digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

13 Photo Sizes Compared - Megapixel Chart explains the Megapixel Myth

design215.com — Each colored box represents a certain number of megapixels. The numbers along the top and left side are print dimensions in inches at 300ppi. The visual version of The Megapixel Myth at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm -- "A 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18!"

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • theRIAA, on 10/12/2007, -3/+35"A 3 MP camera pretty much looks the same as a 6 MP camera, even when blown up to 12 x 18!"

    then i odviously need a 12MP
    • ozziedog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1300 ppi is the standard print resolution of offset printing because that is the maximum resoltion a 150 line screen can work with. Anything over 300 dpi is superfluous unless you use a 175 line screen. For most home users, 150 dpi would be acceptable output for a poster. It depends more on content than actual pixels for quality of print.

      For example, if you have a picture with no hard contrasty edges like say a foggy morning, you could get away with 72 ppi for a poster with no loss in quality. Any soft blend can work at lower resolutions perfectly. However, when there are hard edges in the image, you will notice stair stepping of these edges in low resolution. Still, if you are doing a poster, the user looks at it from a further distance so 150 dpi is excellent quality.

      Unless you are a pro, a 6 megapixel camera will be all anyone ever needs.

  • sm3287, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7Any mirrors really wanna see this
  • evilpanda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16"Pretty much the same" isn't the same as _the same_. If I can get any more detail I want that much more detail; it is never ok to be simply mediocre.
    • devindotcom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Well, then you need to be getting a good camera, not just a high MP one. You need a good sensor with a good lens and good post-work if you want a professional level of quality. Digital SLRs are the way to go, too - versatility is more important than pixels by far.
    • toekneebullard, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6I have a professional photographer friend who says anything over 5 megapixels is a waste if you can just shoot in RAW.
    • srg13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I'm probably getting a 10.1 MP DSLR. I want the 10 mp over the cheaper 6 mp model because the extra resolution is really handy if you want to crop small areas in the photo, or if you want to enlarge your photos up to A1 size.
    • evilpanda, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2devilindotcom: I agree, but most higher MP DSLRs are usually of good quality because they have to be due to market economics (more money spent means it's likely I'm going to spend more time thinking about quality).

      toekneebullard: Get that photographer to shoot your wedding and let me know how happy you are with the results. Seriously though? 5MP is good for web design and smaller scale printouts but even so I want detail, I want to be able to look at the big picture but still move in and see the little things.
    • polyfrolic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Numbers junkies just throw their money away.

      The comment about the Pro needing no more than 5MP. For professional work we did an analysis of out needs for our graphics company. We came up with EXACTLY the same number. 5MP is where you have decent quality. We chose a camera on low light image quality. Our final decision was a Canon 20D. An 8MP camera. this is good enough to print great A0 posters and we will be using it for the next decade.

      If someone offered to swap our current 8MP for a 12 MP for free we would refuse. Quality does not come from MP and it just wastes your time on burst mode and your storage on the field, especially when shooting in raw... Don't you think 12-20MB files are big enough already?! For most print you don't need RAW unless you do a TON of postprocessing. RAW is good for Film, Slides, and HDTV.

      I do have to disagree with the original article on some points. Working in and exact PPI is not a cheat when every print studio does it for every print job in every graphics and layout program. In fact it is NECESSARY. Which brings up my second point. Most magazines do not work in 300 DPI for their graphics. Well not around most of the world. They ask for submissions in 300 to give some wiggle room, but most layout is so slow, and 250 DPI is visually so close to 300 DPI, almost every image is resampled to 250. This may not be true for Vogue or Playboy, but I have never worked for a magazine that lives or dies off the images only.

      The only things that are impossible to work with are Web graphics (like company logos on their web page), magazine scans (the plates they are printed off cause dots that cant be worked with), and CSI/Movie trickery.

      The CSi/Movie thing is possibly the worst of the problems. The people that believe that to make a woman in the background with no lighting, out of focus, half her face obscured takes a few clicks of the mouse anywhere on the screen to bring her up for a brochure front page. And NO, it is not possible to remove the car from in front of the truck, and then turn the photo of the truck around so you can see the other side of the truck because the companies logo is printed on the other side... not without painting the truck from scratch which may take days of work from the highest payed staff member.

