Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

5,6 or 7megapixel ???

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
May 5, 2005 2:40:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge difference
over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
little more if it would be worthwhile.

Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to 12mp
got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I would
like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would you
pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby shots.

More about : 7megapixel

Anonymous
May 5, 2005 2:40:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

No!

Think of the increase in pixel ratio. 6/5 = not much

If you were considering a 3 Mpixel to a 6 then 6/3 = double

"ray" <r.mcnamara@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Wbcee.2989$31.2787@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
> wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge difference
> over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
> My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
> little more if it would be worthwhile.
>
> Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to 12mp
> got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
would
> like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would you
> pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby shots.
>
>
May 5, 2005 3:01:20 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

John P@ Bengi wrote:
> No!
>
> Think of the increase in pixel ratio. 6/5 = not much
>
> If you were considering a 3 Mpixel to a 6 then 6/3 = double

Not so. If you double the number of pixels, the number of pixels in either the width of
the height increases only by the square root of 2, or 41%. Anyway, the difference won't
be appreciable in an A4 print, unless the image is cropped so much that the number of
pixels in either dimension goes below about 250/inch, or 100/cm.
>
> "ray" <r.mcnamara@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:Wbcee.2989$31.2787@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
>>wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge difference
>>over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
>>My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
>>little more if it would be worthwhile.
>>
>>Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to 12mp
>>got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
>
> would
>
>>like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would you
>>pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby shots.
>>
>>
>
>
>
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 9:11:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

If you divide the number of pixels by 1,000,000 then you only have a few
pixels left too.

Geeesh. Even Grade Four math is hard here sometimes.

"Marvin" <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:117kd9nfk0cpk45@corp.supernews.com...
> John P@ Bengi wrote:
> > No!
> >
> > Think of the increase in pixel ratio. 6/5 = not much
> >
> > If you were considering a 3 Mpixel to a 6 then 6/3 = double
>
> Not so. If you double the number of pixels, the number of pixels in
either the width of
> the height increases only by the square root of 2, or 41%. Anyway, the
difference won't
> be appreciable in an A4 print, unless the image is cropped so much that
the number of
> pixels in either dimension goes below about 250/inch, or 100/cm.
> >
> > "ray" <r.mcnamara@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:Wbcee.2989$31.2787@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> >>I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
> >>wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge
difference
> >>over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
> >>My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
> >>little more if it would be worthwhile.
> >>
> >>Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to
12mp
> >>got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
> >
> > would
> >
> >>like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would
you
> >>pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby
shots.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
May 6, 2005 4:54:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

John P@ Bengi wrote:
> If you divide the number of pixels by 1,000,000 then you only have a few
> pixels left too.
>
> Geeesh. Even Grade Four math is hard here sometimes.

The question was how it affects the sharpness of pictures. Resolution on each axis
(length and width) is proportional to the number of pixels. Your comment is cute, but it
misses the point.

>
> "Marvin" <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> news:117kd9nfk0cpk45@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>John P@ Bengi wrote:
>>
>>>No!
>>>
>>>Think of the increase in pixel ratio. 6/5 = not much
>>>
>>>If you were considering a 3 Mpixel to a 6 then 6/3 = double
>>
>>Not so. If you double the number of pixels, the number of pixels in
>
> either the width of
>
>>the height increases only by the square root of 2, or 41%. Anyway, the
>
> difference won't
>
>>be appreciable in an A4 print, unless the image is cropped so much that
>
> the number of
>
>>pixels in either dimension goes below about 250/inch, or 100/cm.
>>
>>>"ray" <r.mcnamara@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Wbcee.2989$31.2787@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
>>>>wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge
>
> difference
>
>>>>over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
>>>>My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
>>>>little more if it would be worthwhile.
>>>>
>>>>Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to
>
> 12mp
>
>>>>got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
>>>
>>>would
>>>
>>>
>>>>like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would
>
> you
>
>>>>pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby
>
> shots.
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 9:13:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

That is correct and the answer was simple until the bullshit started how you
divide your resolution by your two axis. The rest of the world has a simple
system.

"Marvin" <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
news:117n89qsbr61v55@corp.supernews.com...
> John P@ Bengi wrote:
> > If you divide the number of pixels by 1,000,000 then you only have a few
> > pixels left too.
> >
> > Geeesh. Even Grade Four math is hard here sometimes.
>
> The question was how it affects the sharpness of pictures. Resolution on
each axis
> (length and width) is proportional to the number of pixels. Your comment
is cute, but it
> misses the point.
>
> >
> > "Marvin" <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote in message
> > news:117kd9nfk0cpk45@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>John P@ Bengi wrote:
> >>
> >>>No!
> >>>
> >>>Think of the increase in pixel ratio. 6/5 = not much
> >>>
> >>>If you were considering a 3 Mpixel to a 6 then 6/3 = double
> >>
> >>Not so. If you double the number of pixels, the number of pixels in
> >
> > either the width of
> >
> >>the height increases only by the square root of 2, or 41%. Anyway, the
> >
> > difference won't
> >
> >>be appreciable in an A4 print, unless the image is cropped so much that
> >
> > the number of
> >
> >>pixels in either dimension goes below about 250/inch, or 100/cm.
> >>
> >>>"ray" <r.mcnamara@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:Wbcee.2989$31.2787@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and
wondering
> >>>>wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge
> >
> > difference
> >
> >>>>over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
> >>>>My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go
a
> >>>>little more if it would be worthwhile.
> >>>>
> >>>>Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to
> >
> > 12mp
> >
> >>>>got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
> >>>
> >>>would
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would
> >
> > you
> >
> >>>>pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby
> >
> > shots.
> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 10:28:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

> I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
> wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge difference
> over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
> My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
> little more if it would be worthwhile.
>
> Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to 12mp
> got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
would
> like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would you
> pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby shots.

