PART 2: How many megapixels do we need? ... This is the 3-megapixel illustration.
Well, here we go again.
In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?
My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.
So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.
Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.
.
Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.
.
A sunny landscape ... Edinborough, Scotland over a Castle canon.
(
Download)
A rainy day ... mainstreet of Glasgow, Scotland.
(
Download)
A misty day ... Mother Swan and her babies at Beaumaris Castle in norwest Wales.
(
Download)
An interior ... the Windsor Castle Abbey in London.
(
Download)
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again.
In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?
My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.
So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.
Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.
.
Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.
.
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (
show quote)
2007 was a special year for me also. In 2003 I had sent some slides to a pro and they were scanned, producing 6mp images. After comparing scans to slides, I decided that 6mp would give me the detail I'd been receiving from film. Black Friday 2007 I purchased two cameras to enter the digital world - a 8mp Canon Rebel and a 7mp Canon Elph. Each of them gave me good pictures and limited ability to crop. Even 10 years later, I think 5mp is plenty adequate and any beyond 6mp is "gravy".
My first digital was a Fugi 3 1/2 mp. I gave it to one of my granddaughters when I bought the D5100 that I have now. I haven't heard any complaints from her about it. And honestly, I can't tell much difference between the 3 1/2 mp photos and the 16 mp photos. I suppose it could be because I deal mainly with 4x6 size photos. If they were all 8x10 or larger I'm reasonably sure the pixels @ 3 1/2 would show, but since that camera is in Montana and I'm in Arizona I doubt if I'll be seeing it soon.
If not mistaken, more pixels result in capturing more exposure information. Later, in the photo-editing software, the photographer will then have more latitude in processing the photograph.
I sense this subject may garner a lot of opinion.
Posting them here at the size used really tells us nothing since 3MP is more than enough to look good. And as you mentioned, printing as 4x6 could be done with 1MP. Looks like for your purpose a 3MP camera is all you need. Probably not a good idea to go for a 40x60.
chase4
Loc: Punta Corona, California
[quote=m43rebel]Well, here we go again.
In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?
My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.
So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.
Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.
Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.
OK, to view on a computer, low number of MP are fine but to print (which some of us still do) the low MPs don't cut it.
Here's one of my early digital photos taken 13OCT2004 at Namotu Island, Fiji. EXIF data: camera Sony DSC-U60, 1632 x 1224
mp, ISO 100, 5 mm, 1/1600 sec. This is less than 2 MP and will only print well to 4 x 6 inches!
Try taking any one of these images and have it printed at 16x20 or larger.
--Bob
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again.
In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?
My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.
So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.
Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.
.
Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.
.
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (
show quote)
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again.
In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?
My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.
So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.
Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.
.
Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.
.
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (
show quote)
I still use an old D200 (10 MP) and have sharp images at 24" x 36". Have no need to print larger.
MrBob
Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama
Most folks don't print more than 4x6 much less 16x20 or 40 x60. Most images captured by the masses end up on Facebook and we all know where they originate from ( non real cameras ) ? So basically unless you are a peeping tom, Pro who prints for clients, or just a real enthusiast who likes to go big there is no reason to go much larger than 10 or 12 Mp.
In 2003 I used a Fuji 3 m.p
Camera "interpolated" to 6 m.p.
Most of my photos were going to a local newspaper but quite a few to glossy national music publications.
I have a few hanging on my wall that are 10 x 14. They are quite good cosidering ..
The newsprint and magazine photos were good for that time...I use 20- 24 m
P. now and that is more than adequate
Very nice images...Scotland looks beautiful.
In my opinion, pixel count matters only when extreme cropping or enlargement is involved. I can't see a significant difference in a 5 x 7 print from a full 3 MP vs a 12 MP image. The quality difference shows up either when you crop a great deal and then print your 5 x 7 or if you enlarge considerably (say to poster size).
boberic
Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
CaptainC wrote:
Posting them here at the size used really tells us nothing since 3MP is more than enough to look good. And as you mentioned, printing as 4x6 could be done with 1MP. Looks like for your purpose a 3MP camera is all you need. Probably not a good idea to go for a 40x60.
I guess this is an example of size counts. Size of the print, that is. ( I just couldn't resist)
m43rebel wrote:
Well, here we go again.
In 2007, four years later, I had upgraded my "pocket camera" to a Sony W-1, a 5-mgp camera. I know ... but you said this was about 3 megapixels. What gives?
My wife and I decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary by going the the British Isles and visiting more ancestral villages (they were poor too). I had just bought the camera ... will I ever learn ... and was too cheap to buy a second sony memory stick (heck they were expensive back then), so I decided to take all the pictures at 3 megapixels to save memory space. Sometimes I think my brain just does not work very well !!! Or maybe I just need decision matrix training.
So attached are a few shots, again in different light settings, to see if 3 mgp was viable. Obviously, if I had used 5 mgp, the clarity would be better.
Again, this is not about my pictures, but really a discussion about how much quality do we really need.
.
Please share your conclusions and or strongly held opinions on the topic. Thanks.
.
Well, here we go again. br br In 2007, four years... (
show quote)
Those are nice photos but since they are stand alone with out comparable images taken at the same time with a 24 or 36 MP camera they can't help a person make an informed decision. A side by side comparison at 100% crop from 2 different cameras of the same scene would be more useful.
As for me when a sensor has the same number of photo sites as a fine grain film I will think it's getting close to optimum.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.