Digital Cameras
- Thread starter 357
- Start date
Samoan
Enlightened
Depends on the 35mm film you are comparing it to. The standard answer is about 10-12MP.
That being said, 7MP should be fine for most needs. About the only thing that it won't do is give you the ability to really blow up the image.
-F
-F
That being said, 7MP should be fine for most needs. About the only thing that it won't do is give you the ability to really blow up the image.
-F
-F
I have a 4MP and it has been good enough for me. We never make prints larger than 4x6 and I think a 4MP will let you make a 8x10. I suppose it's possible that I might want a print larger than that, but for now 4MP is good.
The camera is as big as the image size though! I'd take a Canon 6MP camera any day over a cheaper 7MP _____(Insert Cheap Brand Here)_____. What good are those big images if the colors are off, the focus soft or incorrect, etc. etc.
The camera is as big as the image size though! I'd take a Canon 6MP camera any day over a cheaper 7MP _____(Insert Cheap Brand Here)_____. What good are those big images if the colors are off, the focus soft or incorrect, etc. etc.
geepondy
Flashlight Enthusiast
The discussions on how many megapixels, it takes to approximate 35mm film is highly debated. The general consensus, I have read is that the more you have to blow it up, the better 35mm is over digital as it will enlarge better. However to get noticeably better then today's 6-8 or more megapixel cameras, we are talking really huge blow ups, poster size or so.
geepondy
Flashlight Enthusiast
You certainly will be fine with 7 megpixels for 8x10s. Some will contend that you don't even need that much but I disagree as the bigger the picture, the more you can crop without losing detail.
Are you considering any particular camera at this point?
Are you considering any particular camera at this point?
![Pampers Sensitive Baby Wipes, Clinically Proven, Fragrance Free, Unscented, Water Based, Hypoallergenic, Multi-Use, Hand Wipes 336 Wipes Total (6X Flip-Top Packs) [Packaging May Vary]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41KLBHu9CAL._SL500_.jpg)
prescottrecorder
Newly Enlightened
Just to throw you off balance with another variable, I have to mention that all of the high pixel smaller cameras I've looked at have poor noise performance at high ISO speeds. In other words, if you try to use the digital equivalent of fast film, the picture quality degrades. You have to go with the higher quality SLRs to avoid this problem, but then you've got a more expensive and larger camera. So if you're picky about quality, make sure to read some of the extensive on-line reviews first so there are no surprises.
PlayboyJoeShmoe
Flashaholic
You want to hear a good one?
The pics I have posted on here have been taken with a Sony FD90 Floppy Drive camara with a whopping 1.2 Megapixels!
The Key to getting good pics, for me at least, is to shoot them big (usually 1024x768 which is a memory hog) and then resize them using an image program (in my case IRFanview) down to a max of 640x480 (and usually 600 or 400 in w and h).
If I shoot 640, they only look good on the cameras screen.
My main gripe with digital as I know it (read low buck) is the lag time from button push to image capture. The main reason I LIKE my Sony is that it has a 10-1 optical zoom (and quite a bit more digital). It will also extrapolate to bigger than 1024x768 but it slows down a lot!
Therefore I give my Canon EOS650 35mm a workout pretty often!
I hope one day to get a Digital Rebel, as I have several EF lenses.
But for now in my life, 35mm rules for everything but web needs.
The pics I have posted on here have been taken with a Sony FD90 Floppy Drive camara with a whopping 1.2 Megapixels!
The Key to getting good pics, for me at least, is to shoot them big (usually 1024x768 which is a memory hog) and then resize them using an image program (in my case IRFanview) down to a max of 640x480 (and usually 600 or 400 in w and h).
If I shoot 640, they only look good on the cameras screen.
My main gripe with digital as I know it (read low buck) is the lag time from button push to image capture. The main reason I LIKE my Sony is that it has a 10-1 optical zoom (and quite a bit more digital). It will also extrapolate to bigger than 1024x768 but it slows down a lot!