I would say that you won't really see much difference. The quality of the
photos you take depends more on the quality of the components in the camera,
such as the lens and the optical sensors, rather than the no of pixels.

The number of pixels merely affects how big you can make the photo before
you begin to see graininess. The more pixels, the bigger you can make the
photo before the pixels begin to appear blocky.

However, 5MP is more than enough for a sharp clear photo at A4 size. For A5
or smaller (wallet size) you won't see a difference at all.

Also remember that if you intend to mainly store your photos on a hard disk,
or email them, rather than print them onto paper, you are limited by the
resolution of your monitor. If you are running a 800 x 600 resolution then
anything more that 4.8MP will not show any sharper. Many people these days
run at 1024 x 768 which is almost 8MP so you might see *some* difference at
this resolution, but this is again not too likely.

If you take all your photos at maximum resolution, you will end up with very
big photos. These are awkard to email both in terms of file size and in
terms of viewing. They will have to be reduced in size to comfortably fit
within a window, or even at full screen. You will also need a bigger memory
card to store them on the camera until you download.

For friends and family snaps, 5MP is more than enough. You can get a decent
number of photos on a 32MB card, and you won't be worried about the quality.
I would recommend the Canon IXUS range, they are very compact, have all the
functions, short movie capability and use around 5 MP.

I myself use a Fuji S7000 which does in fact go to 6MP or 12MP with
interpolation (digital "guesswork"). However the camera is a bit bulky for
everyday snapping and I only use it at work. Most of the time the picture
my wife takes with the Canon are (to the eye) as good as what I can get on
the Fuji, although for high speed photography work, or greater zoom
functionality, the Fuji is much better and you have more options in terms of
setting exposure, shutter speed and focus. But for simple "point and shoot"
photography the auto settings of most cameras these days are very good.

Your budget could pick you up a second hand Canon IXUS II which is the
camera my wife has, and which I highly recommend, or for a bit more you
might consider the Canon IXUS 200 which is the new model. The Fuji was
around £300, I don't know what that is in Australian dollars.

Hope that helps.

Tanel.
Anonymous
May 19, 2005 12:05:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

No one has mentioned the Compression rate that some Manufacturer's
choose to use.
This has a huge effect on you're pictures regardless of how many MPixels
your camera is...
Be sure and check this before you buy...

"Tanel Kagan" <tanelkagan@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 5quhb$mr3$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>> I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
>> wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge difference
>> over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
>> My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
>> little more if it would be worthwhile.
>>
>> Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to 12mp
>> got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
> would
>> like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which would
>> you
>> pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and baby
>> shots.
>
> I would say that you won't really see much difference. The quality of the
> photos you take depends more on the quality of the components in the
> camera,
> such as the lens and the optical sensors, rather than the no of pixels.
>
> The number of pixels merely affects how big you can make the photo before
> you begin to see graininess. The more pixels, the bigger you can make the
> photo before the pixels begin to appear blocky.
>
> However, 5MP is more than enough for a sharp clear photo at A4 size. For
> A5
> or smaller (wallet size) you won't see a difference at all.
>
> Also remember that if you intend to mainly store your photos on a hard
> disk,
> or email them, rather than print them onto paper, you are limited by the
> resolution of your monitor. If you are running a 800 x 600 resolution
> then
> anything more that 4.8MP will not show any sharper. Many people these
> days
> run at 1024 x 768 which is almost 8MP so you might see *some* difference
> at
> this resolution, but this is again not too likely.
>
> If you take all your photos at maximum resolution, you will end up with
> very
> big photos. These are awkard to email both in terms of file size and in
> terms of viewing. They will have to be reduced in size to comfortably fit
> within a window, or even at full screen. You will also need a bigger
> memory
> card to store them on the camera until you download.
>
> For friends and family snaps, 5MP is more than enough. You can get a
> decent
> number of photos on a 32MB card, and you won't be worried about the
> quality.
> I would recommend the Canon IXUS range, they are very compact, have all
> the
> functions, short movie capability and use around 5 MP.
>
> I myself use a Fuji S7000 which does in fact go to 6MP or 12MP with
> interpolation (digital "guesswork"). However the camera is a bit bulky
> for
> everyday snapping and I only use it at work. Most of the time the picture
> my wife takes with the Canon are (to the eye) as good as what I can get on
> the Fuji, although for high speed photography work, or greater zoom
> functionality, the Fuji is much better and you have more options in terms
> of
> setting exposure, shutter speed and focus. But for simple "point and
> shoot"
> photography the auto settings of most cameras these days are very good.
>
> Your budget could pick you up a second hand Canon IXUS II which is the
> camera my wife has, and which I highly recommend, or for a bit more you
> might consider the Canon IXUS 200 which is the new model. The Fuji was
> around £300, I don't know what that is in Australian dollars.
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Tanel.
>
>
May 19, 2005 2:58:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

