how important are mega pixels
Oct 23, 2014 08:55:53 #
Pepsiman wrote:
Can anyone tell me how many MP are on film cameras? They took and are still taking sharp pictures.
Film does not have megapixels. It's an analog. How many molecules has a 35 mm frame (???). The more MP digital camera has and the tinier pixels are the closer it is to the film camera.
Oct 23, 2014 10:00:07 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
It wasn't me that said it, but...this was shot with a kodak dc280 2mpx camera back in 2001. Feel free to print it 8x10 and report back..I never printed it, so honestly I have no idea if it will hold up to a print that size. If you do, report back to the group.
http://douthittfamily.smugmug.com/Family-Vacations/2001-Vacations/Yosemite/i-4xmWjKW/0/O/100-0100.jpg
http://douthittfamily.smugmug.com/Family-Vacations/2001-Vacations/Yosemite/i-4xmWjKW/0/O/100-0100.jpg
I have the exact same camera, and also have quite a few nice 8 x 10's hanging around the house that were taken with it. You don't need 300 dpi to print a "nice" 8 x 10. Of course if your idea of "nice" means you look at it with a magnifying glass and measure granularity, then no.
Oct 23, 2014 10:20:52 #
AZ Dog wrote:
It would seem that some of these people commenting really don't know that much about what they are talking about. For instance, the gentleman that stated that 2mp is all that is needed for a good 8x10 print. I challenge him to prove it. And if you get a camera with a 24mp sensor, you are never going to get a 24mp image. The best you can expect is about 8-12mp at best. But if you need to crop or otherwise process, you will loose MP fast. And yes, there is no substitute for good glass.
I said you can get a nice 8x10 out of a 2 mp camera. I said it because I have them hanging around my house and they are nice. Don't know how to prove it other than they have been hanging around for many years and wouldn't be there if they were not nice.
As for mp size, all my cameras get the megapixel's as advertized. My 24 mp camera gets 6000 x 4000 pictures, that's 24 MP. My 2 mp camera gets 1760 x 1168, which is 2.05 mp. My 8 mp camera gets 3264x2448, 7.99 mp and my 12 mp camera gets 4000x3000, which is 12 mp.
I'm thinking someone doesn't know what they are talking about, probably confusing megapixels with compressed jpg file size (megabytes). My 24 mp camera takes around 8 megabyte compressed jpgs, but the pictures are 24 mp squeezed into an 8 mb file.
Oct 25, 2014 10:05:26 #
Thank you all for the info you shared. I got a real good education. The posted links were very informative. Gives me new things to try with my current hardware.
Oct 25, 2014 15:44:24 #
redrocktom
Loc: Sedona
Gene51 wrote:
Something to consider. For large prints you'd be s... (show quote)
Great articles Gene. Thanks.
Oct 25, 2014 15:52:37 #
ikaush wrote:
Film does not have megapixels. It's an analog. How many molecules has a 35 mm frame (???). The more MP digital camera has and the tinier pixels are the closer it is to the film camera.
Thank you...
Oct 25, 2014 15:58:51 #
Megapixels are not the 'be all & end all' of digital photography, so there would not be a lot of difference-image quality wise-between a 10MP camera, and 12 MP camera, or between a 14 MP camera, and a 16 MP camera. However, the difference between a 14 MP camera, and a 24 MP camera, will be worth some extra cost. Other factors come into play, too. The camera with a lot more MP is apt to be newer, and so have more advances in other areas which will produce greater color accuracy, sharper focus capability, and so on. If my choices were between a 21 MP camera, and a 24 MP camera, I would base my choices on factors other than the MP. If my choices were between a 10 MP camera, and a 24 MP camera, I would get the 24 MP camera....as it would have more advances besides just the greater MP count.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.