      The funny thing is that in these threads it is always the amateurs who have never used the pro equipment who lecture the real Pros as to what equipment we should use. Trust me, you don't hire a wedding photographer based on his MP. If he is a good photographer he will have chosen the best and most suitable equipment for a great result. In fact I was a backup photographer at a wedding not long ago. I was on 8MP and the senior photographer was taking BETTER images on his 5MP, but that is why he was in charge. He had 20 years experience on me.
    • polyfrolic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I forgot to add why layout artists like to work in lower resolutions. Have you ever tried keeping 100 pages of text and images open at the same time while being productive? Yes you can link files for a speed increase but the few people I know who do that never get a good result when sending images out of office because there are always dead links. More often than not they send the file and not one image is linked. Files this big are not emailed, ISPs have a fit when you ask to send emails of hundreds of MB. They are sent in the mail or via courier on disk. Which means on a tight deadline, broken links are more of a problem than any home user could imagine.
    • wildcatcs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@polyfrolic I totaly agree with what you are saying.
      My dad is a wedding photographer and hes been complaining for years about people who say MP is all that is important. He has used his 10D for MANY weddings, well, up untill he gave it to me for some work I've done for him. Since then he has stepped up to higher MP cameras like the 1DS ( I think thats what it's called) but the only reason he has gone the the higher MP is so that he can crop it however he wants and knows that the picture will STILL blowup very well.
  • Jawshy, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2http://duggmirror.com/design/13_Photo_Sizes_Compared_Megapixel_Chart_explains_the_Megapixel_Myth/
  • addrake, on 10/12/2007, -13/+1http://duggmirror.com/design/13_Photo_Sizes_Compared_Megapixel_Chart_explains_the_Megapixel_Myth/


    Why is this hard ?
  • xtr3m, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Damn! I was just about to buy a 39 MP version of Hasselblad H3D...
    • DigitalCorpus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I wonder who else actually gets that. But, only under certain circumstances when you hit the sweet spot of a lense, you can make a 24 MP print from an 8 MP image. But you will only get an image like that in 1 out of like 1000 shots from those worth printing. That is unless you know your lenses well enough to take the pictures in the sweet spots.
    • foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Do what I do and get a good film camera and scan the images at 12400 Pixels/ Square Inch. (my computer cant handle that. I can it at 1600ppi)
    • aeiou, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2mmmmmmmm..... Hassie
    • TortfeasorG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.photokina-show.com/0422/hasselblad/digitalcameras/digitalslrcamera/
    • polyfrolic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Foolfromhell

      You are pretty much wasting your time. Film grain is a lot worse than even some of the pros will admit. Film was actually the first binary media. The grains on the film are only "On or Off". They may be randomly placed on the film, but there really are not that many of them. This gets worse when you consider that there has to be separate grains for all colours you capture. There are some VERY expensive film formulations that are really great, but if your buying run of the mill 35 mm film, you will still get at least the same "grain" from a camera in the 5-8MP range. All home scanners also are useless adding rubbish to scans as well like "Halos" around white areas on dark. So I hope you are using a real Pro scanner. In fact if you are not, the cost of the scanner and the ongoing costs of great formulation 35mm film will equal a nice new Digital SLR.
  • captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27Quick! We need more people to post links to the duggmirror!
  • Surefoot, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15Anyone got a dugmirror link?
    • chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Quick, let's ask jawshy, addrake, jmcd37, nedren, and devildotcom to see if they have a duggmirror link!
  • TonyCubed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What I would like to see is a comparison of images for each MP, so we can see the quality difference.
  • emorphien, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Oh hell not another one of these megapixel myth sites. Yes, megapixels are drastly exaggerated in importance but at the same time they get so many things wrong and take their idea too far in the opposite direction. I can guarantee that at 12x18, a 3mp camera will not look at good as a 6 or 8 mp camera. But once you get above 6mp you see diminishing returns.

    Obviously there's a heavy dependence on printing method and viewing distance and the intended purpose. What is photo quality exactly? Well it depends on the viewer, at 16x20 a more discerning viewer might demand medium or large format, or 16+ megapixels but often enough if printed well on various continuous tone printers such as a Durst Lambda, dye sub, etc then 8mp can easily accomplish an admirable print at those dimensions.
    • polyfrolic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually you are wrong. You may be right if you wanted to print an A3 photo at home, but they don't sell A3 printers for the home market.