Therefore I give my Canon EOS650 35mm a workout pretty often!
I hope one day to get a Digital Rebel, as I have several EF lenses.
But for now in my life, 35mm rules for everything but web needs.
I've got a 3.2 MP Sony Cybershot. principally I shoot pics to post on the web.
Since most monitors display in VGA or so resolution. that's the max amount of info you can throw at your screen.
I mainly shoot at VGA resolution, which is the lowest setting on my Sony. My pic's posted on cpf while not the best, certainly far from the worst.
the only time I shoot at 3.2 MP is when there is a possibility I may need to actually print.
Since most monitors display in VGA or so resolution. that's the max amount of info you can throw at your screen.
I mainly shoot at VGA resolution, which is the lowest setting on my Sony. My pic's posted on cpf while not the best, certainly far from the worst.
the only time I shoot at 3.2 MP is when there is a possibility I may need to actually print.
eebowler
Flashlight Enthusiast
ISO 100 speed film will have a higher Megapixel value than 200,400,etc speed films.
Have you ever heard anyone talking about the grainess of a picture? Film with higher numbers are more sensitive than ones with lower numbers.(duh!) That sensitivity comes at the expense of picture clarity (graininess). The higher the sensitivity of the film (faster speeds/higher numbers)the more grainy (sand-like appearance)a photo of a given size will be.
A pic taken with ISO 100 film can be blown up to an 8x10 photo still having the same crisp quality as the 4x6 photo while the same pic taken with 1600 speed film when blown up to an 8x10 photo will have a noticably lower quality than its 4x6 photo.
I seem to be off topic here....
Have you ever heard anyone talking about the grainess of a picture? Film with higher numbers are more sensitive than ones with lower numbers.(duh!) That sensitivity comes at the expense of picture clarity (graininess). The higher the sensitivity of the film (faster speeds/higher numbers)the more grainy (sand-like appearance)a photo of a given size will be.
A pic taken with ISO 100 film can be blown up to an 8x10 photo still having the same crisp quality as the 4x6 photo while the same pic taken with 1600 speed film when blown up to an 8x10 photo will have a noticably lower quality than its 4x6 photo.
I seem to be off topic here....
prescottrecorder
Newly Enlightened
Some of the higher end digital cameras perform in this respect better than film cameras, with virtually identical "grain" at ISO 1800 as at ISO 100. Others are worse than film in that anything over ISO 50 is pretty rotten. This isn't a big deal if you're using flash or are outside on a sunny day. But the bottom line seems to me to be that for this application (on-line use), almost any digital camera has enough resolution and general goodness. Get a used one or two megapixel canon for next to nothing and you're all set. Unless, like me, you're looking for a good excuse to buy some neat new toy, then go for something sexier.
> I'll be using pictures mostly for on the computer,
> posting to the web. Don't really need to print them.
My screen is 1024x768, which is 0.79 megapixel. If your camera provides anything beyond that then it is a waste for internet use.
Instead of megapixels you should look at the other features you need such as how much zoom, what type of memory cards, what type of battery, physical size of the camera, ease of use, how close will it focus, etc. If you want a basic camera then you can probably find an inexpensive 2megapixel camera that will work fine for you. If you want a lot of features then you will probably have to buy 3-5megapixels just to get the features.
As far as equalling 35mm, this comparison won't matter a bit for internet use. However if you actually want to make prints you can see that Canon and Nikon both make 6megapixel digital SLR's that are popular with professional photographers.
> posting to the web. Don't really need to print them.
My screen is 1024x768, which is 0.79 megapixel. If your camera provides anything beyond that then it is a waste for internet use.
Instead of megapixels you should look at the other features you need such as how much zoom, what type of memory cards, what type of battery, physical size of the camera, ease of use, how close will it focus, etc. If you want a basic camera then you can probably find an inexpensive 2megapixel camera that will work fine for you. If you want a lot of features then you will probably have to buy 3-5megapixels just to get the features.
