Megapixels

Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital camera
age:

How many megapixels would I need?

I'm considering buying a digital SLR and have some Minolta AF lenses.
Now my budget is not that great and could probably afford some entry
level dSLRs. I liked images from Minolta Maxxum 5d and I would be able
to use some of my lenses. I probably should not get "mexapixel" happy
and figure out if the resolution is enough for me, but I can't help but
wonder what only a year ahead would bring - 10, 12 or 20 megapixels?
And I'd be stuck with mere 6... Which, on the other hand should be
sufficient enough for an 8x10 print, right?

Just wanted to hear some thoughts on how people decide when to stop
waiting and actually go for it

Thanks

You get as many MP as you can afford. Even if you don't print above 4x6 you
have to plan for the future. Unlike film that will allow you to scan the
negatives at any size you may need in the future. Digital camera images are
only as high a resolution as the camera that took them. I do not see any
point in have a low MP camera, take a bunch of important pictures only
several years later to find out they are not good enough to print at a
larger sizes. You never know what you are going to want to do in the near or
distant future. Thats why you get as many MP as you can afford. At least 8
right now.


"Artem Lipatov" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital camera
age:

How many megapixels would I need?

I'm considering buying a digital SLR and have some Minolta AF lenses.
Now my budget is not that great and could probably afford some entry
level dSLRs. I liked images from Minolta Maxxum 5d and I would be able
to use some of my lenses. I probably should not get "mexapixel" happy
and figure out if the resolution is enough for me, but I can't help but
wonder what only a year ahead would bring - 10, 12 or 20 megapixels?
And I'd be stuck with mere 6... Which, on the other hand should be
sufficient enough for an 8x10 print, right?

Just wanted to hear some thoughts on how people decide when to stop
waiting and actually go for it

Thanks

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital camera
age:

How many megapixels would I need?

42. Just like every other question.

Why not try google, as this question has been hashed to death?

steve

"Artem Lipatov" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital camera
age:

How many megapixels would I need?
The depends on how big of a print you want to make.
For example, suppose you want to print at 240 pixels per inch (which is
plenty; it is hard to see much difference between 240 and 300).
Then, if you want to print an 8x10, you will need at least 240x8 on the
short side. As the aspect ratio for most sensors is 3:2, the long side will
be 240*8*1.5. You will need to crop on the long side.
This results in an image which is 1920 x 2880. This is about 5.5 mp. You
should get a camera which has more than that because you will inevitably
need to crop something off the short side, or you will inevitably need to
rotate the image slightly, etc. As for the future, certainly cameras will
always be in the wings with new and improved features. But you only need
enough megapixels to make the prints that you want. A camera which will do
that now will always be able to do it, and you certainly need not buy new
cameras just because they have more megapixels.
Jim

Jim wrote:
"Artem Lipatov" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital
camera age:

How many megapixels would I need?
The depends on how big of a print you want to make.
For example, suppose you want to print at 240 pixels per inch (which
is plenty; it is hard to see much difference between 240 and 300).
Then, if you want to print an 8x10, you will need at least 240x8 on
the short side. As the aspect ratio for most sensors is 3:2, the
long side will be 240*8*1.5. You will need to crop on the long side.
This results in an image which is 1920 x 2880. This is about 5.5 mp.
You should get a camera which has more than that because you will
inevitably need to crop something off the short side, or you will
inevitably need to rotate the image slightly, etc. As for the
future, certainly cameras will always be in the wings with new and
improved features. But you only need enough megapixels to make the
prints that you want. A camera which will do that now will always be
able to do it, and you certainly need not buy new cameras just
because they have more megapixels. Jim

Have you actually tried an 8 x 10 inch print from a good 3.2MP camera? It
can look pretty good providing you don't old it under your nose with a
magnifying glass! 240 ppi is a good guide, but there isn't a hard and
fast limit. Cropping drives up the number of pixels required, of course.

David

"Artem Lipatov" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital camera
age:

How many megapixels would I need?

I'm considering buying a digital SLR and have some Minolta AF lenses.
Now my budget is not that great and could probably afford some entry
level dSLRs. I liked images from Minolta Maxxum 5d and I would be able
to use some of my lenses. I probably should not get "mexapixel" happy
and figure out if the resolution is enough for me, but I can't help but
wonder what only a year ahead would bring - 10, 12 or 20 megapixels?
And I'd be stuck with mere 6... Which, on the other hand should be
sufficient enough for an 8x10 print, right?

Just wanted to hear some thoughts on how people decide when to stop
waiting and actually go for it

Thanks


12 months ago I bought a Casio QV-3000 all of 3 megapixels, I get a nice 9"
x 6.75" off it. I've taken 100's of pics of machine tools for my job with
it, the camera cost £45.

I follow HCB's advice, fill the frame and print the whole image.

