Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

It's not always the number of pixels that makes a better c..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 9, 2005 2:36:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently e-mailed a friend a photo taken on my 1.3 mega pixel camera
and he found it hard to believe the quality of my photo as he owns a 5
mega pixel camera. I told him that what counts is the quality of the
lens. Having a higher pixel camera only helps if you want to enlarge
the photo or enlarge a part of the photo.
I feel that this is a misconception with many buyers of digital
camera's.

Regards Brian

More about : number pixels makes

Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:36:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> I recently e-mailed a friend a photo taken on my 1.3 mega pixel camera
> and he found it hard to believe the quality of my photo as he owns a 5
> mega pixel camera. I told him that what counts is the quality of the
> lens. Having a higher pixel camera only helps if you want to enlarge
> the photo or enlarge a part of the photo.
> I feel that this is a misconception with many buyers of digital
> camera's.
>
> Regards Brian

Not exactly that simple.

A better way of saying it may be it is the weakest link. But that is
not really enough.

Quality if a complex issue and may mean many different things to
different people.

It does involve many things including the lens, the number of pixels,
software in the camera skill of the photographer, the capability of the
focusing and exposure systems etc. and many others.

In short: If you like the results it is good if not it is not good.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia's Muire duit
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:36:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> I recently e-mailed a friend a photo taken on my 1.3 mega pixel
camera
> and he found it hard to believe the quality of my photo as he owns a
5
> mega pixel camera. I told him that what counts is the quality of the
> lens. Having a higher pixel camera only helps if you want to enlarge
> the photo or enlarge a part of the photo.
> I feel that this is a misconception with many buyers of digital
> camera's.
>
> Regards Brian

Always liked the results from the 1.3mp Fuji 1400 I bought for my wife
4 years ago, much nicer than the pics from the 3mp Fuji 210 I bought
for my son. With 1.3mp just don't try to go very big 4x6 or 5x7 is the
absolute tops. These are basicly bottom end cameras, didn't expect much
out of the 1400 but it delivered, expected similar results from the 210
it failed.

Tom
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:36:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Brian wrote:
> I recently e-mailed a friend a photo taken on my 1.3 mega pixel camera
> and he found it hard to believe the quality of my photo as he owns a 5
> mega pixel camera. I told him that what counts is the quality of the
> lens. Having a higher pixel camera only helps if you want to enlarge
> the photo or enlarge a part of the photo.
> I feel that this is a misconception with many buyers of digital
> camera's.
>
> Regards Brian
>

Many factors go into the final result. The lens, the sensor, the
firmware in the camera. One factor is the compression. Some companies
(Kodak is one) feel that more compression is better because it means you
can write more pictures on a flash card, while others favor minimal
compression and maximum quality (some even write RAW or .TIFF files).
With a 1.3MP camera, compression is probably minimal, and the sensor has
quite large pixels which produce a low noise image (looks sharp). My
brother's 1.3 mp Olympus camera produces quite nice 4x6 pictures. I am
sure that with a loupe I could tell them from my 4mp camera's pictures,
but they still look good enough for most people.

The whole package is the result of the creative compromises made by the
designers, but a lousy lens is going to produce lousy pictures, that's
for sure.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 2:36:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"tomm101" <monego@valley.net> wrote in message
news:1112986018.924834.181440@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian wrote:
>> I recently e-mailed a friend a photo taken on my 1.3 mega pixel
> camera
>> and he found it hard to believe the quality of my photo as he owns a
> 5
>> mega pixel camera. I told him that what counts is the quality of the
>> lens. Having a higher pixel camera only helps if you want to enlarge
>> the photo or enlarge a part of the photo.
>> I feel that this is a misconception with many buyers of digital
>> camera's.
>>
>> Regards Brian
>
> Always liked the results from the 1.3mp Fuji 1400 I bought for my wife
> 4 years ago, much nicer than the pics from the 3mp Fuji 210 I bought
> for my son. With 1.3mp just don't try to go very big 4x6 or 5x7 is the
> absolute tops. These are basicly bottom end cameras, didn't expect much
> out of the 1400 but it delivered, expected similar results from the 210
> it failed.
>
> Tom

I've made "decent" looking 8x10's with a 1.3 mp camera. I know it's pushing
it, but in reality it all depends how close you get your nose to the photo.
It does have a lot to do with the camera, lighting, and holding the camera
steady or using high shutter speeds. I doubt most people could tell the
difference between the image from a 6 mp camera and an 8 mp camera, all
other things being equal -- and full frame.
Anonymous
April 9, 2005 3:14:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've gone through generations of Olympus digicams, from the 340D up
though the 5060 and e-300 and in terms of overall saturation and
exposure accuracy my 1.3 460 often produces the most pleasing results
in many respects. My wife has a 2.0 mp 490 and results from that camera
are generally stunning and easily usable up through 8x10.

With some good Photoshop tweaking I can get fine 4x6s from the 460 but
I would not go much beyond that. For viewing on a computer screen,
e-mailing, etc. it is a very fine camera. It does reinforce, in my
opinion, the generalization that there is a lot for the quality of the
basic glass and these relatively large 'compact' cameras seem to have
plenty of that.
April 9, 2005 6:21:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

He wouldn't necessarily see much difference if the picture was emailed to
him and he was viewing on a monitor screen. He WOULD most likely notice a
difference on a 6" by 4" print, although not necessarily. On larger prints,
I'd bet money he'd say there was a difference. Viewing on a monitor screen
at "actual size" or less is not the best indicator.


"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:l9nc515avbh5kp57ai5ah9oed7c7gia4la@4ax.com...
> I recently e-mailed a friend a photo taken on my 1.3 mega pixel camera
> and he found it hard to believe the quality of my photo as he owns a 5
> mega pixel camera. I told him that what counts is the quality of the
> lens. Having a higher pixel camera only helps if you want to enlarge
> the photo or enlarge a part of the photo.
> I feel that this is a misconception with many buyers of digital
> camera's.
>
> Regards Brian
>
!