How many pixels???? Help!! SLR versus Digital

Discussion in 'Digital Point & Shoot Camera' started by dmcd, Apr 3, 2005.

  1. dmcd

    dmcd Guest

    I once owned a SLR camera - an olympus OM10 - which took really good
    shots but was heavy! I now have a nikon coolpix 3100. My old camera
    took better pictures and I was wondering how many pixels did the old
    SLR camera's have?? my coolpix is 3.2 effective megapixels I am
    wondering if I invested in a 4 or 5 megapixels would it be up to the
    same quality as my old camera? thanks!
     
    dmcd, Apr 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. dmcd

    peter Guest

    This is quite a topic....I used to believe that a full 35mm film frame
    was about 20 Mp, However Chemical and digital photographies use
    different mechanisms for producing prints, and the camera lens is
    probably the most important factor above around 6 Mp, followed by the
    printer. What are "better" pictures, are we talking sharpness,
    saturation, colour accuracy, or what?. I have found that digital can use
    longer exposure times if left in point & shoot mode, so a good shooting
    stance is more important. Sharpness you can't do much about, other than
    using best pixel count and a steady hand, the others can be addressed in
    any competent photo edit program.
     
    peter, Apr 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. dmcd

    user Guest

    The OM10 had 0 mega pixels!
     
    user, Apr 3, 2005
    #3


  4. I think you have to handle your new digital camera better.
    It's less weight, then possible you shake the camera when shooting. Also
    it's a compact-camera and no reflex. I don't know the Coolpix, I have a
    Canon A75 with 3,2 Mp, also a compact , but with al lot possibilities of
    manual attitudes. I am very satisfied of this camera, but I could use
    more optical zoom then 3x optical zoom I have now. Also there's a Stitch
    or Panorama-function on my camera, and with this I can make photo's with
    many more than 3 Mp ! The Mp only says something about how big you can
    print your photo, not about the quality. It takes some more time
    between shooting and the photo with a lot of digitals, so you need a
    quiet hand or with less light a tripod. ( Some other digitals have
    solved this problem now). And trie out al the posibilities from your
    camera, you can see immediately the result and it cost you nothing ! I
    also use a nice program for optimalize my photo's on the computer, I got
    this with my Canon scanner : ArcSoft PhotoStudio 5 (it looks like
    PaintShoppro) . In fact this is a doca on the computer. To see your
    digital photo on paper you have the choose between a printer or a
    digital photoshop. A good photo-printer is expensive, so I sent my
    photo's to a shop, these photo's have often a better protection for
    light. Before I look with a cheaper printer how it looks on paper,
    because colours can look different (lighter)on the monitor then on
    paper. I also have a Minolta reflex, and I find it also too heavy to
    carry on my long walks. But often I had made even better photo's with a
    good compact analoge camera (very pity that it was stolen), that I used
    before my digital, then with my reflex ! Succes !

    Re:
    Thank you..........that is really good advice.
    Dorothy
     
    Anne Geeraets, Apr 11, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.