NotebookForums.com › Forums › Off Topic › Mobile Devices Discussion › DIgital camera mega pixels question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DIgital camera mega pixels question

post #1 of 18
1/1/05 at 7:12pm
Thread Starter 
ok 3 monthes ago i bought the new model Nikon Coolpix 2.2. It takes very good pictures .
Now i saw they have for sale the 3.2 coolpix for the same price i bought the 2.2 .

My question is this : Is there a big difference between 2.2 and 3.2 mg pixels when you ONLY view the pictures in your computer but never print them on paper?


my coolpix 2.2 takes better pictures than my friend's 5.0 mg pixels no brand camera


2.2 example
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 18
1/2/05 at 5:19am
The only thing that matters is if you are satisfied with the image quality. I used to shoot professional photography and the camera we used only had a 2 megapixel capability, but it was a professional camera. Not even a 5 megapixel consumer level camera could compete.

I have some pictures posted in this thread you're welcome to look at for comparison:

My Former 5690 Pic Thread

The pictures were REALLY cut down in size to fit web restrictions, but you'll get an idea of how even a 2 megapixel camera can give awesome pictures.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 18
1/5/05 at 9:21am
I think a the lens is very important. If you have crappy optics i wont matter how many megapixles you have you'll still have a crappy picture.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 18
1/5/05 at 3:44pm
If you're only going to view them on computer you don't even need a megapixel. The extra resolution is only for printing.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 18
1/5/05 at 4:00pm
I'm not sure about 2.2 megapixels, but 4.0 yields a resolution of 2272x1704 and 3.2 has a res of 2048x1536.

My guess is that 2.2 is 1600x1200, but I'm not positive.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 18
1/5/05 at 4:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster
I'm not sure about 2.2 megapixels, but 4.0 yields a resolution of 2272x1704 and 3.2 has a res of 2048x1536.

My guess is that 2.2 is 1600x1200, but I'm not positive.

that is true

my coolpix 2.2 can do 1600x1200
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 18
1/8/05 at 6:09am
I have a 5mp Canon Powershot S50 i bought and i never use the 5mp because the files are so huge i would agree with everyone else that the lens and shooting options really make the camera. the only thing i can think high MP is good for is if someone will be zooming in on the pics to see the little details. just my 2 cents
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 18
1/8/05 at 6:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wooster
I'm not sure about 2.2 megapixels, but 4.0 yields a resolution of 2272x1704 and 3.2 has a res of 2048x1536.

My guess is that 2.2 is 1600x1200, but I'm not positive.
And my 8 mega pixel Sony pic size 3264 by 2448
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 18
1/9/05 at 3:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakaze
If you're only going to view them on computer you don't even need a megapixel. The extra resolution is only for printing.
What he said.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 18
1/9/05 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakaze
If you're only going to view them on computer you don't even need a megapixel. The extra resolution is only for printing.
Printing Poster size?

what about printing 4x6 (i think they're 4x6 ) glossies?
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 18
1/9/05 at 1:54pm
i have a 5mp consumer level Kodak cam. sometimes the pics are blurry-ish even on full res. Probably should have gone with a 3.5 MP cam with better zoom and better focus.

let it be a lesson: you get what you pay for. and more MPs don't always mean better pictures
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 18
1/10/05 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentai
Printing Poster size?

what about printing 4x6 (i think they're 4x6 ) glossies?

Ideally you want images for print at 300 DPI; so for a 4x6 picture you want a digital image that is 1200 by 1800 pixels.

You can get by on as much as 400x600 pixels if you need to—if you're printing on your home inkjet printer you can go this low but even then...—but the higher the resolution the more detail there is in the printed image.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 18
1/10/05 at 5:58pm
I use an old Sony Cybershot DSC-S70 3.3MP. I end up printing my images so I set it to 1600x1200 and they come out great. For file size, that averages to 800-900K per image.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 18
1/10/05 at 6:49pm
Also, if you use zoom, I've noticed that pictures don't come out near as well as they do when the camera's in its unzoomed state. Even if I'm not using the digital zoom part, it just doesn't come out right. That's why I'm looking at a DSLR for my next camera. I've had 3 Sonys (current one being a P-8) and while they're good, they're not good enough for me. For the most part, if I shot unzoomed pics, 4x6 glossies would print beautifully whenever I took burnt CDs into photo printing kiosks.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 18
1/10/05 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriedToast
Also, if you use zoom, I've noticed that pictures don't come out near as well as they do when the camera's in its unzoomed state. Even if I'm not using the digital zoom part, it just doesn't come out right. That's why I'm looking at a DSLR for my next camera. I've had 3 Sonys (current one being a P-8) and while they're good, they're not good enough for me. For the most part, if I shot unzoomed pics, 4x6 glossies would print beautifully whenever I took burnt CDs into photo printing kiosks.
DSLR is the way to go.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 18
1/10/05 at 9:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsd91741
DSLR is the way to go.
I wish I had the cash for one of those...

As it is, my Olympus Stylus300 will have to do. It has 3.2 megapixels and 3x optical zoom.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 18
1/10/05 at 10:19pm
Keep an eye on digitals snap cameras that say 4.0/5.0 EFFECTIVE megapixels. Those cameras are mathematically adding pixels to the overall resolution of the original image, and not a true 4.0 or 5.0.

DSLR, for lens' and mpixels alone, stays in keeping with photographic excellence. Don't want to spend $20,000 on your next camera? You won't like this baby:



HASSELBLAD H1D
22 Mpixel
40Gig image bank
66 Mbyte or 132 Mbyte image size 8 bit RGB/16 bit RGB

I hate that I want this thing.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 18
1/11/05 at 12:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DimGR
Is there a big difference between 2.2 and 3.2 mg pixels when you ONLY view the pictures in your computer but never print them on paper?
There is no "big" difference when viewed thru a computer, except that the 3.2 megapixel image will be appear bigger in size on screen.

the default for viewing images in a program, like photoshop or internet explorer, is usually 72 ppi (pixels per inch).

A 2.2 megapixel image will have a dimension of 1600 x 1200 pixel. At 72 ppi, the dimension of that image would be 22.22 x 16.67 inches.
(1600/72=22.22 and 1200/72=16.67)

A 3.2 megapixel image will have a dimension of 2048 x 1536 pixel. At 72 ppi, the dimension of that image would be 28.44 x 21.33 inches.

This is why the 3.2 megapixel image will appear bigger on screen.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mobile Devices Discussion
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Off Topic › Mobile Devices Discussion › DIgital camera mega pixels question