      Canon sell professional printers to the print studios by printing low res images to prove what can be done with normal files. Now I have one complaint when a 4MP photo is printed at A0 size, but it is not that important when the image is viewed from a normal distance. All the people that have had prints printed at A0 from a 3 or 4 MP photo have never had anything but awe and gratitude when they have seen the result.

      Most of the Pro equipment cant perform miracles, but they have software built in that automatically sharpens and removes pixillation. These guys know their printers and know how to make the software work well without any user input.
  • nroose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Hey people:

    You probably know this, but...

    Focus, light gathering ability, sensor size, sensor sensitivity, and camera software also make a difference.

    If you get a portable camera with 7 MP and a tiny lens, you probably get a much worse image than if you have a 5 MP SLR camera with a big lens, especially if there is any motion in the scene.

    As more cameras get more and more megapixels, this is going to matter more and more.
  • Justint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3There is no way you can get a crisp image from a 35mm film if you print it at 17 by 12. From experance when I try scan 35mm film larger then 10 to 12 megapixels you don't get extra detial in the image, you just get extra detial on the grain of the film. If I scan film over that I use 120mm or 4 by 5.
    • polyfrolic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You are right. Film grain does not scale well. Pixels scale nicely though. We would never think of scaling 35mm film scans more than 50%, though we were using a 2MP camera to do A4 prints until recently. In fact the Print studio next door still uses their 1.4MP Nikon as their only camera, and they scale nicely as well.
  • chillout, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4It's pretty rare my in camera shots are the exact shot I want to print. While the article has a point, the more megapixels the camera has the more room I have to crop the shot to get the exact image I want on paper.
  • InsaneShow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6While this is good information, it is important to remember that 7MP is basically the same 'resolution' as 400iso 35mm film. There are about seven million silver halide crystals on a 35mm piece of film.
  • lakawak, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18It seems we get a submission likethis once a month or so. I think we all know this by now.

    But again, it doesn't take into account CROPPING. That is really the biggest benefit of higher megapixel cameras. IF you just want to get 4X6 prints made out of your camera and never plan on cropping, you can easily get by with a 2 Megapixel camera, maybe even a 1 Megapixel one. Getting a 3 Megapixel camera lets you crop a bit. 5 Megapixels lets your crop a lot more, and even change your mind about the orientation of a picture. Wanna chance a landscape picture to a portrait one? Just crop it to make it so. You will still be left with an image plenty good enough for a normal print. (I've done this with a 3 Megapixel image before and even that looks pretty good.)

    If you are a "normal person" and never plan on making huge posters, you simply don't need more than 6 Megapixel. You are not going to get any real benefit from it. Unless you plan on cropping a picture so that just a tiny corner of the field is the final product, focus your money efforts on other features.
    • djlosch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4why is lakawak getting buried? everything he's said is true, and good points. however, the article ragging on best buy's fake imaging was better. the best buy mpx comparison chart makes it look like 3mpx is grainy as ***** at normal sizes.
  • kumari82, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ok, looking the same on a computer doesn't mean the picture is so. Most monitors have an effective resolution of around 72dpi, compared to the 200-300dpi resolution that you need for printing. In other words, you may be able to blow it up on your monitor but that doesn't mean that you can print it out.

    I realize that megapixels don't equal resolution, but megapixels feed resolution.

    With that said, what's important in a camera is how the components balance one another. You can have all the megapixels in the world, but if you have a crappy lense and low color fidelity, then your pictures are going to look like junk.

    And on a lot of the cheaper high megapixel cameras, they do.
  • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The Megapixel race makes about as much sense as the GHz race.

    Lets compare the Nikon D50/D70 (6.3MP) sensor to the Nikon Coolpix P4 (8.3MP)

    pixel density = photon sites / surface area

    D50/70:
    = 6300000 pixels / 372mm2
    = approximately 17 photon sites per square micro metre.

    Coolpix P4:
    = 8300000 pixels / 58mm2
    = approximately 218 photon sites per square micro metre

    So comparing these particular cameras, the DSLR pixels are over 12 times the size of the P&S camera!

    Not all photon sites are created equal. Even a 4MP DSLR will outperform quality wise a 10MP P&S. It is not simply about the number of photon cells, but the accuracy of the measurments they make.

    MP is little more than a selling tool, most 5+ MP P&S cameras simply are not matched with glass to take advantage of it, or have such strong noise reduction to smooth out the noise from the smaller photon cells that any quality benefit from having more is lost.
    • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What I also think is when Digi cams were first started to come out they sure put out better picture quality for what mega pixel they had then.

