How many MEGA PIXELS is your digital?

Published by: cfz 2009-01-08

I know I am going right to hell for this one but here it gose...

On my last post "What do you bring with you" this point of view came out and I would like to get side tracked on this for a bit.
I think I speak for all the digital people, when I say that you non-digital'ers are funny! Carting around all those lenses and and rolls of film. Funny Funny Funny (but we won't get this thread side tracked about that will we now )

As far as I know, and I could be very wrong, the best digital cameras only can give you about 6-8 mega pixels. If that is right and I can get a 35mm film scanner that can give me 11.2 mega pixels. How is digital so much better :scratch: ? I can see the ease of use and that you can see your shot 1 sec. after you take it. I do have a canon S50 which is 5mp and the shots from it are good and all, but don't compair to the ones I can get from my 35mm SLR. Is this just becouse of the point and shoot vs. a SLR, and a digital SLR would take cair of that? But as for now I want to keep my old format 35mm around untill the new digital can give me the same type of prints.
As far as all of the lenses I have not see a digital zoom that was worth anything at all. So with digital you still need to have a few lenses to take all the shots that a 35mm can take.

Acquisition of digital camera: How many megapixels do you need ::
Monetize your web site. Aug. 1. Acquisition of digital camera: How many megapixels do you need? How many pictures these days are always printed at all,
http://bestbuyproduct.net/?p=20HOME

This is just one persons point of view!!!
and I know I can be very wrong but that is why I wanted to post this on here and see what you all thought!

COOL how much is it? :lol:

2.1 & that does me just fine.

Still love my Nikon 35mm best. :D

i want to get a 10D, maybe someday *sigh*

eos d60, 6.3mp...prints grainless 13 X 19's what more do you want....maby canon eos 1 ds..

On the negative side however - People with film camera's taunt me.

bwahahaha :lmao:
poor sad boy

mine's teeny

Ofcourse you can't compete with film cameras in terms of resolution yet. But there are professional quality digital cameras out there with plenty of the same qualities as a normal SLR. I was just browsing some digital SLR's at Canon's website and man I'd like to try some of those suckers out. Anyhoo, I side with digital just because I don't have a great instinct for the art yet and being able to review shots is indispensible for me right now.

Digital camera comparison - make a good one before parting with ::
Make a good digital camera comparison before choosing your new digital camera. Don’t spend your cash until you read this guide - how many megapixels do you
http://www.digital-photography-tips.net/digital-camera-comparison-megapixels.htmlHOME

On the subject of digital zooms, ignore the feature completely. It is useless. All it does is make the pixels larger so it's not really helping anything. However there are plently of cameras on the market with an optical zoom not to mention the digitals where you can actually attach a zoom lens. So yeah digital can't compare but it's not the only option in digital cameras.

1.3, but soon to be 4.0 hopefully :)

3.?

The important thing to remember is the difference between printing digital pics and having the lab printing them. While I believe digital is very close to film....printing is not.

my old one was 2.5 ... my new one is 5MP

*and i have forbidden my hubby to post in this thread* :lol:

mine is a 3.2 Nikon Coolpix 3100...
its pretty good since its my first one :)

My G5 is 5.0 MP as well. And as much as people will tell you differently, a 35mm film camera will outperform it time after time in terms of raw image quality.

But however, Digital cameras are far better at doing certain things. And for me, its these benefits, as well as the drawbacks of 35mm cameras that initially made me buy a digital. I'll run through some of the points I took into account.- I'm a nerd, having the photos put straight onto computer is a big plus for digital cameras.
- Alot of the stuff I do involves a laptop and connecting the camera to it to review photos straight after they are taken. You just can't do that with a film camera.
- Even when out in the field, I can review photos just after taking them, make modifications to the camera settings, retake the photo, review, etc.
- Cost of film and processing. With my G5, I bought a 512meg Ultra Fast CF Card which was about $270 (Australian). To my way of thinking that would pay for 20 odd rolls of film and processing, which in turn is 700'ish photos. I've already taken over 1000 since buying the camera (about a month).
- 99% of my photos get downloaded to the computer and then never printed. Its not because I can't print them at high enough quality, its just that I have no need.On the negative side however- Less quality as previously discussed. But when you're not printing them, it makes a difference of zero.
- People with film camera's taunt me.

I have a 5MP Olympus C5050 that does an amazing job. I just recently purchased a 6.5 MP Digital SLR camera (Canon EOS 10D). It is truely amazing and I love it to death.

I have a 2.1
I want a better one though...but 3 is enough for me, I don't want to print large photos I guess...

Why I am using digital;
I also keep 99% on my computer
I don't have the money to get all the films developed
I'm very very impatient :lol:

3.2 mp. great quality!!

md

On the subject of digital zooms, ignore the feature completely...

I've never ever used this feature of my camera... 3X. I wanted a larger optical zoom so I got this Olympus with 10X optical. Very cool feature.

3.2 MP.

I had some 4x6 printed by Black's photography. Not bad but I probably wont be printing a lot of them. I store them on a CD.

the sigma one is nice... it is only 3.4 mp, but has the foveon cmos that makes it a great camera (still im not buyin the 10.2 mp bit)

mine is 6.?? dont remember canon 10d.

also the mp on a dslr is a bit different than on a digital camera..... if i remember right.

This is the one I'd go after if I had some serious cash:

Sigma 10mpixel SD9 review (http://www.dingbatmag.com/sd9.htm)

COOL how much is it? :lol:

I think it was only about $5k

You can also get that as a back for a 645 camera like the hasselblad and it is $12k

Nikon Coolpix 5400-5.1 Mega Pixel
Olympus D-400Z-1.3 Mega Pixel

I just bought the Nikon and love the thing...causing lots of trouble with it.

-SquirrelNuts

I don't buy the 10mp on the Sigma either... but at 3mp it was capturing as much and sometimes more detail than 6mp camers.

Canon announced the 300D (http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/eosdigital/index.html)... most of the features of the 10D at half the price.

Mine's is 3.2 MP...shoots great pics (especially since I bought the camera for $150 at Walmart [Kodak CX4300] during their Thanksgiving sale). I hope to save up some money in the next year or so for a better one and pass this baby down to my cousin.

Heyas...

Using a Canon 10d with 6.3 effective megapixels on a CMOS sensor. I think perhaps there's an important note here that MegaPixels really only determines the size and resolution of the image, not necessarily the 'quality.' For example, a 4 Megapixel camera could take a standard 4x6 photo better than my 6.3 provided it's got better sensors and optics. This is my understanding of digital technology. So if you want big pics than you need big MegaPixels... but to my knowledge, again, this is the only reason for having more megapixels.

I have 2.1 megapixels.

Kodak makes a 13 megapixel camera.

I saw a 20x30 print made from this camera and it looked like it came from a large format camera.

I just found a Pentax Optio 550 for $600 I'm going to suggest the company purchase. 5x optical zoom and 5 Mp. All the reviews I've read have been great. And it's really compact, that's why I'm seriously considering it. It drops into the pocket with ease.