It's not always the number of pixels that makes a better camera

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Brian, Apr 8, 2005.

  1. Brian

    Brian Guest

    I recently e-mailed a friend a photo taken on my 1.3 mega pixel camera
    and he found it hard to believe the quality of my photo as he owns a 5
    mega pixel camera. I told him that what counts is the quality of the
    lens. Having a higher pixel camera only helps if you want to enlarge
    the photo or enlarge a part of the photo.
    I feel that this is a misconception with many buyers of digital
    camera's.

    Regards Brian
     
    Brian, Apr 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Brian

    Sheldon Guest

    I've made "decent" looking 8x10's with a 1.3 mp camera. I know it's pushing
    it, but in reality it all depends how close you get your nose to the photo.
    It does have a lot to do with the camera, lighting, and holding the camera
    steady or using high shutter speeds. I doubt most people could tell the
    difference between the image from a 6 mp camera and an 8 mp camera, all
    other things being equal -- and full frame.
     
    Sheldon, Apr 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Brian

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Many factors go into the final result. The lens, the sensor, the
    firmware in the camera. One factor is the compression. Some companies
    (Kodak is one) feel that more compression is better because it means you
    can write more pictures on a flash card, while others favor minimal
    compression and maximum quality (some even write RAW or .TIFF files).
    With a 1.3MP camera, compression is probably minimal, and the sensor has
    quite large pixels which produce a low noise image (looks sharp). My
    brother's 1.3 mp Olympus camera produces quite nice 4x6 pictures. I am
    sure that with a loupe I could tell them from my 4mp camera's pictures,
    but they still look good enough for most people.

    The whole package is the result of the creative compromises made by the
    designers, but a lousy lens is going to produce lousy pictures, that's
    for sure.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 9, 2005
    #3
  4. Brian

    Mike Guest

    He wouldn't necessarily see much difference if the picture was emailed to
    him and he was viewing on a monitor screen. He WOULD most likely notice a
    difference on a 6" by 4" print, although not necessarily. On larger prints,
    I'd bet money he'd say there was a difference. Viewing on a monitor screen
    at "actual size" or less is not the best indicator.
     
    Mike, Apr 9, 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.