      Now mfg's are pushing SLR where big money is, they make lower quality point and shoot cameras.
  • Servetus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5From the article: "Notice that as the print size doubles, the megapixels required increases exponentially."

    Exponentially! That's overstating things a bit. Last I checked there was a big difference between n^2 and C^n.
    • rob215, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I meant "Geometrically". Thanks for the alert, I fixed it.
    • Servetus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The system works!
  • Autoclave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I saw a show recently where the prints were at least 30" x 45" it was obvious that the photographer use a 35mm film camera, the grain was ginormous. For some people the amount of artifacting you get in the print doesn't matter.
  • dusanmal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Article also completely misses Foveon sensors that industry have "burried" although immensly better... Adding them into the picture one can realize that the size of the enlargement possible is not so much related to "pixelation" but to the total information amount available. I have made many high quality enlargements of 21x13 size from my 10.5MP Foveon based Sigma. From the experience I can say that for Foveon 10MP sensor going higher than 21x13 would introduce artefacts, etc. I agree with some posts mentioned that at such point you start to see overall optical quality of the camera (lens...) dominating the issue, but still you can notice that number of pixels is not everything. (PS Foveon has every pixel carrying all three colours information vs. traditional sensor where 4 pixels typically carry one blue, one red and two green "pieces of information").
  • invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3judging a camera on it's resolution is like judging a car's speed by nothing but horsepower, ignoring torque, power-to-weight ratio, etc.

    or the size of a house based solely on the number of bedrooms, ignoring square footage.

    or a computer's speed based on the cpu clock speed, ignoring cpu cache, RAM, bus speed, etc..

    though the article could have been written just as well by Captain Obvious himself, the chart is nice to have.
  • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Any professional photographer knows that the more mp in a SLR camera is better. More pixels picking up the image means more detail, also makes a bigger image....go into photoshop and zoom in on a 3mp picture and the same picture taken with a 10mp....there is so much more detail that 3mp is pure crap. Even if its a 4x6, the SLR higher MP is going to have way more detail at the lower levels. Point and shoot cameras mainly suck...if you want real quality you have to go SLR.

    The Canon SLR i shoot with is 8mp...at large file quality is makes a 4 foot by 3 foot picture...I can take a picture of a flower garden...and crop out almost any flower and make a nice 5x7 WITH detail. a ***** 3mp couldnt pull that off for the life of it....it would have to take a zoomed in picture of each flower to get the detail.

    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5errr, any professional photographer would prefer a D80 or 400D with a quality lens to a D200 or 30D with some slow piece of crap cheap lens. The investment is always the glass, flash and tripod. The colour and sharpness of an image has a lot more to do with the glass than the number of MP the sensor is able to manage.

    • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'm afraid you need to study up on your photography...read about the sensor in the canon rebel...and the sensor in the canon 20d...image quality and noise are vastly different. True the lens is just as important, but the sensor is the most important. A great lens on the rebel will still not compare to the 20d. I know from experiance cause I've had all these cameras and a range of lens to go with them. Its like going from a cheap acoustic guitar from walmart to a professional ovation guitar......you can stick expensive strings on both...but only the one will work best....a great lens on a crappy sensor gets you no where.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3of course if you stick the same lens on both cameras, the 30D will outperform, but the reasons for purchasing the more expensive bodies are durability and speed. The problem is that there is ~ US$600 difference between the body only price of 400D and 30D. That can go towards some very nice glass.

      If money is no object, then of course you would take the 30D AND get the glass. Actually, you would probably go for a FF like a 1Ds MkII. But if have a budget of US$1500, you would be ill advised to take the 30D.

      For PC folk without much experience in photography, that is like buying a US$500 video card for a computer with 256MB RAM.
    • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The sad thing is......about 6yrs ago...my 3mp camera cost $400...now you can get some lower quality 8mp cameras for that price...even 10mp. The mark II is a camera I will have to wait on for years cause of the $$$,,, but by then I'm sure Canon will release the Rebel XXXT and it will be 16mp for $899 ;p
  • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4....to also add to this. the site says..**At 150ppi, printed images will have visible pixels and details will look "fuzzy".....that is the biggest crock of $hit...we have printed 11x17 from 72dpi at local drag racing events....and the stuff looks fantastic, apperantly his printer blows ass.
  • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I want to print my pictures on D Sheets!!!! How much Mega pixel would I need!!
    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3At that sort of size, you are hardly sticking your nose against the photo. It is hanging on the wall so a much lower quality is acceptable. Most people do not realise that a DVD frame is under 0.5 MP.

      6MP can handle around 20x30 when resized using appropriate software. Depending on what the photo subject matter, you could probably push to 24x36, but 8 - 10 MP would be preferable.

      You are going to need to use resampling software unless you can find yourself a 78MP camera.
  • MedHead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3From the site:

    "Don't be fooled by manufacturers' claims that say you can make 16" x 20" prints from an 8 megapixel camera. While you certainly can make a print that size, it will not be true photo quality."

    What exactly is "true photo quality"?
    • grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2generally 300dpi is considered photo quality, but that is generally overkill for large prints (unless you want to hang them in a gallery or something).
  • drunkjack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I say it every time this 'megapixel myth' comes up.

    Most people, consumers, take ***** PICTURES. They can't frame, they don't use zoom, they just take poor pictures.

    But, with software like Picasa(for basic fixes) and Photoshop, one can easily fix the problems. And most people realize they can't take great pictures, and often can figure out how to fix the problems. Most people KNOW a good picture, but taking them, in the moment, isn't all that easy.

    And the more megapixels you have means you have more information to work with, less chance of cropping a picture into unprintability.

    Not everyone is a pro at taking pictures.

    But with photo editing software, mediocre pictures can be fixed.

    And that's why I think a 4-5MP camera is a sweet spot for most people. Whenever someone asks I tell them anything more is kind of overkill. But it's not gonnna kill anyone if someone has a 6MP camara.

    Plus, the detail that can be found on a 4-6MP camera is pretty neat. Just as a geek it's neat to see how far you can zoom in on these things before you see pixels.
    • animefx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2actually, not using a zoom is a good thing. prime lenses are much sharper and generally high quality than any zoom lens.
  • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Bill gates also said 640k memory was all we would ever need. 4-5mp is only good for the consumer...any professional who says that is either not savvy in the digital age, or has not expanded his studio enough to use the capabilities of high MP. If you zoom at the moon with a 2mp camera on a 300mm lens...the moon will be small....take that same pic with a 10mp...and the moon will be huge cause of the image size.

    Along with all the detail that comes with it. Most people who see no need for high MP apperantly do not have a broad range of photography skills....they are just point and shoot at family gatherings type of photographers.

    And its not all in skill of taking good pictures....without the right equipment...it can make a good shot go bad. Jimmy Hendrix would'nt have sold anything playing on a fisher price guitar.
    • aspirinetu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1jimi hendrix used to play with a right-handed strat being left-handed. so the right equipment argument does not apply there.

      try again.
  • rob215, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3All of this converation makes my head spin. Here are some points that might be helpful:
    1) I made a mistake on my page by using the word "exponentially". I meant "geometrically" and I corrected it. What's important to realize is that going from a 3MP to a 5MP camera is drastically better than going from 10MP to 12MP. Manufacturers would have you believe otherwise.
    2) The chart uses the "photo quality" standard of 300ppi (pixels per inch) as a reference point for comparison. As Ken Rockwell states, "...a magazine like Arizona Highways simply does not accept images from digital cameras for publication since the quality is not good enough, even from 11 megapixel cameras, to print at 12 x 18."
    3) The maximum size that YOU can print your 6 megapixel image is entirely up to YOU. Print it as big as you think it looks good. Subject matter, lighting, exposure, post processing, and printing media all play a role in "how big looks good".
    4) Someone pointed out on the design215 page that billboards are only printed at 16 to 20dpi. That's about right. Billboards look horrible up close but they look great as you pass them in your car from 100 feet away.
    5) Most people never make prints larger than 4x6 or 5x7. Think of the thousands of photo labs that crank out nothing but 4x6s all day. Given this fact, most people don't need anything more than a good 5MP camera.
    6) Sensor size, optics, flash, and the camera electronics all play a part in the quality of the images you can produce. I could not produce professional images for my clients without professional tools.
  • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://airbrushme.blogspot.com/2006/10/1-8-megapixel-comparison-photo-print.html

    I've just uploaded an image I created to compare 1-8MP photos, as you can see from about 5MP it is hard to tell the difference between the photos (if you print it on your average 300dpi photo printer), this is a direct pixel-pixel comparison created from the same 8MP image so its not effected by using different cameras.

    I use a 5MP camera myself mostly (and reguarly print A4), I have tried higher ones (& own a 8MP one also) but anything below $1000 is not worth it as they are just too slow to handle the higher resolution.

    It is not the MP that makes the most difference, as others have said its the lenses, sensors etc. - plus some people just dont know how to take a good photo.

    I would always advise to go with better quality lower MP camera, rather than a higher MP (in the same price range).
    • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2That is not accurate, you cannot scale down a picture and say its what smaller MP would look like. You are taking the detail of an 8mp image and going down to a 1mp, you cannot do that, because the information from the 8 is already there and a 1mp image would have never captured all that in the first place.

      If you took the same picture with a 1mp camera it would look like a camera phone most likely cause it would have a cheap sensor and collect low amounts of pixel information.

      Small MP is not scaling, 5mp can only capture 5million pixels of information, 8 megapixel is 3 million more, there is alot more information collected...color, detail, etc. The quality of sensor is also a HUGE factor..infact it makes the entire picture detail or not.

      "the higher resolution cameras take more time processing the shots, and ofter need lower shutter speeds so catch more noise." That phrase not accurate, the lower end cameras can only support writing to a card so fast...the high end SLR's can handle for example...a SANDISK EXTREME III....the SLR will buffer tons of shots...and write them to the card in lightning speed if you have a high end CF card.


      The Canon Rebel cannot handle writing fast...its a slow 6mp camera...the new Rebel XT can write just as fast as the 20D. You get what you pay for in Digital Cameras.

      "ofter need lower shutter speeds so catch more noise"...I dunno where you got your information but that is way off also, The DIGIC II sensor in the 20D is one of the most clear of noise sensors in a camera, no non-slr camera will ever compare. Higher MP has nothing to do with shutter speed what so ever.
    • aspirinetu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2ok nesibus, we get it, you have a camera with a high pixel count and you're very proud of it. congratulations. now stop boring us.
    • nesibus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ok so you totally missed the point of what I was saying then, don't even know why you are reading this "boring" article to begin with...forgot about the ADHD in young people...should I use more colorful pictures next time to keep your attention so you don't keep digging down the post? ....let me bring it back down to a digg level then so you can understand...

      meh. teh site is cool. now back to the wii article!

    • jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@nesibus
      Yes, you are right - the newer $1000+ 8MP+ cameras will be fast (as I said), I'm talking about cameras in the 5MP price range, if your spending maybe £200/$400 which is about the average an average users pays it is best to buy a better quality lower MP camera than one with a higher MP for the same price as many of the manufactures are just banging in higher MP sensors to suit the marketing as people think they are better.

      As for the image, the lower MP ones do not have the extra detail, the images were not averaged when reducing, extra pixels were removed.
  • thenonhacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like the Photography blogs saw this digg item just today:

    http://www.photojojo.com/content/websites/how-big-can-i-print-this-photo/
  • rallythanks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Darn good thing I will never need to CROP my picture.

    I always make sure to fill my frame with whatever my subject is. I stand 2 feet away from everything.

    This kind of moronic article goes way too far. a 3 MP camera is not the same as a 6 MP camera, everything else being equal. With a 10 MP camera, I can crop a lot when I take a normal picture. If I try cropping a 2 MP picture I end up with a ***** .7 MP picture.

    Oh yeah. I guess .7 MP is the same as a 6 MP camera too.
  • phantomwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The chart is probably useful to the average consumer to get an idea, but it can be terribly misleading at the same time. It shouldn't be taken as gospel. I particularly disagree with the statement that 8 MP isn't going to give a photo quality 16x20.

    You can't really lump all cameras into one mathematical formula either. The 24x36 image I made here: http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/printdogma.html was from a 4MP professional DSLR. Would I make a blanket statement that any image I took with this camera could be enlarged to a 24x36 print? Of course not. But certainly many of them could be!

    6MP may be enough for some people, some more specialized needs may need more. I eventually found 4 MP was limiting me in some of my landscape photography, not quite the equivalent I could get from professional slide film like Velvia. But for birds, this tiger, many subjects, it was plenty.
  • xensen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0At 16 x 20 in. you need almost 29 megapixels to print at 300 dpi. See the chart at http://www.rightreading.com/printing/megapixels.htm.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.