As far as equalling 35mm, this comparison won't matter a bit for internet use. However if you actually want to make prints you can see that Canon and Nikon both make 6megapixel digital SLR's that are popular with professional photographers.
Oh, I forgot to add... a lot of the "1 hour" processors use digital in that they process the negatives, scan the negatives to digital files, then make prints from the digital files. My local Walgreens scans a 35mm negative to about 3megapixels then prints from that, and the 4x6 prints they make are much better in sharpness than I have gotten from other brands of prints that were made directly from the negative.
geepondy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Other then really, really cheap digicams such as your Concorde $69 special, I don't think you can even buy a new digicam with less then 3 megpixels.
gregw45
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 134
[ QUOTE ]
357 said:
I was wondering how many megapixels approximates 35mm film quality.
Was considering a digital camera, thinking of starting out at about 7 megapixels (for my first camera).
Is this a good rating?
[/ QUOTE ]
7MP for a first camera is like getting a Hummer H1 for a first car. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif)
Check out dpreview and http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ for a 35mm -vs- digital sensor comparison.
Also, more MP isn't always better. http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html
357 said:
I was wondering how many megapixels approximates 35mm film quality.
Was considering a digital camera, thinking of starting out at about 7 megapixels (for my first camera).
Is this a good rating?
[/ QUOTE ]
7MP for a first camera is like getting a Hummer H1 for a first car. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif)
Check out dpreview and http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/ for a 35mm -vs- digital sensor comparison.
Also, more MP isn't always better. http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html
keithhr
Flashlight Enthusiast
I believe the whole pixel thing has been blown up beyond proportion, no pun intended. I have taken pics with my 2.1 mp Olympus, printed them at 8x10 and shown them to life long shutterbugs who were shocked to say the least. The whole mp thing is relative only if you plan on making 14x10 or 19x12 prints. For smaller uses, the extra pixels simply are not used nor do they count for a better image in smaller scale. At least that is my understanding for all the photo forums tnat I frequented.
I have an old 1.2 Megapixel camera and the print from that is good at A4.
Think of an 800 x 600 screen on a 15 inch monitor, an 800 x 600 pixel print will be of the same quality at the size of the monitor screen, provided your printer is up to it.
Why not buy a second-user 1.2 megapixel camera to try out. You should be able to sell it for the price you bought it for after a few weeks if it is not up to the job you want it to do.
Think of an 800 x 600 screen on a 15 inch monitor, an 800 x 600 pixel print will be of the same quality at the size of the monitor screen, provided your printer is up to it.
Why not buy a second-user 1.2 megapixel camera to try out. You should be able to sell it for the price you bought it for after a few weeks if it is not up to the job you want it to do.
CroMAGnet
Flashlight Enthusiast
Yup! For the web posting you dont need much. Get a used one that has really good reviews on the color reproduction. Flash and macro are nice features as is an 'optical' zoom.
My buddy was a printer for about 20years and then was involved with bench advertising. (The benches you see outside a supermarket or some bus stops) Anyway, he said he could never get anything done with clients who send him digital pictures, since they pixelate terribly when blown up extreme like on the bench ads.
My next digital will be fully manual and have really good color balance/reproduction and have over 6MP. Probably a Canon, as I like the Elan IIe that I have. Great lenses, fast, whisper quiet AF motor and lots more excellent features.
My buddy was a printer for about 20years and then was involved with bench advertising. (The benches you see outside a supermarket or some bus stops) Anyway, he said he could never get anything done with clients who send him digital pictures, since they pixelate terribly when blown up extreme like on the bench ads.
My next digital will be fully manual and have really good color balance/reproduction and have over 6MP. Probably a Canon, as I like the Elan IIe that I have. Great lenses, fast, whisper quiet AF motor and lots more excellent features.
