Very good indeed, if this was a forum then this should be a 'sticky' always
at the top.

So many of us are drawn in by advertising and the claims of the
manufacturers, when the truth is, not much difference until you get to twice
the number of pixels e.g. 4 mp is twice 2 mp, but from 4mp a significant
improvement would have to be 16 mp. So by that reckoning a 50% improvement
should be apparent from 4 mp to 8mp which does seem to be the case.

Jem


"bob" wrote in message
...
"Alan Meyer" wrote in news:CMOdnekMGKZPo7DcRVn-
:

Finally, I should note that I am not a professional
photographer, and certainly not a graphics arts person. At
one time I would have called myself an advanced amateur
photographer, but now I'm just a guy who likes taking travel
and family photos. I'm also 58 years old and my eyes may
not be as sharp as those of a 20 year old. So as we always
say, your mileage may vary.


Good disclaimer.

I have a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5mp), and I've been very happy with the
results at 8x10. They easily exceede any color prints I ever got from
35mm film (blame the processor, I suppose, if you're a color film bigot).

I don't think that an 8mp camera would provide better results at 8x10
than 5mp under most circumstances.

If you want to crop, then more pixels is always better.

If there are large areas with subtle color variations, then more pixels
is better. A printer like the Fuji Frontier is going to handle subtle
variations better than the Phaser.

Until Fuji puts printers with 14" paper into Wal-Mart, I don't think I
need to upgrade my Coolpix.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply