What is Digg?80 Comments
- MrFisty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5So all people who use digital cameras only use them to produce 8x10 happy snaps?
How about those of us in design or advertising fields who actually need quality and high resolution?
Face it, pros need pro equipment, amateurs need amateur equipment but like to think it's pro. - BrandonAbell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The problem is that you don't just print the full-frame shot if you have any sort of clue. It has the wrong dimensions to fit on standard print sizes anyway. . . Reality is that you crop the picture to get the part of the picture you actually want/need to print. Then you're left with a lot less than 3.2 Megapixels to spread out over whatever print size you need.
- operator99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3>Really? And what time was this? Photographers have been cropping for the whole history of photography. It's a very common thing to do. It would be safe to say that just about every famous photograph you've ever seen is cropped down from the original.<
Not so grasshopper - most professional photographers, and i have been one for over thirty years, work to do their cropping in the camera - Its called composition and you learn to do it in the field, ie, Ansel Adams never cropped - he made contacts prints from 8x10 negatives and when enlarged he did no cropping. BTW there is nothing wrong with cropping, but to say everybody does it is just not so. - ahmerhussain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It doesn't really matter about megapixels....
if you don't have a good lens mp's don't matter. - trueimage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Art is made by an artist. A great photographer could take a better shot with a disposable than most people with a prosumer p&s digital and even SLRs now that everyone and their dog is getting one.
Most people are printing 3x5, 4x6 or 5x7. Some do 8x10. P&S people don't go beyond this. under 8x10 and even up to in some cases, 2mp is fine. its the newer sensors with better white balance, noise reduction etc that really help... along with the lenses, but most consumer and even prosumer p&s lenses are decent but not great.
Good photographers "get it right in the camera" meaning little to no cropping. Of course, shooting RAW with more MPs means a better chance to save an ok shot and make it great. But composition is key.
Also, not everyone needs a DSLR, cmon people. I hate seeing people with better DSLRS and lenses than me, but can't take photos worth *****. Yeah, I am jealous, because think my work is good and I could take advantage of the better technology. Also people destroying markets like stock shooting and weddings just cuz they got a DSLR and will do it for $300. Then the photos come out terrible because uncle Bob doesn't know how to use his new toy and moves on to some other fad in 2 weeks.
If you want good p&s snapshots, just get a decent camera you can afford. They are designed to have pumped up sharpening and saturation out of the box so you just point and shoot, and print sans computer. there, grandma and your 8 year old cousin will be happy. - SaintStryfe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm lead tech sales at a major office supplies store. If my customers don't plan on printing bigger then 8x10, I suggest 4 or 5. I have 2 3.2 MP cameras in stock now, and they run 130-150$. Most 4 MP cameras run between 170 and 200... for the tiny amount more, they get more flexablity. 5MPs usually run 200 to 230.
Brands, I usually suggest Kodak, Canon or Nikon. Nikon is the best picture wise, but I don't like their user interface. Kodak's user interface is the best, but it's pictures are slightly subpar. Canon balances the best. I also like these three because they all use standard SD cards. Olympus produces as good photos as Canon, but uses xD, which is more expensive. Same with Sony's Memory stick, though I actually find most Sony's take less quality photos. - atheken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1BrandonAbell - there was a time when you would take the shot you wanted, you didn't just snap a shot and plan to crop....
- misterparry, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1its all about the glass.
- bubba9999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
I can't comment about the blog, since the dude obviously didn't follow the digg about making Apache happy with the digg effect, but I can easily justify my 7 megapix because I like to zoom and crop alot. It was surprising to me how many "blah" shots have really good content in them that is just waiting to be reframed and emphasized. - Wolfbeta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MrFisty, that's pretty much what the article sums up.
- jeoncs, on 05/28/2008, -0/+1Both have major sensor dust issues go for the next step on both and you won't regret it.
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Assuming decent optics Pixels are everything at least in what I like to do. If I could afford 30mp I would get it and it would still not be enough.
I shoot rockets and there are limits to how CLOSE I can GET to the rocket and there are limits to how much zoom I can use (assuming I could afford that much zoom which I cant)
the frame of reference you have and the shot window you have are very limited when your target takes off from 0 to 400-800mph in under 1/2 a second :-) and I dont like pad shots so the rocket is usually already 5-20ft off the pad and going 300-500 mph
if I tighten up too much I physically cant take the shot in time. its gone by the time I push the button. I have gotten pretty damned good at this www.naramlive.com These are shots I took last summer at Naram in Cincinatti. Sadly many times I have to compromise exposure for speed but the resutls when things come out nice are amazing.
Those pics most of them are not shrunken they are cropped and your seeing actual pixels. needless to say not many of them will be going to 8x10 :-) sometimes with large enough models and a close enough shot I get honey shots. not often.
If I have 20 or more megapixels SO many more of my shots would be 8x10 printable.
the author is right (though I cant read the page) 3.2mp is MORE than enough for an 8x10 but thats 3.2mp FINAL pixels count NOT in camera pixel count so once you crop you need to be LEFT with 3.2mp :-) most of the time its not even close if I am left with VGA I am extatic cause I can make a rather tolerable 5x7 from that many pixels. it wont be amazing but it will do the job :-)
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/ - ipugh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You guys aren't even touching on sensor size, which is the *real* issue.
- functioncode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mega pixels dont mean nearly as much as everyone makes them up to be. there is a certain number of bits per pixel, which means that a pixel can contain more information which leads to a picture that can hold better color tonal ranges. on a standard point and shoot camera there is about an average of 4 bits /pixel while in most professional cameras there are 12. in return a 4.1 megapixel camera that has 12 bits /pixel will give a much better picture than a 8 megapixel camera with 4 bits /pixel. and now to the lens thing. and there is also interpolation programs that will resize your image without actually changing resolution, which can be used for better cropping.
between a 4 megapixel camera and a 6 or 8, you wont see the difference in the picture unless your pictures are extraordinary large. - Sabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Working in print and having 20/16 vision I can tell you that there is a noticeable difference between 200 dpi (3.2 MP for an 8x10) and 300 dpi (7.2MP for an 8x10) image. 3.2 is good for about 5x7 and thats about as big as you can go before you start losing detail. Not to mention cropping or bleed space. For an 8x10 you probably want 8 MP.
- Pas3n7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Mega pixels don't mean nearly as much as everyone makes them out to. There are a certain number of bits per pixel, which means that a pixel can contain more information which leads to a picture that can hold better color tonal ranges. On a standard point and shoot camera there is an average of about 4 bits /pixel; in most professional cameras there are 12. In return a 4.1 mega pixel camera that has 12 bits /pixel will give a much better picture than a 8 mega pixel camera with 4 bits /pixel. There are also interpolation programs that will re-size your image without actually changing resolution, which can be used for better cropping.
Between a 4 mega pixel camera and a 6 or 8, you wont see the difference in the picture unless your pictures are extraordinary large.
Fixed that for you. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Note to author: no one looks at photos on printouts anymore.
- sinfony, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0For those of us who have no interest in printing their shots, 3.2 megapixels is enough. I use a 4 megapixel Fuji and it's more than adequate. Rather than move up on megapixels, I bought a camera with a large optical zoom range, so if I need more detail, I can zoom in on it. It maintains a pretty wide aperture even at full zoom, so it's no problem in dim lighting either.
- hiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I hear the arguments but the fact remains that shots on my Pentax 5MP compact look much clearer than on my old Pentax 3.2MP compact
Still love my EOS 350D the most though, the pictures are amazing : ) - fusionnv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How about cropping, I would need more megapixel to crop.
- Sabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I find it interesting that a standard point and shoot camera would only have a 4bpp image. I never would have expected that tonal range from only 16 colours
- bubbazanetti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So for the sake of equivalence.
What would be the resolution of a $20 35mm camera?
I have taken photos with 400ISO film and blown it up to something like 18x20.
Scan that in at a high DPI and what kind of Megapixel do you get? - FlyingLlama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Finally we're catching up to slashdot as far as in-depth mature discussion!1!!1!!!!!
- ezkiel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tips to Make a 4MP Camera Decent:
1. Get a mini-tripod and use it.
2. Set your own exposure and white balance settings. Take the time to learn how to do this.
3. Get an external flash or better yet try to have proper lighting. (use the sun properly too).
4. Make sure your cam has a decent lens.
I bought a Canon SD100 two years ago and it still out shoots most of the bulkier (non slr) cams out there today.
I cant wait to get a RebelXT though. - tankko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0atheken: "there was a time when you would take the shot you wanted, you didn't just snap a shot and plan to crop...."
Really? And what time was this? Photographers have been cropping for the whole history of photography. It's a very common thing to do. It would be safe to say that just about every famous photograph you've ever seen is cropped down from the original. - notninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0im using a Pentax ISTD L right now for on the go. its 6.1 mega pixles and its beutiful. but i think its getting to the point where
- carguy84, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My main camera is a D2H, with 4MP, but I'll put it up against any P+S in terms of image quality and even print quality. sensor size and noise play a much higher role in final output then the number of MP do.
- bubbazanetti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think there are two paths.
One is the snapshot path...I personally have taken the cheap route here...a pair of sub $75 1.3 M cameras...if I drop of lose them I won't in the least feel bad.
I still have my SLR...I cannot afford (yet) a digital camera with the equivalent resolution.
Here is the pro path...my next door neighbor has a pair of Hassleband medium format cameras...he could drop that digital back on those and really have a whopper...however instead he just bought the new Nikon D200.
With a 300 lens he took a picture of the moon, CROPPED it and I thought it was a picture off the internet/from a magazine...fantastic detail...
If you are in the snapshot league...then don't waste your money. If you are in the pro league...then go big. - tonicboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, I haven't even been able to read the article, but more resolution certainly never hurts. Of course, if the article was trying to make a point that 3.2MP is probably sufficient for the average point-and-shoot Joe, then it's probably correct. Still, you can do more with more pixels, such as crop or zoom. The problem with too many pixels, though, is interference and noise. Especially with the typical consumer digicam sensor size of 2/3", if you squeeze in more than 6MP, you start to see a noticeable increase in image noise resulting in electrical interference from one sensor to the next. In other words, nowadays they are simply stuffing too many sensors on a small CCD in order to be able to market higher megapixels without incurring the cost of a larger CCD. Unless you are willing to upgrade to a DSLR, you will start to see a increase in image noise with more than 6MP, and noise is almost as important to the overall quality of an image as resolution is.
- KSUdesigner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can't get to the link, but from the title, this story is total garbage. More megapixels do not necessarily mean better images. Megapixels give you quantity, not quality. You need a good lens, converter, compression, etc. Here's an article that explains:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1585322,00.asp
Everybody crops, even pro photographers. Unless you're lucky, you're not likely to get your image framed PERFECTLY every time. And especially if you are a designer, you want to have some extra padding around your cropped image anyway in case you want to bleed it off the page. If the photographer I hired gave me a photo which was perfectly cropped and I had no room to set up a bleed I'd probably make him shoot it again, depending on how critical the shot is, though I could just as easily fake the bleed if it wasn't a terribly important shot. - nitroburn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shame on those who dugg this story.
- tagawa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Unlike a couple of years ago, megapixels are not as important as the manufacturers make you believe. Here is my list of requirements for a consumer camera I bought a couple of weeks ago to satisfy technophile me and my technophobe wife:
Minimal shutter lag
Compact enough for my wife's handbag (and built-in lens cover)
Manual shutter/aperture settings (as well as auto)
CCD 1/1.8 or bigger (i.e. not 1/2.5)
Screen 2" or bigger - ideally 2.5" (had to compromise on this)
Standard AA batteries - no proprietaries
SD memory card - no proprietaries (Sony!)
Lens as wide as possible (ideally 28mm equiv. but had to compromise on this too)
Macro of 5cm or closer
A good review at http://www.steves-digicams.com
Notice no megapixel count. For us (and for most non-pro users, I believe), practicality, ease of use and the 'feel good' factor are most important. It's better to have a camera you enjoy using (and thus are likely to use more often) than a non-enjoyable camera with a higher megapixel count.
What did we buy? There was no contest - Canon A620. We both love it. - m85476585, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Indeed. Port 8090 is blocked from most office firewalls, if you're going to use a cache, at least use a cache which is on port 80 so that the rest of us don't get blocked."
I'm at home and it doesn't work.
Are DSLRs noticeably better than point-and-shoots of similar resolution? I haven't used a DSLR (I can't afford one!) or a high-end point-and-shoot, but I have seen some excellent images from DSLRs (in general, not any specific brand). - squenix1221, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why buy the Rebel XT? The 20D is much better.
uhh how about the 20D is also several hundered dollars more expensive..."why buy a G5 dual core? the quad core is much better"
the rebel xt is a very good camera, very similar to the 20D...if you have the money for the 20D go for it...but differences arent huge. - JMJimmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Standard 35mm film captures the equivilant of 12 megapixels of data. Once we hit that then I'll start humming an hawing at the increases. Until then go baby go!
- EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've got 8x10 photos from my old 1 megapixel camera that still amaze people. Can you tell they are low resolution if you really look? Absolutely, but you don't often look that closely at a photo. Three to four megapixels gives more than enough quality for your typical camera owner. Obviously megapixels can make a difference--particularly if you crop a photo heavily--but the quality of the camera and skill of the photographer have an infinitely greater impact.
In the real world people are constrained by money. You can either put your money into additional megapixels or a better quality camera. It is easy to find clearance deals on year-old cameras that offer much better quality and features than current models in the same price bracket. The money is better spent buying high quality glass and sensors than megapixels.
My parents were recently in the market for a camera. Because they wanted to be able to zoom in closer on shots salespeople had convinced them they needed a 7MP camera w/ 3x zoom. Instead I talked them into a 4MP camera with 6x optical zoom and optical image stabilization on clearance. They got a great camera with better than double the resolution at full-zoom (4MP full sensor vs. 1.75MP cropped at equivalent "digital" zoom) AND they saved money. They'll never notice a deficiency on the 4x6 prints they get from fewer megapixels but the image stabilization will prevent many blurry shots.
Conclusion: Are more megapixels worthless? Absolutely not. Are there better things to spend your money on? Probably.
//As a random observation the best high-def TVs are 2 megapixel displays. - dan0111, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The more megapixels I have, the more I can crop and expand without losing much quality.
- tito13kfm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Which would I rather have? My 3mp with a large extremely fast lens, manual settings, hotshoe, li-ion battery. Or a 5mp piece of crap kodak or some other soccer mom camera for the same price? I'll take the 3 mega pixels and just let software do the work of scaling if I need to print some big pictures. Being able to shoot sans-flash in moderate lighting while hand holding the camera, and still getting sharp 8x1(0,2)'s is something the kodak cannot do.
Lesson, you need to balance megapixels, optical zoom, size, battery life, lens speed, lens quality, ccd size, price, etc. when choosing a camera that fits you. - shakin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How about this: your camera's sensor cannot resolve the high resolution you think it can. DSLRs are close enough (often using 90% of their advertised resolution), but many point and shoots are very poor. For example, The Fujifilm Finepix S9000 9 MP camera can only resolve 6.46 MP, and that's well above industry average. If you go for the S7000 you're down to under 5 MP of actual resolution. Other manufacturers have similar numbers.
Where megapixels above 3.2 matter because cameras don't actually capture as many as they say they do. A Kodak Z740 5 MP camera is nice, but records under 4 MP so you're limited to only minor cropping if you want an 8 x 10 print. Don't be fooled by those 7 MP cameras either because some of them resolve no more than 4 - 5 MP. - lozadaj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The money I saved on the Rebel XT is going to a good lens. Plus the things that make the 20D better (more frames per second and larger cache) are not really what I need. Plus, I love the size of the Rebel. There is no PQ difference between the two. I don't know about you, but cost is of much concern to me, and the extra cost of the 20D(about 300 more without a lens) is not worth it to me. I'm not knocking the 20D, but it not for me.
- nc0onc0o, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cropping - the reason for more mega-pixels. Two MP will print a good 8x10 but having more allows you to pick the part that you are interested in.
- CheapDigWannbe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The megapixels are less important than CCD size after about 4 megapixels, but saying that they do not matter is also stupid.
I think what should be said is that megapixel count should be left for later consideration, when choosing camera CCD size/quality, ISO range/quality, color reproductions, shutter speed, loading speed, LCD size and other factors should be considered first when choosing camera. Unless you do posters or something. - n8han, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Like everyone else I'm tempted to digg just to help spread the word: megapixels should not be your first concern in choosing a camera! The first thing to consider is how good the pictures look, plain and simple. My 3.2 mp PowerShot A70 has been taking better pictures than most higher mp cameras for two and a half years now; the proof is in the surprised compliments whenever my slideshow screensaver comes on (iMac 20", more pixies than the camera). I'm due for an upgrade, but I'm more interested in the past two years' other innovations than the inevitable mp increases.
- soulcages01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0608 diggs and nobody can even read the article. what a bunch of B.S. you people are idiots for digging a story that doesn't exist
- Moose_Head, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nothing beats cubic inches.
- ssaha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sheesh! What a waste.
- Nerys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Plus framing in the camera is usually not the greatest idea for my kind of images (spur of the moment) you will spend so much time trying to FRAME it that you will just LOSE the shot all together. the magic of digital is I can shot something as many times as I want. I will sometimes take 30 shots of the same thing move around and take more. why ? because I can it only needs more memory cards and I always carry around 4gig of memory cards and a downloader. I never detete a picture ever.
by taking so many of spurrious scenes I have better odds of getting that one of few honey shots that I can print out and be proud of. if the victum errr subject cooperates I can try framing better but I will still try to take as many shots as I can to increase the odds of success
Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com - GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Are DSLRs noticeably better than point-and-shoots of similar resolution?
Yes. My Nikon D70s is "only" six megapixel, but it will take much better looking shots than a eight megapixel compact. A DSLR tends to have better optics, a bigger sensor, and a wider aperture. - lozadaj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have a Rebel XT 8 Mega Pixel camera. I have sent cropped pictures to Kodak on-line printing and they look great. What they are printed on make a big difference. No one has touched on that. No ink-jet I have ever used looks as good at a print from a photo lab. I have done 8x10 prints too. Plus, on-line printing how become real inexpensive. But I suggest Kodak or Shutterfly if you prefer quality. If you edit your on-line photos and color levels remember to turn off the labs default color enhancers.
- riverside71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0link doesn't work.. why promote yourself on digg if u don't have the know-how or resources to take the traffic?
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is