Lounge For casual talk about things unrelated to General Motors. In other words, off-topic stuff. And anything else that does not fit Section Description.

Digital camera megapixels?

Thread Tools
 
Old Apr 27, 2004 | 02:28 PM
  #11  
FiReDeViL's Avatar
Senior Member
Certified GM nut
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,632
Likes: 0
From: Saginaw, MI
FiReDeViL is on a distinguished road
Default

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
Reply
Old Apr 27, 2004 | 02:34 PM
  #12  
looong4's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,181
Likes: 0
From: Holly, Michigan
looong4 is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply
Old Apr 27, 2004 | 05:02 PM
  #13  
givemebreak's Avatar
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
From: RI
givemebreak is on a distinguished road
Default

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
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 04:11 AM
  #14  
scottydl's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Posts like a Camaro
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,107
Likes: 6
From: Land of Lincoln
scottydl is on a distinguished road
Default

Originally Posted by givemebreak
All about $$$$
How much you want to spend?
That'* the question I'm still trying to answer for myself... for scenery/nature photos which I take quite often and enlarge to 11x14, it sounds like I may need something in the 4-5mp range. At their current prices, I think I'll be waiting awhile until the buzz dies down!
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 08:08 AM
  #15  
vital49's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1
Likes: 5
From: Purgatory
vital49 is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply
Old Apr 30, 2004 | 11:39 PM
  #16  
2000SilverBullet's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
2000SilverBullet is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Custom88
Lounge
7
Feb 23, 2004 06:07 AM
ssesc93
Lounge
1
Feb 13, 2004 04:38 PM
BonneAlien
Lounge
7
Feb 5, 2004 08:29 AM
GAMEOVER
Lounge
12
Jan 25, 2004 07:05 PM
Merlin 91/97
Lounge
18
Aug 7, 2003 12:53 PM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:20 PM.