|
awoof (m)
|
Photography/Digital Camera
i used to own a samsung digimax 301 digital camera 3.2 megapixel, i have used it successfully without any complaint, but recently i bought a samsung S 800 an 8.1 maga pixel i can not see any marked difference apart from additional functions. what is really the difference in these mega pixel? is it worth the waste of money at all? photography buffs i need your input
|
|
|
|
|
|
naijacutee (f)
|
I once read somewhere that after a certain number of megapixels, the images are so fine that the human eye can no longer distinguish any difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
oyb (m)
|
i think the ultimate diff is the dimensions of the pictures/video files.
on a 1.3 megapixel camera,
you have a choice of resolutions/picture sizes up to 1300 x 700 pixels.
so for an 8 megapixel camera, you concievably could have options up to 8000 x 8000 megapixels.
the question should always be:what do i want the camera for?
casual photography , surveying, creation of billboard quality images.
the answer will determine the megapixels you require.
one problem with big picture files:they will take up space on your hard drive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dis Guy
|
you need an eye for detail  the pictures wont look different when they are printed on standard printing size like oyb said, what you use the camera for will determine what you require you'll never see a professional photographer with everday camera except for some |
|
|
|
|
|
thegame (m)
|
It is true that when u have a camera of may be 5 megapixels and more,you can't really get to know the difference as it can only be seen on maybe a very high-powered colour monitor or printing paper but i think u are looking at the pictures on a normal screen pr printing opn a normal paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Digiman (m)
|
Believe me a good quality 8 mp camera will be miles ahead from a 5 mp one, apart from the extra functions you get the images will be much clearer, you may not notice it untill you blow up your images to say A3 size or larger.
Always go for a camera with an optical zoom if you want reasonably good photographs.
If you can afford it go for a Digital SLR Canon & Nikon make some very good ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ireke (m)
|
The difference is in
1. the printing. if you are not a professional photographer and you hardly print pictures larger than 5" x 6" (postcard size) then you will not notice any difference apart from the buttons on the camera.
2. the Zoom. If you love to take pictures from afar, you will definitely notice the difference as the megapixel increases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rodent
|
The larger the MB size of an image, the more information is contained in the image hence a sharper higher quality image even on a 5x7 print. As mentioned in an earlier post, the larger MB image does have the ability to be enlarged without pixelation occuring (within reasonable limit).
For full image control, don't purchase a point and shoot camera, if finances allow get a digital SLR which will give real control over the outcome of your images, a camera where one looks through a viewfinder and not an LCD screen
|
|
|
|
|
|
gidig (m)
|
I think the point has been made by a few posts here and it all depends on what you wnat to do with the images you have from the camera. If you are going to be using the image on any platfrom that that5 is very large like a billboard or big banners, you may consider a higher pixel camera. You may not see the difference if you put two images from diffrent camera resolutions except you are using an application that allows you zoom into the image at a pixel level.
I think hat happens mostly is that people buy camera based on the mega pixels rather than the functional. For many, it is like buying the latest model of a car. I am working on a brochure on my laptop that filled with images that are barely a post card size but shot as if they they are going on a billboard. you can them imagine that just thirty pages of the book is alreday 1.5gigabyte!
|
|
|
|
|
|
awoof (m)
|
@digig thanks for your post on the thread i actuall y use the old camera 3.1mp for recording some scenes and moments at my location for future memory and for my family back home nothing more. you actually got the point, i bought the 8.1 first because some of my colleagues told me that the higher the pixel the better the camera and the production, and above all you got me i actaully bought the 8.1mp to outshine all my colleagues here.(bush man)  the highest every other person has is 7.0mp what a waste  |
|
|
|
|
|
verbocity
|
You have not wasted any money. The fact is that the 3.2MP camera was probably OK for you, that is, for casual photographing. The 8.1 is needed when you want to go more professional. For your information, I have a 5.1MP camera, but I adjusted it to take pictures only at 3MP. I'm OK with that since I use it only for casual photographing. Besides, the higher I set the megapixels, the quicker my memory card will fill up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
abstarr (m)
|
the greater the pixel size, the higher the resolution u can get. In english, that means that a picture with a high resolution can get a greater "zoom in" with clearity than the one with less res.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rodent
|
@ gidig scale the images down in Photoshop or similar, there's really no need to work with them @ that size if such detail isnt required. As u've said it will only take up uneccessary hard disk size but more importantly it will some up both application & machine speeds. Enjoy  |
|
|
|
|
|
Rodent
|
abstarr & vebocity are spot on.
