine...for an idea of a 2.1 ( won't embed it for 56k users...LOL)
http://members.***.net/givemebreak/Images/Stang.jpg
#14
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by givemebreak
All about $$$$
How much you want to spend?
How much you want to spend?
#15
I have Nikon Coolpix 900. It'* 2.4 MP and works great. I've had it for 3 years now and use it all the time for documenting the rebuild of my T/A. I print every picture taken on 8.5" x 11" paper and they come out great (to compile my binder of documentation). If you look very closely the pictures look grainy (on 8.5" x 11" paper), otherwise at a 12" distance they look fine. Anything smaller than 8.5" x 11" come out looking like they were from a 35 mm.
#16
For general purpose, like posting on the internet sites, my 2.0 Mp is adequate.
If you're into doing some better photography and blowing up pics to 8x10 size you should go to a 4 or better.
If you're into doing some better photography and blowing up pics to 8x10 size you should go to a 4 or better.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post