Just to let you know i ended up purchasing a Canon IXUS 700 which is a nice
little strong bodied 7 mp camera. I am very happy with it, great sharp
pictures and a good feel in the hand compared to some of the slimmer 5 mps,
canon included. Liked the Canon A95 but a little big for the top pocket
plus i could see 4 aa batteries being a pain.


"ray" <r.mcnamara@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:Wbcee.2989$31.2787@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and wondering
>wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a huge difference
>over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
> My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go a
> little more if it would be worthwhile.
>
> Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to 12mp
> got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great reviews.I
> would like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of these two which
> would you pick or is there another i should consider. Mainly family and
> baby shots.
>
Anonymous
May 27, 2005 2:14:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

ray wrote:
> I am looking at buying a point and shoot camera next week and
> wondering wether to go for a 6 or 7 over a 5 megapixel. Is there a
> huge difference over the sharpness in photos up to A4 size???
> My budget is around $500 Australian dollars ideally but willing to go
> a little more if it would be worthwhile.
>
> Currently deciding between the Fuji finepix e550 6mp which can go to
> 12mp got great reviews and the Canon A95 5mp which also got great
> reviews.I would like to have the ability to add a wide lens. Of
> these two which would you pick or is there another i should consider.
> Mainly family and baby shots.

My advice is to think more about ease of use and not megapixels. Both of
the cameras you mention will be more than adequate for family photos. Fuji
has a reputation for inflating its megapixel numbers, so go to
www.imaging-resource.com to compare images from both cameras before deciding
on this basis.

I got my mom the A75 last Christmas, and she's been very happy with the
image quality and ease of use. There are also good manual overrides with
this camera, and add-on lenses should you decide to do more serious
photography. I imagine the A95 is similar.

BTW - red-eye can easily ruin otherwise excellent family photos, and the
best way to prevent it is to increase the distance between the lens and the
flash. If you must use flash, then an external flash is probably the best
way to eliminate red-eye, so you may want to look for a camera with a flash
mounting shoe. A pop up flash is also an advantage. Since manufacturers do
not normally include the flash/lens distance in their specs, you will need
to rely on test images, or visual comparison of cameras.
---
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
Anonymous
May 28, 2005 2:55:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

>The rest of the world has a simple system.

Yes, John. It does. It's called 'resolution' (sorry about the big
word..) Have you heard of it?

'Resolution' is measured in terms like dots per inch, and pixels per
inch, and lines per millimetre. What do you notice about those terms,
John?? Are they LINEAR, or are they measurements of AREA?? (Hint -
LINEAR)

And what is the 5, 6 or 7 Mp a measure of?? (Hint - AREA)

So Marvin's point is quite correct. A 6 Mp camera does NOT give you
twice the 'resolution' of a 3Mp, it gives you twice the pixels..
'Resolution' gets enough abuse around here without your help.
May 28, 2005 4:26:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

chrlz@go.com wrote:
>>The rest of the world has a simple system.
>
>
> Yes, John. It does. It's called 'resolution' (sorry about the big
> word..) Have you heard of it?
>
> 'Resolution' is measured in terms like dots per inch, and pixels per
> inch, and lines per millimetre. What do you notice about those terms,
> John?? Are they LINEAR, or are they measurements of AREA?? (Hint -
> LINEAR)
>
> And what is the 5, 6 or 7 Mp a measure of?? (Hint - AREA)
>
> So Marvin's point is quite correct. A 6 Mp camera does NOT give you
> twice the 'resolution' of a 3Mp, it gives you twice the pixels..
> 'Resolution' gets enough abuse around here without your help.
>
It doesn't give you twice the resolution because the number of pixels is equal to the
width of the sensor times the height of the sensor time the number of sensors per inch.
Think of it as the number of pixels per square inch. Doubling the resolution requires
four time the number of pixels, not twice. Other factors, like a poor lens, can degrade
resolution. of course.
Anonymous
May 29, 2005 8:28:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.dcameras (More info?)

In message <119h6ucs1bt2f8c@corp.supernews.com>,
Marvin <physchem@cloud9.net> wrote:

>It doesn't give you twice the resolution because the number of pixels is equal to the
>width of the sensor times the height of the sensor time the number of sensors per inch.
>Think of it as the number of pixels per square inch. Doubling the resolution requires
>four time the number of pixels, not twice. Other factors, like a poor lens, can degrade
>resolution. of course.

This is only this way because, by convention, "linear" is a default
modifier for "resolution". Area resolution is still a resolution, and
the foremost thing on the mind of someone, who, for instance, is
interested in how many pennies can be laid in an equilateral triangular
grid and their dates still be read.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!