If you don't need high rez images adjust your camera accordingly, 4 individuals involved in graphics there is always going to be a need for high rez shoots or the requirement to 'zoom' in.
but for family snapshots a point and shoot will suffice
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kemjisuper (m)
|
It's real simple,
If you're not a Graphics expert who needs pretty high resolution images for his work, then it's a big waste getting an 8.0 megapixel camera for casual pictures. Believe me, there's a big difference when you blow up the images to max. size especially for billboards and stuff.
Kinda like using a Nokia N-series phone for nothing more than phone calls, sms and alarms. Just get a 3310 and do something more productive with the rest of the cash! Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
awoof (m)
|
It's real simple,
If you're not a Graphics expert who needs pretty high resolution images for his work, then it's a big waste getting an 8.0 megapixel camera for casual pictures. Believe me, there's a big difference when you blow up the images to max. size especially for billboards and stuff.
Kinda like using a Nokia N-series phone for nothing more than phone calls, sms and alarms. Just get a 3310 and do something more productive with the rest of the cash! Cheers
you got the point its the same mentality that will make someone to invest in an Nokia N series when an ordinary 3310 will do. status symbol @rodent did you say i could ajust the pixel to a lower one and it will not affect the quality? |
|
|
|
|
|
Rodent
|
@ awoof
a lot of higher end digiatal camera's give you the option of selecting the image quality/size.
i use a digital SLR which gives 6 or 7 different images sizes/ quality.
As earlier stated by many, the smaller the image size(MB) then the greater the chances of pixelation when blown up or enlarged, stick with whatever resolution is required depending on the final use of the image.
On the average a 4 or 5 meg image is more than adequate for a 5x7 photograph, if images are for print, say brochure or mag u might need a higher resolution depending on how big the image is going to be in the publication.
Enjoy!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
awoof (m)
|
@Rodent thanks a million i got your point. Respect |
|
|
|
|
|
oyb (m)
|
better still,
you can download pixresizer or MS power toys(it includes a picturer resizer that it adds to the context menu).this will enable you to quickly resize pictures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
cute_N_hot (f)
|
and here i was thinking that the quality of an image had to do with the size of the lens. iso settings shutter speed aperture opening white balance and of course the amount of pixel crammed onto the sensor. but am always learning.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Kemjisuper (m)
|
and here i was thinking that the quality of an image had to do with the size of the lens. iso settings shutter speed aperture opening white balance and of course the amount of pixel crammed onto the sensor. but am always learning. You're still right. Those points still affect or determine the quality of images. Its just that megapixel cameras do all those a whole lot better than the older regular cameras thanks to science, technology and research. Cheers |
|
|
|
|
|
Rodent
|
@ cute_N_hot
you are not wrong, iso settings, aperature, lens etc have a bearing on the outcome of the image from a visual point of view.
for example one can shot with a 12MB digital slr, but due to camera shake end up with a blurred image, this doesnt mean the image isnt crammed with info, it is just crammed with 'bad' info. This image can be enlarged to A3 without any pixel degradation which wouldnt be possiblw with say a 2MB camera.
If the image is in focus, a 'perfect' shot, then the larger the MB content, more than often the sharper the image and the more versatile are the possible uses, enlargement, full page magazine use etc, lots of NG publications carry images of poor quality, TRUE LOVE is a perfect example of good image use.
Hope this helps some
|
|
|
|
|
|
justbones (m)
|
i saw a 14MP camera some time ago. man it was tithe
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kemjisuper (m)
|
i saw a 14MP camera some time ago. man it was tithe
That's in the range of High-Definition Cameras. You also need a huge amount of memory space to store pics on that level |
|
|
|
|
|
justbones (m)
|
yeah it had like a 30Gb hard drive or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Author
Sony 14MP cam.jpg (13.27 KB, 328x246 )