Jem



------------------------
My Collectable Cyanotypes & Etchings;
http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/j/jimread

"David J Taylor"
wrote in
message .uk...
Jim wrote:
"Artem Lipatov" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital
camera age:

How many megapixels would I need?
The depends on how big of a print you want to make.
For example, suppose you want to print at 240 pixels per inch (which
is plenty; it is hard to see much difference between 240 and 300).
Then, if you want to print an 8x10, you will need at least 240x8 on
the short side. As the aspect ratio for most sensors is 3:2, the
long side will be 240*8*1.5. You will need to crop on the long side.
This results in an image which is 1920 x 2880. This is about 5.5 mp.
You should get a camera which has more than that because you will
inevitably need to crop something off the short side, or you will
inevitably need to rotate the image slightly, etc. As for the
future, certainly cameras will always be in the wings with new and
improved features. But you only need enough megapixels to make the
prints that you want. A camera which will do that now will always be
able to do it, and you certainly need not buy new cameras just
because they have more megapixels. Jim

Have you actually tried an 8 x 10 inch print from a good 3.2MP camera? It
can look pretty good providing you don't old it under your nose with a
magnifying glass! 240 ppi is a good guide, but there isn't a hard and
fast limit. Cropping drives up the number of pixels required, of course.

David

I didn't intend to say that 240 ppi is a hard and fast limit. In point of
fact, I once printed the same image at 120, 180, 240, and 300 ppi just to
see if I could see the difference. And, here is what I found:
120 ppi - not very good at all
180 ppi - good enough for most people
240 ppi - slight improvement over 180
300 ppi - can't see any difference between 240 and 300.

As for the 3.2 question: I have used a Coolpix 800 which can make a good
8x10. I currently use a D70 which makes a very good 8x10. However, what I
really want is 11x14 or slightly bigger. With only a slight amount of
resampling I can make 11x14 or 11x17 prints with the D70 which are still
very good.
It might be possible to make acceptable 11x14 prints with the Coolpix, but I
want to use a wider angle of view than it has. I also want to use longer
telephoto lenses than it has. Thus the Coolpix will not allow me to make
the shots that I want to make. Hence, it has been replaced.
Jim

Jim wrote:
[]
I didn't intend to say that 240 ppi is a hard and fast limit. In
point of fact, I once printed the same image at 120, 180, 240, and
300 ppi just to see if I could see the difference. And, here is what
I found: 120 ppi - not very good at all
180 ppi - good enough for most people
240 ppi - slight improvement over 180
300 ppi - can't see any difference between 240 and 300.

Always a good idea to try something for yourself.

As for the 3.2 question: I have used a Coolpix 800 which can make a
good 8x10. I currently use a D70 which makes a very good 8x10. However,
what I really want is 11x14 or slightly bigger. With only a
slight amount of resampling I can make 11x14 or 11x17 prints with the
D70 which are still very good.
It might be possible to make acceptable 11x14 prints with the
Coolpix, but I want to use a wider angle of view than it has. I also
want to use longer telephoto lenses than it has. Thus the Coolpix
will not allow me to make the shots that I want to make. Hence, it
has been replaced.

I ended up replacing a 3.2MP Coolpix 990 with a 5MP Panasonic FZ5 for
telephoto and an 8MP Nikon 8400 for wide-angle! I rarely make prints,
though.

David

Artem Lipatov wrote:
Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital
camera age:

It goes back much further than that. I can remember the fights in the
photo studio where I worked about the introduction of 2¼ square roll film
negatives (120 - 220 film) vs 4x5 that we had used for years (BTW the boss
would not allow the formals for the wedding done with a 4X5 it had to be at
least a 5X7.

The fact was and is that few customers could see the difference between
any of those products. However the Boss and owner could. We used nothing
smaller than 4X5 for a very long time. I greatly respected that man.

As for today, very few people would be able to see the difference
between as good say 5M image printed and a good 35mm film image printed the
same 8X10 size. Many people who are regulars here can, but they are not
your average consumer.

Personally I find that the equipment out today does a fantastic job and
you are not likely to wish for more in the future if you take a real look at
any difference between what you can do with today's camera and what you
might do with tomorrows cameras. However that depends on you. I am very
happy with the results I get, but I still keep a functional 4x5 around.



How many megapixels would I need?

I'm considering buying a digital SLR and have some Minolta AF lenses.
Now my budget is not that great and could probably afford some entry
level dSLRs. I liked images from Minolta Maxxum 5d and I would be able
to use some of my lenses. I probably should not get "mexapixel"
happy and figure out if the resolution is enough for me, but I can't
help but wonder what only a year ahead would bring - 10, 12 or 20
megapixels? And I'd be stuck with mere 6... Which, on the other hand
should be sufficient enough for an 8x10 print, right?

Just wanted to hear some thoughts on how people decide when to stop
waiting and actually go for it

Thanks

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

"Artem Lipatov" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi everybody,

I want to start a discussion that might be as old as the digital camera
age:

How many megapixels would I need?

I'm considering buying a digital SLR and have some Minolta AF lenses.
Now my budget is not that great and could probably afford some entry
level dSLRs. I liked images from Minolta Maxxum 5d and I would be able
to use some of my lenses. I probably should not get "mexapixel" happy
and figure out if the resolution is enough for me, but I can't help but
wonder what only a year ahead would bring - 10, 12 or 20 megapixels?
And I'd be stuck with mere 6... Which, on the other hand should be
sufficient enough for an 8x10 print, right?

Just wanted to hear some thoughts on how people decide when to stop
waiting and actually go for it

Thanks

Hi

There will be some people waiting for the right DSLR to arrive at a price
they can afford, and are doing without meantime.

You can be sure that the week after they buy their ideal DSLR, either it
will have a dramatic price cut or a much better version will be announced.

Buy the best you can afford, right now.

Only consider upgrading to its new and better replacement, when and if it is
no longer able to produce the quality and size of prints you need.

Roy G